JW Insider
-
Posts
7,835 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
463
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by JW Insider
-
-
We still haven't discussed the subject of the "SIGN" but so many other sub-topics have come up that I still wanted to discuss them while they are only a few pages back.
REASONABLENESS versus PRESUMPTUOUSNESS; or, TRUTH versus SPECULATION
It has even been suggested that perhaps the teaching about 1914 really is wrong, or perhaps it's not, but it's not really our responsibility to "test" what we believe and "make sure of all things." In effect, people are saying it's not our own personal responsibility to "handle the word of God aright" as long as we are loyally following along and not questioning (out loud) the teachings of the Governing Body. Yet, the Bible says:
(Romans 12:1, 2) 12 Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
It has been suggested that if we exercise our personal Biblical responsibility to be "noble-minded" and are therefore "carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so," that this will result in 8 million different doctrines. But this does not happen if, in using our "powers of reason" we allow our "reasonableness to be known to all." It's the same reasonableness that will also remove all this fear of doing what the Bible tells us to do.
(Philippians 4:5-8) . . .Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .Do not be anxious over anything . . . 7 and the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus.
8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things.So according to this passage, what would actually happen if we followed the Bible's counsel to test, and prove, make sure, and question, use our powers of reason? If we are haughty and presumptuous, we might still get into the kind of trouble that people fear. If we are reasonable, and are letting our reasonableness become known to all, then the following happens: We would not be anxious, but would look for a way to present our concerns in a serious way to those who are given the responsibility to make decisions about these matters. We do not disrespect the Governing Body, but accept that this is a perfectly good and reasonable way to let all things progress in an orderly, organized manner.
Imagine if Russell received 40,000 letters from concerned Bible Students about the mistake he was making with respect to the pyramidology, along with bits of astrology and numerology that were beginning to permeate the Watch Tower publications for several decades. Imagine if Rutherford received 20,000 letters from concerned Bible Students about his presumptuous predictions regarding 1925. Imagine if Fred Franz received 1,000,000 letters from concerned Jehovah's Witnesses about how determined he was to promote predictions for the mid-1970's. Imagine if David Splane received many millions of letters questioning the new meaning we are now giving to the word "generation." This doesn't mean that Bible Students and Witnesses needed to say that the doctrines were not true. Only that it was always the Christian responsibility to question. How long would these prior doctrines have lasted if this was done? How many fewer people would have been stumbled by presumptuous statements?
Also, there is no need for those who question to come up with the solution. Isn't that why we have a Governing Body? To aid in making difficult decisions? And we should also note how easy it is to distinguish truth from speculation. Remember that the verse in Philippians said to continue considering "whatever things are true." Note the following sets of sentences:
- UNLABELED SPECULATION: Nebuchadnezzar must represent the Messianic Kingdom now being ruled by Christ.
- SPECULATION TRUTHFULLY LABELED: We believe it is reasonable that Nebuchadnezzar represents the Messianic Kingdom now being ruled by Christ
- TRUTH: We don't actually know for sure if Nebuchadnezzar represents the Messianic Kingdom now being ruled by Christ. Here's how we came up with this idea . . . . Please feel free to let us know if you think it is reasonable.
- UNLABELED SPECULATION: The facts in evidence prove beyond a doubt that 1925 will see the resurrection of Abraham and David.
- SPECULATION TRUTHFULLY LABELED: Based on our currently accepted chronology, along with a count of the Jubilees, we expect Abraham and David to be resurrected in 1925
- TRUTH: We don't actually know for sure if 1925 will be the date when Abraham and David will be resurrected, but we would certainly like to see that. Here's how we arrived at this date. ..... Please feel free to let us know if you think this is reasonable.
If it were any of us average elders, ministerial servants, pioneers, and publishers, then it would obvious that only haughtiness and presumptuousness would allow us to speculate but not label it as speculation. Perhaps we imagine the praise and accolades we would get if could show all kinds of esoteric knowledge and the ability to pull a piece from this scripture and that scripture, and it turned out to be right. Yet, considering "whatever things are true" requires humility. But reasonableness will move us to focus on truth instead speculation. Speculation, even if it is labeled correctly, is not as important as more serious things, along with righteous, chaste and lovable topics of consideration. Speculation would ultimately take a back seat to these things.
A couple times it was suggested that, perhaps, even if it was wrong, it has been a good thing. Perhaps, as some people thing, we would never have attracted millions of people into our religion, or they would not have remained as faithful, if it weren't for these speculative teachings, true or not. That possibility has been previously suggested by @bruceq under this very topic, when it was pointed out that the Watchtower has also taught that the wrong understanding of Paul was better than a correct understanding of Paul's words in Romans 13 from 1929 to 1962.
*** w96 5/1 pp. 13-14 God and Caesar ***
Progressive Understanding of “the Superior Authorities”
12 As early as 1886, Charles Taze Russell wrote . . . "to obey the laws, and to respect those in authority because of their office, . . . to pay their appointed taxes, and except where they conflict with God’s laws" . . . This book correctly identified “the higher powers,” or “the superior authorities,” mentioned by the apostle Paul. . . that true Christians “should be found amongst the most law-abiding of the present time—not agitators, not quarrelsome, not fault-finders.” This was understood by some to mean total submission. . . . Obviously, a clearer understanding of Christian submission to the superior authorities was needed.
13 In 1929, at a time when laws of various governments were beginning to forbid things that God commands or demand things that God’s laws forbid, it was felt that the higher powers must be Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. This was the understanding Jehovah’s servants had during the crucial period before and during World War II and on into the Cold War, with its balance of terror and its military preparedness. Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period.Notice that Russell had it correct, but an incorrect understanding of Paul's words "helped God's people" more. Even though the doctrine went from correct, to incorrect, to correct again, it is labeled a "Progressive Understanding." Most people would look at this as the most haughty and presumptuous kind of thinking, and I certainly hope that this same type of thinking doesn't cloud our understanding of Jesus' words in Matthew 24. It's the same as saying that false teachings are sometimes just fine and acceptable, assuming they were found in the Watchtower, even though we can still condemn false teachings everywhere else.
If you notice we never have had "false" doctrines; rarely do we even say they were "incorrect" or "untrue." We usually speak of them as views that required "adjustment" or "refinement." If a prediction failed, then we were merely looking for "the right thing at the wrong time," or sometimes "the wrong thing at the right time." We were being "optimistic." Or there was a positive result in that it only stumbled all the new ones who joined Jehovah's Witnesses for the wrong reasons. For years, we called our teachings "present truth" which helped to explain how, even if they were proven to be false, they were still "present truth" while they were being taught. When we dropped at least 120 type-antitype doctrines, when they were no longer considered valid, this was not because we had been "indiscreet," but because the slave becomes "steadily more discreet":
*** w15 3/15 pp. 9-10 par. 10 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so.With respect to expectations related to Matthew 24 beginning with Christ's parousia in 1874, we had even used those same "type-antitype" doctrines to show that we had no choice but to have incorrect expectations, because Jehovah had prophesied in advance that such mistakes would be made through the so-called prophetic narrative about Elijah. (See section below called: ELIJAH PROVES OUR CHRONOLOGY MISTAKES WERE PREDETERMINED.)
Several pages back in this topic @Arauna reminded me of this when she said:
On 8/3/2017 at 7:26 AM, Arauna said:This is why our new "Gods Kingdom Rules" study recently quoted Mal 3: 1-4. It was fulfilled in the time of John the Baptist (a messenger of preparation) as he prepared the way for Christ and the messenger of the Covenant (Christ). They also applied it to Russel and those who followed him as the 'messenger of preparation' before the "slave" was appointed. They were also thoroughly cleaned and beaten like one does when you wash washing with lye! (2 messengers below!)
There is a lot of important information hidden behind this idea that "they applied it to Russell." If you look closely at the new book, we are NOW applying it to Russell and his close associates:
*** kr chap. 2 pp. 13-14 pars. 4-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
The prophecy explains that Jehovah would come with “the messenger of the covenant.” Who was that? None other than the Messianic King, Jesus Christ! . . .
5 Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King?
6 Throughout this publication, we will find answers to such questions in the thrilling history of Jehovah’s modern-day people. This history shows that in the latter part of the 19th century, one small group of faithful people was emerging as the only body of genuine Christians in a vast field of imitations. That group came to be known as the Bible Students. Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so.This might seem like an odd diversion, but it really relates directly to the discussion of our understanding of Matthew 24. We should note, in passing, that Rutherford taught that when he changed the understanding of Romans 13 [to the incorrect view], that this was a specific fulfillment of Bible prophecy and it was specific evidence of Jehovah's blessing on us, and a specific reason for the removal of his blessing from those who still believed in Russell's [correct] view.
Also we should note that while Rutherford applied the messenger and prophet "Elijah" to Russell, he applied the prophet Elisha to the time of his own administration, and made note that Elisha asked for a double-portion of Jehovah's spirit compared to Elijah - (Elisha received Elijah's mantle and performed twice as many miracles, etc.). Thus, when Nathan Knorr was president, Elijah was changed to be a prophetic picture of Rutherford's time (not Russell) and Elisha became the prophetic picture of Knorr's administration: At the end of this post, I'll add the references to show this, under the heading: HOW ELIJAH/ELISHA MOVED FROM RUSSELL/RUTHERFORD TO RUTHERFORD/KNORR RESPECTIVELY
But that was not the primary reason to revisit the Elijah/Elisha teachings of the Watch Tower publications.
ELIJAH PROVES OUR CHRONOLOGY MISTAKES WERE PREDETERMINED
One of the uses of the "type-antitype" prophecies was to perpetuate prejudices between the two classes of Witnesses as was done with the "prophecy of the prodigal son." The Elijah prophecy was used to effectively shift the blame to Jehovah for the mistakes that were made in making wrong chronology predictions. Note the April 15, 1918 Watchtower, p. 6237:
Several times during the harvest, during the progress of what seemed like plagues to Christendom, the Lord has permitted his people to think that they were about to go. Brother Russell expected the church to go beyond the vail in 1878, 1881, 1910, and 1914 -- just as with Elijah, who went with Elisha to four different places before he was actually taken. These seeming disappointments were divinely foreknown, "his appointments."
I think most of us can tell that this was not only a wrong use of a prophetic pulpit, but a presumptuous use of it. These are not brought up to show that our history can seem embarrassing, but hopefully to show how obvious it is that all of us should have been "on the watch" and ready to let our "reasonableness known to all." Our love for one another should have prompted that kind of association between the so-called "rank and file" and the "Governing Body."
HOW ELIJAH/ELISHA MOVED FROM RUSSELL/RUTHERFORD TO RUTHERFORD/KNORR RESPECTIVELY
Note that, after dropping Russell from the equation, the new prophetic explanation focused more on the specific persons of Rutherford and Knorr than it did on the particular time of their administration. Note chapter 16 and 17 of "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" [bracketed information added]
[page 314, par. 47]
The miracles that the "two witnesses" perform in fulfillment of the prophetic vision are of a spiritual kind. In the spring of 1918 the "wild beast," the one pictured in Revelation 13:1, 2 as rising out of the "abyss" of the sea, that is, the visible earthly organization of Satan the Devil, killed the witness work in its free public presentation. So it lay as if beheaded, like John.
[page 315, par 51-52]
This date 1914 therefore runs parallel with the date of Jesus' anointing, A.D. 29, to preach the "kingdom of the heavens" as having drawn near and to say: "The kingdom of God is in your midst." (Luke 17:21) What then? Three and a half years from A.D. 29 to 33 (spring passover time) would find its modern parallel three and a half years from the fall of 1914 to the spring passover season of 1918. . . . [In 1918] Jehovah with his "messenger of the covenant" should come invisibly to his spiritual temple to cleanse it and to judge.
[Note that we no longer teach that 1918 was significant, nor that it was the time when Jesus came to his spiritual temple.]
[page 318, par. 4]
but in the quiet of the first postwar year, A.D. 1919, came the "calm, low voice" from the quiet pages of God's written Word, pages now further illuminated with the light of recent fulfillment of prophecies.
[Note that none of the prophecies that were further illuminated at this time are currently considered to be true: the great campaign of 1919 was the prediction that visible manifestations of Christ's kingdom must come in 1925 and that there was more evidence for this than there had been about 1914. Everything that happened from 1914 to 1919 illuminated the fact that all the expectations about 1914 were wrong.]
7 In 1942, in the throes of World War II, the Elijah work passed. It passed away…. It was taken away in divine favor….but it finished with success and in integrity. It left the interests of God’s kingdom to a faithful successor who would cling to the commission from God through the anointed Elijah class, just the same as this successor had stuck to the Elijah class to the end. The carrying out of the Elijah commission kept on without a hitch.
8 The anointed Elisha class undertook the responsibility of carrying out fully the divine commission as symbolized by Elijah’s official garment. Five days after Rutherford’s death the boards of directors of the Watch Tower corporations for New York and for Pennsylvania held a joint meeting and unanimously elected N. H. Knorr, one of the anointed remnant, to be president of both corporations of the Society. There was grief over the passing of a faithful fellow worker, but there was no interruption of the work for the sentimental purpose of mourning over the dead. The change in personnel did not cripple the work, because this is not a man’s organization but God’s visible organization on earth. …
9 To get back to work with the “sons of the prophets,” Elisha had to make a test of God’s spirit upon him and get back across the Jordan River. He did so by repeating Elijah’s miracle of causing the waters of the Jordan to divide. Likewise with the Elisha class in 1942. …
10 In the very same [Feb. 1, 1942] issue of The Watchtower that announced the death of J. F. Rutherford as “a faithful witness,” appeared the special leading article entitled “Final Gathering.”…
The Elijah/Elisha themes and motifs have been one of the longest running "type-antitype" prophecies to run through the pages of the Watchtower, throughout early issues in the 1800's on up until about 2003, with the points in the quoted paragraphs above explicitly promoted even in 1997.
THE MORAL OF THE STORY
These points were added here partially because they were alluded to by Arauna, but they as part of the discussion above, they show that speculation is often used for presumptuous self-aggrandizement. These are doctrines that have been dropped (mostly) but would not likely have lasted as long as they did if so many Witnesses did not shrink back from their Christian responsibility. It shows no disrespect to question; it shows that we obey God as ruler rather than men. Anything beyond what was already taught in the Christian Greek Scriptures should have seemed like anathema to us. No Bible Student nor any Jehovah's Witnesses should have felt afraid to question it and discuss it openly.
(Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.
The Governing Body, who are highly regarded just as those in Jerusalem were, are still to be respected and their opinions clearly matter, as they are the ones appointed to help us with such questions. Paul respected their position:
(Galatians 2:2) . . .This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain.
But he also reminded us:
(Galatians 2:6-10) . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. . . . James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, . . .They asked only that we keep the poor in mind, and this I have also earnestly endeavored to do.
Notice that the "governing body" focused on the important things ("keep the poor in mind"), and yet other potential problems were taken care of by questioning this same governing body. In Paul's case he said to Cephas:
(Galatians 2:14) . . .I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”
The apostle Paul had spiritual qualifications to point this out publicly, and of course had an obligation at that level to handle it this way. But Paul also writes to entire Galatian congregation(s) to remind them:
(Galatians 6:1-5) 6 Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness. But keep an eye on yourself, for fear you too may be tempted. 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.
Even though we should give respect to all older men, including the ones we call the "Governing Body" Jesus said that
(Matthew 23:8-12) 8 . . . one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. . . . 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
The term "Governing Body" is a legal term, not a Biblical one, and we know there is no separate "body" within the "body" of Christ, only "members" of his congregation. We should give them double honor and respect for their function as a committee of elders appointed to handle questions, their role in teaching, and as administrators of the functions of the congregation. One of the ways we show them respect is to see them, not as leaders, but as brothers. True respect includes questioning, not fear of questioning.
- Anna and ComfortMyPeople
-
1
-
1
-
2 hours ago, TiagoBelager said:
Even if what is being taught will, in Jehovah's timing of matters, become a thing abandoned, yet He can allow it until He corrects it. The saying went out in the brotherhood that the Lord prophesied that the apostle John would not die but would remain until the Lord's return. That was a wrong interpretation that Jehovah let go out among the brothers, but was not corrected until very near John's death.
Yes. It's true that brothers were speculating about things surrounding the Lord's coming. In this case, Jesus said that some of those standing with him during his ministry would not die before they saw him coming in power:
(Matthew 16:28) "Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”
And also that they would not complete the circuit of the cities of Israel before the son of man would arrive.
(Matthew 10:23) 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives.
Although the first verse was fulfilled in a vision given to a few of them, Jesus said these things to show the potential imminence of the Kingdom. It could come at any time. They couldn't even say: "Well the preaching work is not finished yet, so we know that Jesus' arrival in power can't happen yet." Even if the Parousia was a long way off, it was not for them to know, and it should always remain of immediate concern. Jesus took away these obstacles that might make them believe the end was so far off that it didn't matter to them immediately.
Notice too in both of these verses above that there is no separation of a parousia from his coming in his Kingdom: his "arrival."
Notice too that the verse you quoted makes the same point just discussed in a previous post about why chronology should be no concern of ours.
(John 21:22, 23) 22 Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” 23 So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?”
They were tying the chronology of this particular disciple's lifetime to the generation that would see Jesus come. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? But notice too that the disciples have no hint about a "parousia" that would be separate from the time when Jesus comes, or arrives. But more importantly, the times and seasons are still in the Father's jurisdiction so, as Jesus says, "of what concern is that to you?" If we are paying close attention to Jesus' words we should be concerned with why Jesus said not to be concerned with chronology. We should not try to use the mistake they made as an excuse for why we can make more of the same types of mistakes.
-
17 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:
What about Luke 17, "the Kingdom is not coming with striking observableness"?
Good question. But first of all we should note that the Bible does not actually say this. The term translated "striking" observableness actually means just "observability." The word "striking" was added for some reason. If anything, it is probably closer to the opposite meaning, of any kind of observableness, or non-striking observableness. In other words, a likely meaning is that the Kingdom is not going to come with signs to observe, or any kind of inspection (speculation). (In the same way that the Pharisees were not given a sign to make them believe that the King of that Kingdom was already standing in front of them.)
The NLT translates like this:
(Luke 17:20, NLT) One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?” Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. [fn] {The footnote says "by your speculations"}
Of course, this verse was about the coming of the Kingdom that was "overtaking them" in their day. The Kingdom began taking on loyal subjects as members of that "nation" even while Jesus was a kind of "king-designate" as we say. But we know that may more subjects of that Kingdom began entering the Kingdom after Jesus was spoken of as the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" and when he was given a position "far above every government." That was of course, when he sat at the right hand of the throne of Majesty, God's right hand, when he was given ALL AUTHORITY in heaven and on earth. (Mt 28:18-20)
(Colossians 1:13) 13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,
But you are right that, even though this was about the Kingdom about to overtake them in Jesus' day, it could have given evidence that the way the Kingdom comes at the time of the parousia might be invisible. Jesus was the one who cleared up that question by saying that it would appear like lightning: bright, sudden, surprising, and would shine from one horizon all the way to the other horizon.
(Matthew 24:27) 27 For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
Now if we could only find a scripture that says that this kind of lightning is invisible . . . .
-
WHY EVEN BRING UP THE ISSUE OF 1914 AT ALL?
Most Bible readers believe that the sudden, surprising, shining, lightning-like PAROUSIA event has not happened yet. But many of the same people read about the "signs" in Matthew 24 and get pretty much the same idea of the prophecy as Jehovah's Witnesses do. They hear about wars and earthquakes and pestilence and famine and believe that these are signs that, as things get much worse, this is proof that the end is near, and Jesus could return at any moment. It's as if Jesus said:
"You want a sign? I'll give you LOTS of signs!"
The major difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and many other readers is that we (Jehovah's Witnesses) will often say that all these signs must have started specifically in 1914. This is not a difficult doctrine to convince others to believe. People in all generations have wanted to believe that their generation was the very one Jesus spoke about. 1914 was a definite historical turning point from several perspectives. The first war that was called a "World War" started that year. And since then it is easy to see that there's no turning back to the supposed times of peace and tranquility that existed almost everywhere. Also since then the world has grown from a sparse 1.8 bilion people to a crowded 7.5 billion. There are 4 times as many people, but on average they are using literally thousands of times more resources (electricity, fuel, waste). The dense populations, contention over resources, wars, terrorism, and increased effects of violence now effect more people than ever before. Earthquakes have a higher chance of killing large populations at once. Communication and news that focuses almost exclusively on everything negative anywhere in the world has also increased our fear and our belief that things will keep getting worse until God's Kingdom steps in to save us.
So the primary lesson that most of us, Witnesses or not, take away from Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 is this:
(Matthew 24:33, also Mark 13:29) "Likewise also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near at the doors."
(Luke 21:25-31) 25 “Also, there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation. 26 People will become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth, . . .28 But as these things start to occur, stand up straight and lift up your heads, because your deliverance is getting near. . . .31. . Likewise also you, when you see these things happening, know that the Kingdom of God is near."
This is the basic idea that comforts us, and it isn't wrong. Whether we should say that Jesus was specifically targeting a "generation" that started in 1914 or not, God's Kingdom will finally step in. It's always possible that we are in a final generation that will see the final end of this system. We need not be in fear like the nations and those without faith and hope. We can lift our heads up and expect deliverance no matter how bad things get.
So why even bring up the issue of 1914 at all, then? We are clearly in a "wicked" generation. Things appear to be going from bad to worse everywhere we look. If anyone tried to say things aren't so bad, a hundred sources could be found to contradict that claim. Amongst the millions (literally) of books in the world, it's easy to find a hundred or more that claim that 1914 was a major turning point, if not the major turning point, in modern history. The "SIGN" and how it is tied first to a "great world war" seems to be the most important evidence for this doctrine. It's what makes us so sure about what might otherwise look like a ridiculous prophetic type-antitype teaching where we see the wicked, haughty, Gentile king Nebuchadnezzar punished with insanity and say that Nebuchadnezzar represents the Messianic Kingdom. When that wicked man finally acknowledged that his haughtiness was misplaced, he was restored from his insanity, and this represents how Jesus was restored to the non-Gentile Messianic throne in 1914.
But was this idea in the Bible? And if it wasn't, is there any reason to stand up to such a long-standing traditional teaching in our own religion if it's not really doing any harm? Or is it doing harm? Obviously, this entire topic was initiated there is clear evidence (to some) that it doesn't work scripturally, based on the words and meanings of the context of Jesus' words? But why should we pay more than the usual attention to the exact meaning of Jesus words if it makes no difference in the long run. Is this just a matter of "obsession" over very minor matters? Is it a matter of stubborn pride? Is this just a matter of wanting to be right at all costs? Is it really in defense of the Bible?
That last question is so important that I'll try to give a short answer right here. I'll reword it
WHY DOES THE BIBLE SAY WE SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED WITH CHRONOLOGY?
Jesus said that it was not for us to know the "times and the seasons." Paul, said that as far as the topic of "times and seasons" and the "parousia" we need nothing to be written to us, because we know it will come unannounced as a thief. So the best we can do is stay on the watch to be prepared at all times as if it can come at any moment. This way that day won't "catch us" off-guard as a thief would want to catch us. Of course, perhaps all that was supposed to change around 1914. Perhaps at that point we were supposed to know the times and seasons after all. And we could always rationalize that we only claim to know the beginning of the parousia but not the end of the system.
Also, we might ask, what harm could there be in trying to know, even if Jesus said we wouldn't be able to know?
Is it possible that Jesus had a reason for telling us that not even he knew the "day and the hour"? Is it OK to try to get to know the "times and seasons" as long as we can still say we don't know the "day and the hour"?
Jesus gave some illustrations showing that our attitudes and motivations might come to light if we noticed that there was a delay. He gave the illustration of the evil slave who would take advantage of the delay and begin to lord it over his fellow slaves. He gave an illustration of those who would not make wise use of the time and the resources they were given (the "talents"). He gave an illustration of those who didn't prepare well enough for a potential delay. (foolish virgins). Not once did Jesus commend anyone for discerning how soon the future "times and seasons" would be, but he did commend those who had prepared and readied themselves to endure to the end, and make wise use of their time, no matter how long that delay might be.
The obvious reason would be that if we knew the end was going to come on a certain date, we might fall into any one of the traps that would show us unprepared for that day:
- We could fall into the trap of thinking that we must get into full-time service just because we know the day is nearly upon us, and we believe that we will get a reward for our good works. That might sound like it's not so bad. A little more full-time service is accomplished, so what does it matter what the motive was? But there is no reward for good works or full-time service. The "reward" is only for the proper motivation behind our activities. Remember that the Pharisees dedicating their resources to "full-time" service to the Temple, but weren't fully taking care of their own families, so that Jesus condemned them for this.
If we were to act any differently because we KNOW the time, then this already shows something was potentially wrong with our motivation in the first place.
- We could fall into the trap of thinking that there is still time to take it easy, to "put Kingdom interests second," just for a little while, because we KNOW that there is still time to repent and be shown mercy.
Again, if we were to act any differently because we KNOW the time, then this already shows something was potentially wrong with our motivation.
- We could fall into the trap of thinking that we are smarter than others, and can look down on others for not understanding prophecy and secular and Biblical chronology as well as we do. Yet we are relying on secular knowledge (to date 539, for instance) and this type of secular knowledge is foolishness to God, and just results in questions for debate rather than anything of true Christian value, such as love, justice, mercy and TRUE wisdom.
Related to all the ideas above, is the problem of building new doctrines on a weak foundation, and therefore presumptuously assuming that any additional explanations built on the puffed up knowledge is also correct.
-
We could fall into the trap of thinking we are something when we are nothing, and start to think of ourselves as so especially favored and gifted with God's spirit that we begin coming up with hundreds of other explanations, that must be so, just because we have a strong belief that our chronology must be so. Therefore predictions are made that end up stumbling others, or end up being ideas that we ultimately have to apologize for because it can be shown that they did not come from Jehovah's holy spirit, but were based on presumptuousness. Remember that the idea of 1914 originally came to as as part of scheme of dates that included 1798, 1799, 1844, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910 and a few others. All those dates have been dropped because they were "false doctrines." Russell was so sure of these dates that he found them in his studies of the Great Pyramid, which was "THE major selling point" of the Studies in the Scriptures series. It was this series of dates that was so sure that these were called "God's dates, not ours." These dates resulted in judging other religious groups as "the foolish virgins" specifically because they stopped looking in 1844 and missed the 1874 presence and the 1878 kingship. It was presumptuous to call others "fools" when we also finally dropped the 1874 date, ourselves. After 1914, this schema was part of the "undeniable proof" that 1918 would see undeniable visible signs of heavenly activity towards the earth. These dates brought us to conclude that 1925 would definitely see the earthly resurrection begin. We were told that we had more evidence on which to base faith in 1925 than we had about 1914 itself, and more evidence for 1925 than Noah had in believing in the coming Flood. Things that happened in 1918, 1919, 1920, 1922, 1931, 1935, even up until 1942 were all sees as necessary teachings just because of the 1914 teaching. Several of these dates have already been dropped as incorrect teachings that needed adjustment (i.e., "false" teachings). A few of them are "still on the books." But we have reason to believe that such incorrect teachings could end up being important to correct if they are wrong. Here are two examples that have been mentioned before:
-
(2 Timothy 2:15-18) 15 Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. 16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.
-
If 1914 is not true, then all those decades of teaching that the first resurrection has already occurred in 1918 could put us in exactly the same situation as the "empty speeches that violate what is holy" and which "spread like gangrene."
-
The second example, builds on the example above. In the first century, it was possible that claiming the resurrection had already occurred included something like the claim that it was all spiritual, and there would be no literal resurrection. Of course, it could also have subverted the faith of some in the idea that some had already received their reward before others which would make it seem like Paul didn't know what he was talking about when he said that the currently living and the resurrected dead would be caught up at the same time. Whether persons like the apostle Paul or C T Russell are already in heaven or not might seem like an innocuous teaching, but look at what can come out of it. In 1916 it was taught that Russell had died but was now a spirit who was directing every aspect of the Society's work from beyond the veil. What's the difference in that and spiritism?
That type of thinking was repeated well into the 1920's. And it resurfaced again in the 1980's with the "Revelation - Grand Climax" book and then again in 2000 in the Watchtower. Note, the same Watchtower just mentioned in a previous post:
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
What, then, can we deduce from the fact that one of the 24 elders identifies the great crowd to John? It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest.When we condemn Christendom for thinking they can communicate with the dead, their adherents say, but these are spirits. So what's the real difference if we say that people who have died who are now spirits are communicating divine truths today. At least the above contains terms like "it seems" and "may be involved." Prior to this it was taught that there was no doubt. But it also implies a kind of "inspiration" that comes from someone other than Jesus and Jehovah to reveal divine truths. But more importantly it was used as a way to bolster a convoluted piece of circular reasoning in the article above. We were building on a sandy foundation and presumptuously pretending it was a rock foundation.
The above is not to say that the doctrine is definitely wrong, but it shows how the Bible expects us to "pay more than the usual attention" to such matters, because a false doctrine can become a serious thing.
- Another point that should be addressed is the fact that there is little difference in saying we only know the time of the beginning of the parousia but not the end. All the issues of believing we know the time of parousia still arise. For example, Jesus said it would be only one generation. So what happened when we approached 30 and 40 years beyond 1914? Speculation was rampant. What happened when we approached 60 years beyond 1914 and it was also believed that the end of the 6,000 years would end in 1975. We became so presumptuous that we published why the 1970's would be the "appropriate time for God to act." We tell Jehovah when it's appropriate to act?!?!?! We (JWs) published and promoted Watchtower articles that said that now is not the time to "toy" with the words of Jesus that no one knows the day and the hour. We can say when it's no longer appropriate to bring up a certain scripture. In the 1970's, just prior to 1975, we also began publishing articles that stated explicitly that Jehovah's Witnesses were a prophet. After the 1970's expectations failed to materialize, the generation went on, and we were 70 years from 1914, and had to change the definition of the generation. Then at 74 years from 1914 we found an article where a Hebrew "scholar" said 75 years was a good length for a generation:
*** g88 4/8 p. 14 The Last Days—What’s Next? ***
J. A. Bengel states in his New Testament Word Studies: “The Hebrews . . . reckon seventy-five years as one generation, and the words, shall not pass away, intimate that the greater part of that generation [of Jesus’ day] indeed, but not the whole of it, should have passed away before all should be fulfilled.” This became true by the year 70 C.E. when Jerusalem was destroyed.
Likewise today, most of the generation of 1914 has passed away.At 80 years from 1914, the definition of generation is updated again, etc., until the latest, current definition.
This problem is not necessarily gone with the updated definition of generation. Because, even though it is now defined as TWO BACK-TO-BACK LIFETIMES it, too, is attached to a finite number of years starting in 1914. As the end of the possible range of time comes into view, this becomes the equivalent of making people think they "know" the times and the seasons. That's clearly presumptuous, and therefore begets all the same issues mentioned above.
-
I didn't expect this topic to wind up with so much discussion of the 70 years, but I'd like to bring it back to specific topics brought up in Matthew 24. One major topic, not really discussed yet, is the "SIGN." But even before we discuss the sign, we should notice that it's the SIGN OF THE PAROUSIA and the SIGN of the SYNTELEIA, that they asked about. For that reason, it would probably be useful to review whether or not it is proper to understand this as a SIGN of a PRESENCE and a SIGN of a CONCLUSION. If it should mean that, then perhaps a generation full of signs is an accurate meaning. But if it refers to a "signal event" that gives them advance warning of the time of the "Judgment Day" then this cannot very likely refer to a generation full of signs.
THE LIKELY MEANING or DISTINCTION between PAROUSIA, SYNTELEIA, EPIPHANEIA, APOKALYPSIS
The point of this part of the topic is to see whether it is possible, or even more likely that the terms Parousia and Synteleia, in context, refer, respectively, to the ROYAL VISITATION & MANIFESTATION (i.e., JUDGMENT DAY) and the FINAL END & DESTRUCTION (i.e., JUDGMENT DAY) rather than merely a "presence" and "conclusion." When that evidence is included in the question about the sign, we have another way of looking at the question. This other way of looking at the question sheds a lot more light on why Jesus answered in the way he did. In fact, it removes what would otherwise appear to be some awkward wording or even a contradiction on the part of Jesus. We know Jesus did not contradict himself, so we should be interested in a meaning that makes more sense with the total context of Jesus' words.
We have already discussed evidence that many contemporary Jews would have understood the meaning of the terms as the signal events referring to the timing of the Judgment Day. If we were to insert those meanings into the verse in Matthew, we would have the following, in context:
(Matthew 24:1-4 -- [with the question in vs 3, paraphrased]) 1 Now as Jesus was departing from the temple, his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Can you tell us WHEN this will happen? Can you tell us what will be THE WARNING SIGN OF YOUR JUDGMENT VISITATION and the FINAL END OF THE AGE?" [NWT: "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”] 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you, . . .
The NWT is translated in such a way that you would never get this idea from the question, and yet we have already shown that this is what the actual words Matthew used would have meant to many Jews in Matthew's audience. And we also know that this is the basic idea that the disciples themselves had about the Kingdom of God. They wanted to know when it would MANIFEST itself.
(Luke 19:11) 11 While they were listening to these things he spoke in addition an illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly.
(Acts 1:6, 7) 6 So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.
Of course, if the disciples had known that Jesus would be ruling invisibly from heaven they would not have had this idea that a time would come for it to "display itself instantly" upon the physical nation of Israel. Therefore, they must have been looking for an advance warning sign so that they could know when to be away from the disaster.
This is consistent with the idea that the "parousia" of a powerful godlike person could be considered to be a "theophany," or an "appearance" like some kind of bright and shining manifestation. To make this clearer we will use the original word PAROUSIA or SYNTELEIA in the following verses, to make it easier to understand the original meaning.
(2 Thessalonians 2:8, NWT, KIT) . . .the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his [PAROUSIA].
But even this does not fully match the likely meaning of the word that the NWT uses here. Note the KJV and NIV, for example:
(2 Thess. 2:8, KJV) the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
(2 Thess 2:8, NIV) the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
That's because the word in Greek is ἐπιφάνεια (epipháneia) which according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
epipháneia -- an appearing, appearance; often used by the Greeks of a glorious manifestation of the gods, and especially of their advent to help; in 2 Maccabees of signal deeds and events betokening the presence and power of God as helper."
It's the same word used in 2 Timothy and Titus:
(1 Timothy 6:14) 14 to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation [EPIPHANEIA] of our Lord Jesus Christ,
(2 Timothy 4:1) I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his Kingdom:
Note that the NWT in 2 Tim 4:1 uses the word "AND" here, although most translations follow a Greek text which has the word "AT" in this place, so that the verse reads more smoothly as:
(2 Tim 4:1, NLT) I solemnly urge you in the presence of God and Christ Jesus, who will someday judge the living and the dead when he appears to set up his Kingdom:
In fact, the sense of the "AND" in some Greek texts is very likely intended to offer the meaning that shows up in the NLT, because the point is that Jesus will judge the living and the dead AND he will do this through his glorious manifestation AND through his kingdom. This fits the illustration in Matthew:
(Matthew 13:39-43) The harvest is a [SYNTELEIA: Destruction/Final End]
conclusionof a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the [SYNTELEIA: Destruction/Final End]conclusionof the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time [the harvest] the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.. . .This is the same scenario that Paul mentions when he includes the resurrected ones into the same picture about the time when righteous ones will shine at the SYNTELEIA. The only difference is that Paul refers to it as the PAROUSIA.
(1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the [PAROUSIA: ROYAL VISITATION AND GLORIOUS MANIFESTATION]
presenceof the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord.According to our current Watchtower doctrine, Paul can never be completely correct. If, as the Watchtower claims, the resurrection has already occurred (back between the years surrounding 1918 and up through as late as 1935, per the current teaching), then those who survived until the presence (1914 and on) may easily precede those who fall asleep in death during the "presence." Russell, for example, survived until the "presence," in 1914 and he died in 1916 and therefore easily preceded, let's say, Rutherford, Knorr, and Fred Franz, and probably at last 44,000 others, according to our current teaching.
But also note that the expression translated "together" has a word in front of it that is not translated in the NWT's 1 Thess 4:17, creating an expression that means not just "together," but, "at the same time together." This is why Thayer's, Vine's and Strong's all offer this definition, especially in the adverbial sense which is obvious here:
Strong's ἅμα (háma) adv a primary particle; properly, at the "same" time, but freely used as a preposition or adverb denoting close association:—also, and, together, with(-al).
Thayer's ἅμα (háma) 1. adverb, at the same time, at once, together. . . . In 1 Thess 4:17 and v.10 where ἅμα (háma) is followed by syn, ἅμα is an adverb (at the same time) and must be joined to the verb.
Vine's ἅμα (háma) "at once" . . . in Romans 3:12; 1 Thess 4:17
This is obvious even in the way the NWT translates this in other places where ἅμα (háma) is used.
(Acts 24:26, NWT) 26 At the same time he was hoping that Paul would give him money.. . .
If the PAROUSIA is the time when those who survive until then are taken at the same time as the resurrected ones, then clearly the Parousia could not have really been ongoing in 1918 to 1935:
*** w07 1/1 pp. 27-28 pars. 10-12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
10 Can we say more precisely when the first resurrection begins? An interesting clue is found at Revelation 7:9-15, where the apostle John describes his vision of “a great crowd, which no man was able to number.” The identity of that great crowd is revealed to John by one of the 24 elders, and these elders represent the 144,000 joint heirs with Christ in their heavenly glory. (Luke 22:28-30; Revelation 4:4) John himself had a heavenly hope; but since he was still a man on earth when the elder spoke to him, in the vision John must represent anointed ones on earth who have not yet received their heavenly reward.
11 What, then, can we deduce from the fact that one of the 24 elders identifies the great crowd to John? It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935. Can we be more precise?
12 At this point, it may be helpful to consider what might be viewed as a Bible parallel. Jesus Christ was anointed as the future King of God’s Kingdom in the fall of 29 C.E. Three and a half years later, in the spring of 33 C.E., he was resurrected as a mighty spirit person. Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible, it is not out of harmony with other scriptures that indicate that the first resurrection got under way soon after Christ’s presence began.That was an odd mix of speculation, along with both dogmatic and very undogmatic statements. Still, while it's true that the first resurrection gets underway as soon as or soon after Christ's PAROUSIA begins, none who survived until the PAROUSIA were taken to heaven along with (together at the same time with) those who were resurrected somewhere between about 1918 to 1935. Yet, it is recognized that the first resurrection got under way "soon" after Christ's PAROUSIA would begin. What was that "harmony with other scriptures"? The example is given in the next paragraph, but with an interesting bit of bracketed information that is in the original Watchtower article -- not something added here as an explanation:
For example, Paul wrote: “We the living who survive to the presence of the Lord [not, to the end of his presence] shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) Therefore, anointed Christians who died before Christ’s presence were raised to heavenly life ahead of those who were still alive during Christ’s presence. This means that the first resurrection must have begun early in Christ’s presence, and it continues “during his presence.” (1 Corinthians 15:23) Rather than occurring all at once, the first resurrection takes place over a period of time.
But the writer who recognized the point that he put in brackets did not recognize that the Greek of 1 Cor 15:23 never says DURING his presence. It actually harmonizes with 1 Thess 4, by saying "AT HIS PAROIUSIA" as if PAROUSIA were an event rather than a duration:
(1 Corinthians 15:23) 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.
The Greek word here would usually mean "AT" in a case like this. It is only translated "DURING" because our traditional doctrine tells us to believe that it is a DURATION of time.
Strong's Definition:
ἐν (en) --a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); "in," at, (up-)on, by, etc.:
The NWT agrees that this is true in the way the following verse is translated along with the NWT footnote:
(1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) . . .We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during* [fn. "at"] the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(The updated NWT removed this footnote so that the word "at" is no longer shown and instead now footnotes the word "blink" with "twinkling.")
It's for the exact same reason that the NWT almost always chooses to say "in the conclusion" (IN the SYNTELEIA), even though it is just as proper to say "at the conclusion" (AT the SYNTELEIA).
There are times, however, when the NWT has chosen to translate the exact same word as "AT"
(1 Thessalonians 2:19) 19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation before our Lord Jesus at his presence [PAROUSIA]?
(1 Thessalonians 3:13) 13 so that he may make your hearts firm, blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the presence [PAROUSIA] of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones.
(1 Thessalonians 5:23) . . .And may the spirit and soul and body of you brothers, sound in every respect, be preserved blameless at the presence [PAROUSIA] of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The reason that the word is translated above as "at" instead of "during" is because it is too clear that the parousia refers to a judgment event in these places. We think of it as the "END" of the parousia when this judgment event happens. But we should remember that Paul always recognized that the relief given to all those of faith would include resurrected ones, and that this resurrection was to be at the same time as Jesus brings judgment on the disobedient. All this obviously happens at the PAROUSIA, not during the PAROUSIA, as shown in the quotes above.
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) 7 But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation [APOKALYPSIS] of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder. . .
It's the exact same word that could have been translated as "during" except that the NWT chose "at" when the reference seems to be to a specific time of judgment. But notice that this "specific time of judgment" is called PAROUSIA and APOKALYPSIS (which means revealing).
In fact, every reference to the parousia of Jesus appears to be more appropriately associated with his revelation (apokalypis) and manifestation (epiphaneia). Both the language structure AND content of these phrases about the PAROUSIA are also used with reference to the APOKALYPSIS, even though our current doctrine claims that only one of the two words refers to a judgment event.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire, may be found a cause for praise and glory and honor at the revelation [APOKALYPSIS] of Jesus Christ.
(1 Peter 1:13) . . .keep your senses completely; set your hope on the undeserved kindness that will be brought to you at the revelation [APOKALYPSIS] of Jesus Christ.
(1 John 2:28) 28 So now, little children, remain in union with him, so that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not shrink away from him in shame at his presence [PAROUSIA].
Similar phrases show that the primary point was the judgment event even when other words and phrases were used. But these ones, also, give us a good sense of the meaning of the terms Parousia, Synteleia, Apokalypsis, Epiphaneia, etc:
(Jude 24) 24 Now to the one who is able to guard you from stumbling and to make you stand unblemished in the sight of his glory with great joy. . .
(1 Corinthians 1:7, 8) . . .while you are eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 He will also make you firm to the end so that you may be open to no accusation in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 1:8, just quoted, could have translated the same word for "AT" above as "DURING" instead of "IN" as was done here (i.e., "during the day of our Lord Jesus Christ"). The point was emphasized here so that no one thinks that the word "during" is what implies a long period of time. It's the belief about whether the reference is to a long period of time that determines how the NWT has translated the word in every case.
The overall point is that it appears likely that the words Parousia and Synteleia refer to judgment events rather than long durations of time such as a generation during which to watch for signs. That would explain why Jesus could liken the parousia to the judgment event of Noah's day, or the judgment event of Sodom, or the judgment event of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., and lastly the judgment event at the revelation and manifestation of Jesus Christ in judgment of the entire world.
- ComfortMyPeople, Nana Fofana and bruceq
-
1
-
2
-
Red pill to go back in time to fix all my mistakes until I get right up to the very last mistake I had made before going back. That would, of course, be the time that someone offered me a blue and red pill, and I took the red one. I will then fix that mistake by taking the blue pill this time. This way I can have my cake and eat it too!
Of course, that last step isn't even necessary because every mistake I ever made included all the days I sold stock or traded mutual funds a day too early or held onto them a day too long. Fixing those mistakes will easily produce the extra 10 million in cash.
-
31 minutes ago, TiagoBelager said:
Let none of us fall into the trap of thinking that there is nothing crucially supplied our relationship with God by the guidance/corrections we are meant to find in our study of end-times prophecies (see as an example that we are meant to find such prophecy in the book of Revelation at 1:3; 22:7).
If I'm reading this right, you are saying that we shouldn't think the study of end-times prophecies is not crucially important. These prophecies are crucial to our relationship with God, especially through guidance and correction we will find in such prophecies.
Although few persons here will necessarily agree with the presentation of Biblical evidence in the way it was initiated in this discussion, I still agree 100% with that premise and the rest of your post. Agree or not, I am hoping some might recognize that this discussion is intended to defend the Bible itself, even against strongly entrenched traditions.
-
8 hours ago, TiagoBelager said:
Assuming that the posts are not numbered -- because I cannot find any such scheme here --, I can say that I wish that they were, because then I could reference exactly any posts I have edited. All I can say now is that I made an edit of the post I made just previous to my post of this one you are now reading. If you intend making response to it, please make sure you have read the (last) edited version.Â
I think the best way is to reference a post by the date, but most topics don't go on for so many pages so it's not usually difficult. Anyway, as I read back through both of the posts that you edited post-posting, I realized that your points are very good, very interesting, relevant, useful, and that I had never actually tried to address them. So I should get back to them and I can probably find some time tomorrow to respond. Thanks for the heads up on the edit.
-
18 hours ago, Arauna said:
Some people here think we are not worthy 'sparring' partners. I studied all this years ago- I can give you the date of the Fall of Nineveh 612 BCE after the fall of Ashur without looking it up on the internet.
I hope no one felt slighted by Anna's remark about sparring partners. I certainly don't feel that anyone is at any kind of disadvantage, especially not you, or @AllenSmith, or @Gone Fishing (Eoin), or @TiagoBelager, and others. (The last is a new name to me who impresses me with his maturity, organized thoughts, and style.) Resources are so easily available to everyone. All this information is available on the Internet, in the Bible, in Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries. Even a close study of the changes and contradictions over the years, using ONLY the Watch Tower publications could lead one to the same conclusions being discussed here. If this were some completely esoteric issue that very few people could know about, then it might be wrong to even question it in a forum such as this, because it would simply be a matter of someone pontificating about a belief with no fair opportunity for anyone to respond, add to it, or discredit it. If we don't bring it up, our Bible students will rarely bring it up. And our overall message has been simplified somewhat so that the appeal is less and less to persons with the kind of educational background who would care to question it, anyway.
But on the other hand, it's dishonest to just make a claim that goes against the evidence without an explanation for WHY we are dismissing the evidence. It would be exactly as if there was a religion that started claiming that World War I started in 1894, not 1914. If we were in such a religion, we could claim it in 6,666 different places in various religious publications, and say that our Bible interpretation tells us this is true, so therefore we know it's true, and we could tell everyone who challenges it, that they are putting secular dates above the Bible dates. If someone were to challenge it with encyclopedias, coins, receipts, then they might be told they were being haughty. In religion, the leaders and members have the prerogative to do this. But what would we think if the religion just started publishing the dates of everything prior to World War 1 by adding 20 years to it, and didn't offer an explanation?Â
That's pretty much what happens even to things like the date for the "Fall of Nineveh" in 612. Because for 1914 to work, the Watch Tower publications also need to change this to 632, adding 20 years to it.
*** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***
Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of NabopolassarÂ’s reign would fall in the year 632Â B.C.E.*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
The fall of the empire. The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end.—Isa 10:12, 24-26; 23:13; 30:30-33; 31:8, 9; Na 3:1-19; Zep 2:13.
According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Du?uzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.)There is no evidence to move this from 612 to 632, but the Watch Tower publications have no choice, because all these dates are tied together, and must be manipulated so that 1914 still works.
Remember that it doesn't matter at all to me. It's our publications that say that the SECULAR date given for the end of the Babylonian empire in 539 is so accurate that they call it "assured" and even "absolute." That's the Watchtower that called this date "absolute." And therefore, our publications pretend that dates like 632 BCE for the fall of Nineveh are "set in stone." If you read the article on "Assyria" in the Insight book, you would even think that Babylonian Chronicle "21901" provides evidence for 632 BCE. You might also think that the same chronicle states that Haran was conquered in 629 even though all the archaeological evidence consistently points to 609 and no archaeological evidence points to 629. In fact, the publications continue to insist on these dates where they simply add 20 to the secular dates without any explanation in 99% of the cases.Â
18 hours ago, Arauna said:As I said before, the secular dates are not set in stone because the Assyrian dates are set to correlate with Egyptian dates. The dynasty of Babylon FOLLOWED the Assyrian kings who controlled the region before the Babylonians and hence the Babylonian dates have to follow on the Assyrian dates .....and their dates are not 100% accurate - it is only Archeologist opinions. ..... so people on this forum are continually referring to dates that are in line with current secular thought which are NOT 100% accurate no matter how hard you insist on it.
By the way, you might think that the Babylonian dates depend on the Assyrian (which depended on the Egyptian). But this isn't true. Those TEN THOUSAND pieces of evidence related to the Neo-Babylonian period include astronomical diaries and other interlocking tablet evidence that consistently supports, what the Watchtower calls the "accepted chronology." I'm not claiming that the Neo-Babylonian period is set in stone, but this would evidently have been the opinion of the Governing Body based on what the Watchtower, referenced in a previous post, has claimed here:
INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED
When a date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. The scientific law of probabilities imparts a united strength to the strands of the cable of chronology far greater than the sum of the individual lines of evidence. This is a law which is implicitly relied upon in important affairs: viz., that when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance; if it is indicated in two ways, it is almost certain to be true; and if in more than two ways, it is usually impossible that it is by chance or that it is not true; and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty.This is the actual level of independent lines of evidence behind the fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year should be dated to 587 instead of 607. According to the Watchtower's line of reasoning, therefore, 587 would be the proper date, even if you threw out the Egyptian and Assyrian dates. It is NOT dependent on those synchronisms. Based on the evidence, the Watchtower is inadvertently here stating that 607 must be wrong, and 587 is a "proven certainty."
Of course, I don't believe it's a "proven certainty" any more than you do. But the problem is that anyone can look at this evidence for themselves. You do not have to be a specialist of any kind. Our methods of dismissing such evidence will come across exactly as dishonest as those who would argue that World War I started in 1894.
18 hours ago, Arauna said:If you are an engineer and you look for the root cause of the problem one does not go searching around the middle - one works back from where the problem started.
That's an excellent point.
18 hours ago, Arauna said:because the ULTIMATE proof after all is in the signs on the ground - in 1914. NO ONE CAN SPAR ABOUT A BETTER DATE THAN 1914 ON THE GROUND!Â
Still plan on getting to that part of the discussion.
Â
- Nana Fofana, Anna and ComfortMyPeople
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On 8/10/2017 at 1:16 AM, Anna said:
This is getting scary. Now Allen Smith is the VIRGINIAN!!!!
Nah! I'm sure Allen's already reached his limit of personality "states." I'd bet it's close to Erie* but not Scary.
*Erie: the Lake, not the "state" of eeriness. [In other words, someone who has already stated that he lives near Lake Erie.
-
2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:
Everyone that is associated with the “Virginian”?
Who is the "Virginian"?
-
9 hours ago, TiagoBelager said:Read more
I have made some corrections and clarifications in an edit of the post to which you responded. In the main, nothing of substance as might affect my uses of Zechariah 1:12 and 7:3, 5 has been made. Those verses do not stand as any hindrance to our using 539 B.C.E. as the fall of Babylon, and thus 537 B.C.E. as the year when the Jews were able to resume offering sacrifices to Jehovah in Jerusalem, thus ending a period of 70 years from when the the desolation of the land had begun in 607 B.C.E. In fact, absence in Zechariah 7:5 of mention of the fasts of the 4th and 10th months actually supports the conclusion that there really was an actual 70-years period of time that began with the absence of sacrifices, which was caused by events in the 5th and 7th months. And so it is understandable why Jehovah did not mention, in Zech. 7:5, the 4th and 10th months, and that because the memorial fasts in those months did not commemorate events that caused a real 70-years period of time during which sacrifices were not offered; the fasts of the 4th and 10th months did not fit Jehovah's rationale for why He was singling out for comment just a 70-years period of time. Jehovah's audience was only too painfully aware of what those 70 years had meant for them. Assuming that some were not merely keeping the fasts perfunctorily, but felt sadness for events that meant a 70 years absence from the land, we have Jehovah's assurance that they had the wrong kind of sadness, a sadness for their loss but not for what their sins had cost Jehovah. Whatever the motivation for the fasts -- whether for sake of just perfunctorily going along with the crowd, or whether out of self-pity, the fasts were hypocritical. They ought never to have commenced so long as they were not going to occur out of repentance, and certainly no good reason could ever obtain as motivation for why the fasts might continue, for they had been continuing now for about 18 years since restoration of Jehovah's worship in Jerusalem. Again, the verse certainly does not hinder our chronology, but actually supports the conclusion that a real 70-years absence of sacrifices had ended in 537 B.C.E., though the fasts themselves had not ended. Finally, some Jews were sensing the nation's problem with the fasts, and so they wanted Jehovah's viewpoint about whether to continue the fasts. Jehovah pointed out that the nation indeed had a problem with the fasts' continuance. Why, they had had an unrecognized problem with them even during the nation's 70-years absence from the land when they were keeping the fasts in Babylon. During those 70 years, they really were making displays of hypocritical sadness.
Thanks. I see nothing wrong with what you've said in most of this post (right up until near the end when you claim that: "a real 70-years absence of sacrifices had ended in 537 B.C.E. ").
I also agree that 539 B,C,E, is the date for the fall of Babylon, and thus 537 is a very possible year for when the Jews were able to resume offering sacrifices. (The Watch Tower publications have also indicated that this 537 date is an assumption however, which is why there is a possibility of 538.) I also agree that the period of 70 years described in Jeremiah (70 years for Babylonian rule of the nations) ended around that same date. I also agree that the desolation of the land began around 607 (even though we cannot claim that Jerusalem was physically destroyed at that date). The desolation of Judah began at the moment that the Jews had to begin fearing the Babylonian power that began crushing nations all around them. (It's in a similar sense that Tyre was forgotten for 70 years, which, according to the Isaiah book, was due to the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy as predicted by Jeremiah.) Tyre was a powerful commercial trading and shipping center. But it could not continue to trade and make plans as it always had with the fear of Babylonian power threatening it for 70 years. The fact that only a small fraction of those years saw the complete fulfillment of the prophecy against Tyre does not mean that it was not "forgotten" for 70 years. Similarly, Judea and Jerusalem were already becoming desolated, not only by the actual sword, but even through the fear of Babylonian power. Babylon became the ruling power of the world when Assyria lost its place as that ruling power in about 609 B.C.E, therefore 607 must be very close to the actual date when Jerusalem began to tremble at Babylon, and ultimately would be desolated completely.
(Leviticus 26:27-45) 27 “‘If in spite of this you will not listen to me and you insist on walking in opposition to me, 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. 29 So you will have to eat the flesh of your sons, and you will eat the flesh of your daughters. 30 I will annihilate your sacred high places and cut down your incense stands and pile your carcasses on the carcasses of your disgusting idols, and I will turn away from you in disgust. 31 I will give your cities to the sword and make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell the pleasing aromas of your sacrifices. 32 I myself will make the land desolate, and your enemies who are dwelling in it will stare in amazement over it. 33 And I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheathe a sword after you; and your land will be made desolate, and your cities will be devastated. 34 “‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies. At that time the land will rest, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days it lies desolate it will rest, because it did not rest during your sabbaths when you were dwelling on it. 36 “‘As for those who survive, I will fill their hearts with despair in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a blowing leaf will cause them to flee, and they will flee like someone running from the sword and fall without anyone pursuing them. 37 They will stumble over one another like those running from a sword, though no one is pursuing them. You will not be able to resist your enemies. 38 You will perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies will consume you. 39 Those of you who remain will be left to rot in the lands of your enemies because of your error. Yes, they will rot away because of the errors of their fathers. 40 Then they will confess their own error and the error and unfaithfulness of their fathers and admit that they behaved unfaithfully by walking in opposition to me. 41 Then I also walked in opposition to them by bringing them into the land of their enemies. “‘Perhaps then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled, and then they will pay off their error. 42 And I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and my covenant with Isaac, and I will remember my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 While the land was abandoned by them, it was paying off its sabbaths and lying desolate without them, and they were paying for their error, because they rejected my judicial decisions and they abhorred my statutes. 44 But despite all of this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will never completely reject them nor cast them away to the point of exterminating them, which would violate my covenant with them, for I am Jehovah their God. 45 For their sakes I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt under the eyes of the nations, in order to prove myself their God. I am Jehovah.’”
Leviticus puts no actual time period on the number of years of this. Russell once thought that the "seven times" mentioned here were the same as the 7 time periods in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, so that Leviticus was actually the first PRIMARY proof of the 2,520 years. When it was realized that the word "times" in Leviticus had nothing to do with time periods, the Watchtower dropped this idea. Besides, it's pretty obvious that this scattering among nations and eating of children includes the period of desolations and incursions and deportations and siege that began well before the final desolation -- including the fear that made them flee to Egypt and other nations, and the sieges that resulted in the eating of their children. (see Ezekiel.) This is a period of intensifying opposition, so that "seven times" refers to increasing, multiple times of hardships throughout all the years of Babylonian supremacy. Remember, for example, that Daniel and the 3 Hebrew youths must have been from at least one of several deportation from many years prior to the destruction:
*** Bible Citations ***
(Daniel 1:1-21) In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.And Jeremiah 52 mentions additional deportations.
Back to these 4 fasts in the 4th, 5th, 7th and 10th month. Your depiction of their association with Temple sacrifices does not seem to match up with the Insight book's identification of each of them:
*** it-1 p. 812 Fast ***
Four Annual Fasts of the Jews. The Jews established many fasts, and at one time had four annual ones, evidently to mark the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (Zec 8:19) The four annual fasts were: (1) “The fast of the fourth month” apparently commemorated the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonians on Tammuz 9, 607 B.C.E. (2Ki 25:2-4; Jer 52:5-7) (2) It was in the fifth Jewish month Ab that the temple was destroyed, and evidently “the fast of the fifth month” was held as a reminder of this event. (2Ki 25:8, 9; Jer 52:12, 13) (3) “The fast of the seventh month” was apparently held as a sad remembrance of Gedaliah’s death or of the complete desolation of the land following Gedaliah’s assassination when the remaining Jews, out of fear of the Babylonians, went down into Egypt. (2Ki 25:22-26) (4) “The fast of the tenth month” may have been associated with the exiled Jews already in Babylon receiving the sad news that Jerusalem had fallen (compare Eze 33:21), or it may have commemorated the commencement of Nebuchadnezzar’s successful siege against Jerusalem on the tenth day of that month, in 609 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:1; Jer 39:1; 52:4.9 hours ago, TiagoBelager said:Again, the verse certainly does not hinder our chronology, but actually supports the conclusion that a real 70-years absence of sacrifices had ended in 537 B.C.E., though the fasts themselves had not ended.
If you admit that the fasts had continued beyond 537 right down until 518 then it seems impossible that you can claim that "these 70 years" really meant "those 70 years". The KJV had used the term "those" which might have helped create the initial misunderstanding, but since then the NWT has corrected the NW translation to refer to the "current" 70 years, by correctly translating the expression. The actual meaning of the Hebrew is what has moved so many scholars and translators to translate similar to the NIV:
(Zechariah 7:3, NIV) “Ask all the people of the land and the priests, ‘When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months for the past seventy years, was it really for me that you fasted?
Both the books of Haggai and Zechariah show that the new era without the fasting was about to start now, at this time when the foundation for the Temple was being laid, 520 to 516. It was because of this very fact that, in 518, persons from Bethel (11 miles north of Jerusalem) came down to ask if the time of fasting was now going to be over:
(Zechariah 7:2, 3) 2 The people of Bethʹel sent Shar·eʹzer and Reʹgem-melʹech and his men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, 3 saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: “Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?”
I know that you already realize that they really had continued to fast for just about 90 years, and you have looked for a way to handle the contradiction. And, as I'm sure you know, the Watchtower has admitted the same, that this had actually gone on for 90 years (as required by Watchtower chronology), even though the scripture says 70 years (which matches the Bible chronology and the archaeological evidence).
*** pm chap. 14 p. 235 par. 4 Fasting over God’s Executed Judgments Improper ***
4 Bethel was one of the towns that had been reestablished in the land of Israel by the Jews who returned from exile in Babylon. (Ezra 2:28; 3:1) When Sharezer and Regem-melech from there asked: “Shall I weep?” it meant every inhabitant of Bethel individually. For “O how many years” now the Bethelites had been celebrating a fast, an abstinence from food, in the fifth lunar month of each year. It was observed evidently on the tenth day of that month (Ab), in order to commemorate how on that day Nebuzaradan, the chief of Nebuchadnezzar’s bodyguard, after two days of inspection, burned down the city of Jerusalem and its temple. (Jeremiah 52:12, 13; 2 Kings 25:8, 9) But now that the faithful remnant of Jews were rebuilding the temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem and were about half through, should the Bethelites continue to hold such a fast?Since at least 1937, the Watchtower has said that this 70 years referred to the time period "during which Jerusalem and the land of Judah lay desolate while its former inhabitants were captive in Babylon?" (w37, p.317) Under Rutherford, not surprisingly, the Watchtower also said that this group of Bethelites was a prophetic picture of the cult of the Russellite "old-timers" who "doubtless, wore ... long beards and had a very solemn and sanctimonious air," and, in the case of those old-timers, still talked about their "hero," "a prominent servant of the Lord" who died in 1916. (Watchtower 1939, p. 302)
Oddly enough, the Awake! magazine used Zechariah, written 90 years after 607 (in 518), as evidence that the 70 years was an actual literal period of 70 years ending not in 518, but in 537:
*** g72 5/8 p. 27 When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem? ***
When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem?
SECULAR historians usually give the year 586 B.C.E. as the correct date for the desolation of Jerusalem. Why, then, do Jehovah’s Christian witnesses speak of this event as occurring in 607 B.C.E.? It is because of confidence in what the Bible says about the duration of Jerusalem’s lying desolate.
The Scriptures assign a period of seventy years to the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem. . . .
Additional evidence is provided in the book of Zechariah. We read: “When you fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth month and in the seventh month, and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?” (Zech. 7:5; 1:12) The way this question is framed, with reference to specific months, certainly indicates that a period of seventy literal years was involved.Since then, of course, the NWT has corrected the translation so that it now correctly refers to "these 70 years."
-
23 hours ago, TiagoBelager said:
Zechariah 7:5 expressly relates that there were lamentations and fasts that the Jews had practiced in the 5th and 7th months of every year for 70 years. During just those 70 years, those fasts might have seemed appropriate for as long as the land had remained desolated without sacrifices offered to Jehovah in Jerusalem. But even when conditions were as they had been for 70 years, were the fasts and wailings that had occurred ritually in the 5th and 7th months for the 70 years really done by most Jews out of repentant hearts? No, and now that the 70 years desolation had ended, it should be apparent to all right-hearted inhabitants in Judea that continuation of the annual, commemorative rituals now for a grand total of “O how many years” (Zechariah 7:3; thus a total of even more than 70 times by the time of Zechariah's relaying the word of Jehovah to Jews living in Judea sometime after the 70 years exile had come to their foretold completion) had become entirely perfunctory with no basis for even a hypocritical pretext of fasting and lamentation out of sadness, this since restoration had already occurred after the 70 years exile. After all, even during the 70 years of real loss to the Jews (the loss of the temple, and loss of Jerusalem as habitation for anyone who might want to use the site for sacrifices (see Jeremiah 41:5)), the displays of ritual sadness were, for the most part, not done out of godly sadness/repentance—not so for most Jews, anyhow, but had become rituals done perfunctorily. The 5th month’s ritual of hypocrisy was commemoration of Nebuchadnezzar’s razing of the temple (see Jeremiah 52:12, 13) and the emptying of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 40:1-13); and the ritual of hypocrisy in the 7th month was commemoration of the last time for 70 years to come that any Jews might have gone back into Jerusalem for sacrifices. The site would not become available for sacrifices until the end of 70 years of exile, for nobody was in the environs of Judah for 70 years following the destruction of the city (see events recorded in Jeremiah 41ff). It is therefore significant that the fast of every 4th month and the fast of every 10th month were not fasts in commemoration of events that had even seen 70 commemorative performances before restoration of the Jews to the land of Judah had occurred (Ezra 3:1-6). That is why Zechariah 7:5 does not mention the 4th and 10th months’ ritual fasts, for they were not commemorated for a total of the 70 times that had occurred during exactly the 70 years of exile. After 70 years of loss of sacrifices in Jerusalem, then were sacrifices resumed, right on time in the 7th month.
You might be right but here's why it doesn't make any sense to me. AC refers to "Accepted Chronology" and WT refers to Watch Tower Chronology. In the "accepted chronology" the indignities against Jerusalem had gone on for 69 years, or even 71 years if you start from the major events from the 18-month siege lasting from 589 to the destruction in 587. In the Watch Tower's timeline, these indignities had started 90 years ago. Zechariah supports the "accepted chronology" (or vice versa) when he says that mercy had been withheld from Jerusalem for only 70 years, not 90 years as the Watchtower timeline says:
- #AC [<-----------------about 70 years from 587 to 518------------------->]
- #WT [<--------------------------about 90 years from 607 to 518------------------------------>]
- ...6..6......6.........5..5......5.........5.........5.........5.........55........5.........5.5.......5
- ...1..0......0.........9..8......8.........7.........6.........5.........43........3.........2.1.......1
- ...0..7......0.........0..7......0.........0.........0.........0.........09........0.........0.8.......0
The Insight book says that Zechariah 1:7 is dated to about 519 BCE, right? That's near the end of the 2nd year of Darius.
(Zechariah 1:7) . . .On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet Zech·a·riʹah . . .
(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
*** it-2 p. 1226 Zechariah, Book of ***
About February 9, 519 B.C.E., the prophet Zechariah heard the words: “The whole earth is sitting still and having no disturbance.” (Zec 1:7, 11)This would mean that the statements in Zechariah 7 were in 518 (almost 517) being now in the 4th year of Darius.
(Zechariah 7:1) . . .And in the fourth year of King Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to Zech·a·riʹah on the fourth day of the ninth month, that is, the month of Chisʹlev. 2 The people of Bethʹel sent Shar·eʹzer and Reʹgem-melʹech and his men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, 3 saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: “Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?” 4 The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me?
(Zechariah 8:19) 19 “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month will be occasions for exultation and joy for the house of Judah—festivals of rejoicing. . . .
You started out saying:
"Zechariah 7:5 expressly relates that there were lamentations and fasts that the Jews had practiced in the 5th and 7th months of every year for 70 years."
This reflects what we've been taught, that these lamentations and fasts had been practiced for 70 years, and the Watchtower suggests that these reflect the period of the 70 years between 607 and 537. Therefore the fasts would likely start on that first anniversary of 607 which would be the 5th and 7th month of 606, the following year in Babylon. They could end when the new foundation was laid in the 7th month of 537. (Ezra 3:1) This would mean that the fasting in the 7th month would likely have run from 606 to 538. A total of 68 or 69 years, i.e., about 70 years. But clearly, the fasting was still going on at the time of Zechariah's writing, 90 years after 607; it had not stopped 20 years earlier as the Watchtower suggests.
There have been a couple of explanations for Jehovah's disapproval of these fasts. The explanation you gave is one of them. Also:
*** w96 11/15 p. 5 Does God Require Fasting? ***
Some fasts established by the Jews met with God’s disapproval right from the outset. For example, at one time the people of Judah had four annual fasts to commemorate the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (2 Kings 25:1-4, 8, 9, 22-26; Zechariah 8:19) After the Jews were released from captivity in Babylon, Jehovah said through the prophet Zechariah: “When you fasted . . . , and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?” God did not approve of these fasts because the Jews were fasting and mourning over judgments that had come from Jehovah himself. They were fasting because of the calamity that befell them, not because of their own wrongdoing that led to it. After they were restored to their homeland, it was time for them to rejoice instead of bemoaning the past.—Zechariah 7:5.- Anna and ComfortMyPeople
-
2
-
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:6 hours ago, Arauna said:
It has nothing to do with being smart or scholarly or even being RIGHT - it has to do with recognizing Jehovah and the channel he is using to preach the Kingdom as the only hope for mankind. I honestly believe that we must have Jehovah's spirit to stay connected with Him and stay in the truth.
That is absolutely correct. I hope no one misunderstands.
@Annasince you asked about this: In the context of what @Arauna had said I was referring to the relative importance of being smart, scholarly or even RIGHT. We don't need to get all up in arms or push ahead. Knowledge is not the most important thing for Christians, as we both acknowledged.
At the time, I was thinking of this Scripture, where the context ON BOTH SIDES OF THE VERSE makes it appear that humility is the factor that keeps us from stumbling others, and that humility is the factor that keeps us from creating divisions among sincere persons who want to do what is right. Even if they have a zeal for God but not according to accurate knowledge.
(Mark 9:33-42) 33 And they came into Ca·perʹna·um. Now when he was inside the house, he put the question to them: “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 They kept silent, for on the road they had been arguing among themselves about who is greater. 35 So he sat down and called the Twelve and said to them: “If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all.” 36 Then he took a young child and stood him in their midst; and putting his arms around him, he said to them: 37 “Whoever receives one of such young children on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me receives not me only but also Him who sent me.” 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 41 And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward. 42 But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea.
(Luke 9:46-50) 46 Then a dispute arose among them about which one of them was the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a young child, stood him beside him, 48 and said to them: “Whoever receives this young child on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me also receives the One who sent me. For the one who conducts himself as a lesser one among all of you is the one who is great.” 49 In response John said: “Instructor, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he is not following with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him: “Do not try to prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.”
We expect the Governing Body to show the humility of the faithful discreet slave, not the idea that they should push ahead and claim things that they do not have knowledge of yet. As Arauna said, we (including the slave) must recognize Jehovah and the true channel, which is Christ the Head, our Exemplar, along with his Word and spirit so that we may have the same spirit and attitude of Christ Jesus. Jesus could have cleared up all questions of Law, but instead he focused on love, justice, and kindness. As long as everyone recognizes that this is the true channel, we will be blessed with more of Jehovah's spirit, stay connected with him, and stay in the truth.
- Nana Fofana and Anna
-
1
-
1
-
On 8/7/2017 at 9:13 AM, AllenSmith said:
But, everything the Watchtower is about come “directly” from scripture.
Then why did the Watchtower ever change anything if everything was directly from scripture? Obviously you are saying that this might not have been true last year, because some things have already changed since then, but it must be true this year. But if it's true this year, then you are claiming that any changes made for next year are no longer directly from Scripture, unless of course you are arguing that the Scriptures contradict themselves. You are using cult-speak even though the Watchtower is not a cult.
On 8/7/2017 at 9:13 AM, AllenSmith said:Once again, by whose power and authority do you question the anointed ones. If you're questioning them, then you need to question yourselves, first.
Obviously we need to question ourselves first, but to answer your first question, it's our Christian obligation to question the anointed ones. You've seen a dozen scriptures to this effect, and you evidently do not believe in them. By whose power and authority do you decide it's OK to go against the Bible, and not to question the anointed ones?
(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . .
(Philippians 1:8-10) . . .. 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things,. . .
(1 Thessalonians 5:21) 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.
(2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . .
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.
(Romans 12:2) . . .be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings . . .
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .
(James 1:6) 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about.
- Witness, ComfortMyPeople, Hannah Maiden and 1 other
-
1
-
3
-
2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:
Watchtower September 1, 1922 Page 262 as incorrectly cited by JWinsider
Thanks for the correction. I have fixed the quote. I had left out the one I intended to put from 1924 first, also added below, and then fixed the one from 1922, which as you can see, is where the conflation was based upon:
"The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; . . ." — The Watchtower, July 15, 1924, p. 211.
"The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile Times. . . . The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures [than 1914] because it is fixed by the Law God gave to Israel." — The Watchtower, September 1, 1922, p. 262.
In the second quote I had also left out the brackets in the bracketed words "[than 1914]." This time, I added the prior sentence that made this point clear.
-
21 minutes ago, Arauna said:
I think you keep on trying to prove you are right because you are not happy with what you have in the truth. Why spend hours trying to get someone to agree with you. What is the purpose of it? If hypothetically I agree with you - then what will the next step be for us? We go and make our own happy little group separate from other Witnesses - and pat ourselves on the back that we are smarter than the slave? or what?
When evidence piles up against something very overwhelmingly, we really have no choice but to either accept the evidence or dismiss it. The easiest thing to do is to dismiss new evidence and go along as we always have. If we can dismiss evidence then we don't have to think about it. In this world, of course, especially modern news media and in social media, the most common method of dismissing evidence is to go after the person instead of the evidence. This is why you often see people making assumptions about motives.
If you think I'm saying this is what you are doing, I'm not. You have gone beyond the idea of merely dismissing evidence. You are rightly concerned about the motive behind it, and you are rightly concerned about what it would really mean to us if the evidence were accepted. This is not a simple dismissal of evidence in your case. I can see that you are not simply bringing this up for a diversion to avoid thinking about it.
So I'm glad you asked the questions:
"Why spend hours trying to get someone to agree with you? What is the purpose of it?"
Getting someone to agree is not the point. Many people already agree. But we learn not to worry when people don't agree with us in the field ministry. Yet our responsibility to present truth to the best of our ability does not change.
(John 4:23) 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.
Spending hours on a subject is not the preference for everyone, but there are persons for whom the opportunity for this kind of research is a joy and a privilege. For one thing, it helps me see first-hand the accuracy of the Bible, and how even secular sources of archaeology and history support the Bible account. Questions that produced contradictions in the past, now show the Bible to be harmonious, even on this very topic of chronology during the Neo-Babylonian period. And you get a better sense of the historical Babylonian world in which the Jews were exiled. There are about 4 of these questions that produced contradictions in the past. I've brought up 2 of them on the forum before, such as:
(Haggai 2:3) 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? . . .
(Ezra 3:12, 13) 12 Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance.
The question on these scriptures was about how many of these 95 to 105 year old people could have outcried the sounds of joy according to the Watchtower chronology? But the "accepted chronology" that fits both the Bible and secular evidence shows that this was the 75 to 105 year olds, not just those over 95 years old.
Another question was the meaning of the phrase "these 70 years" at a time that was 90 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and 92 years, at least, after the deadly siege against it:
(Zechariah 1:12) 12 So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
(Zechariah 7:4, 5) 4 The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me?
Why does the scripture say they were fasting for 70 years if the Watchtower says that this was 90 years later? The "accepted chronology" answers that exact question. There are two more similar questions that I will get to later.
Of course, some will probably end up believing in the evidence and in the Bible's support for that evidence based on what I have presented. But it won't be just because I said it. On the Internet people say whatever they want and pretend to be whoever they want, so no one is going to accept it because I presented it. They will only do so after evaluating the evidence for themselves, and I'm guessing that 99% won't look at the evidence anyway. Still, we don't impugn each other for spending hours trying to get someone to agree with us, if we are convincing them to believe in 1914. If we are doing this because we are passionate for truth, then we have an obligation to support what we know to be true, if asked.
(Philippians 4:8) . . .Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things.
If hypothetically I agree with you - then what will the next step be for us? We go and make our own happy little group separate from other Witnesses - and pat ourselves on the back that we are smarter than the slave? or what?
The next step is to continue to focus on all the things that Philippians 4:8 just mentioned. Nothing significant should change. One of the points of this is that we don't have to make our happy little group separate from other Witnesses. But, in time, as more persons are aware of the evidence, we won't have to be ashamed and cower at the idea of speaking out boldly and fearlessly about the things we have learned. Currently, most Witnesses, including myself, have to hold back from certain conversations even when they come up with other Witnesses we trust, for fear we will say something that will be interpreted as presumptuous, haughty, or stumbling. So in the meantime, there are 1,000 other true things we can focus on. 1,000 other serious concerns, righteous, chaste, lovable, virtuous, praiseworthy things that we can focus on. Against such things, there is no restriction. Also, this doesn't make us "smarter" than the slave. This is merely evidence, which is merely "knowledge." Knowledge pales into non-importance when compared, with love, justice, mercy, kindness, faith, hope, etc. In my own case, I learned about these things from members of the slave and members of the anointed who were just as concerned about truth, but had no way of presenting this information without getting into trouble from those who believed that nothing should be said that did not fully support the doctrines that Frederick Franz believed. (But it's also easy to understand why Brother Franz believed in the importance of this doctrine.) Several of these other brothers that I knew were concerned about losing their positions in Writing, and other positions of responsibility. Some have since died and some have evidently still not said much about it except to close friends. I don't think there is anything new here that the "slave" is not aware of. I don't know for sure, but I honestly guess that to many people in positions of responsibility in the organization, there just isn't a good way or opportunity to make adjustments yet. There is probably a fear that this will be very disruptive and may result in a great loss of publishers. I think the evidence shows that most of us would welcome the evidence if it were shown how it coincides with the message of Matthew 24, the stated meaning of Daniel 4, etc. And I would also guess that there are a few questions that remain that would be too difficult to answer immediately. This doesn't mean they can't be truthfully answered with "we don't know yet." The main thing is that I'm sure all of us would be more comfortable with humility and discretion in these matters as opposed to signs of presumptuousness and a tendency to claim full knowledge.
1 hour ago, Arauna said:t has nothing to do with being smart or scholarly or even being RIGHT - it has to do with recognizing Jehovah and the channel he is using to preach the Kingdom as the only hope for mankind. I honestly believe that we must have Jehovah's spirit to stay connected with Him and stay in the truth.
That is absolutely correct. I hope no one misunderstands.
1 hour ago, Arauna said:I have enough knowledge of other history to firmly believe that WW1 was a major change in world affairs and that the year 537BCE is a reasonably good year (take a year of two) for the building work to restart in Jerusalem......and this will easily bring the date of Babylon's fall to 607 (70 years in Babylon ) - which makes 1914 not a mirage at all!
WWI was definitely a major change in world affairs. And 537 is a reasonably good year for the building work to restart in Jerusalem. And 607 as the date of Jerusalem's fall (not Babylon's, of course) is not so far off either in the overall scheme of things, either (+- 20 years). Of course, there is no need to review why these ideas are never connected in the Bible. Even if Jerusalem fell in 607, the Bible does not connect a period to 607 as the start of the Gentile Times. Also, the Bible does not connect any period of 2,520 years to be counted from Jerusalem's fall.
Then we still have to discuss the meaning of the sign. The Jews were looking for the Parousia to be a time when war, earthquake, fire and famine would bring destruction. You can see this in the books that the Jews were using at the time to prepare for the end of the age. But Jesus appears to tell his disciples that even though they have heard that it was said that these signs would help them recognize the end-time, Jesus said to them not to be misled by wars, earthquakes, and famine. So the one thing we would NOT want to look for as a sign of the end would be a major war of any kind, or major earthquakes, or food shortages. I won't go too far into that subject here, but we should at least be able to see that this is a possible way to read Jesus' words in Matthew 24.
2 hours ago, Arauna said:And the other arguments that Jehovah will not use a wicked king and his 7 periods of madness as a symbol of the inhumane nations ruling the earth until Jesus kingdom starts to rule does not tread water at all. Jehovah used prophets whose wives were unfaithful to illustrate the situation that his people were in.....
No argument was made that Jehovah will not use a wicked king and his 7 periods of madness as a symbol of the inhumane nations ruling the earth until Jesus kingdom starts to rule. In fact, I believe the dream can help to give us faith in exactly that prospect. After all, even though it was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar the point was that Jehovah is the universal sovereign and can repeat this any time, or as many times as he wants. No empire can overpower Jehovah's will. And we pray for that Kingdom to come and for God's will to be done as in heaven also upon the earth. I agree that it teaches exactly the lesson Daniel 4 says it teaches. But we do know that it creates a lot of contradictions to try to make a type/antitype illustration out of Nebuchadnezzar's experience. And the biggest contradiction is the one we rarely even think of, that if interpreted the way we do, that it provides a framework for the time-table of the parousia, something that only the presumptuous would try to figure out after Jesus said that the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and after Paul said that about the Parousia and about the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us, BECAUSE it is coming as a thief.
1 hour ago, Arauna said:Yes I have seen the things you took a lot of time to write and I honestly do not think it is worth my time to reply because think that you are determined to promote your own way of thinking......
Understood. I wasn't necessarily expecting a reply unless someone could think of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence anyway. If anyone thinks the subject is of serious concern and knows of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence, then I'll probably hear about it sooner or later. And besides, you did respond with some Biblical ideas about Daniel 4 that I am not dismissing at all.
2 hours ago, Arauna said:so this should tell you to appreciate the fact that Jehovah in his graciousness allowed both of us to be part of this group of people. ..... While it is good to investigate what you believe so you can stay strong - one should not go beyond/ or brazenly go ahead - where is the unity in that? I have on occasion not agreed with small things and later came to this conclusion:- it sorts itself out...... The really important stuff is all there and is understood....
I appreciate this and all of the obvious truths that I didn't requote from you because I believe them just as you do. Naturally I disagree somewhat on our responsibility to present truth when we are asked. I don't think it gets us in trouble if we handle our responsibilities seriously. There is no need for any of this to cause disunity. It's just not that important. As you say the important stuff is all there and is understood. I sometimes wonder though, what a Bible Student should have done starting in 1919 and all up well into 1925 when Rutherford was embarrassing himself and the organization. (His own words about embarrassing himself.) What appears to be extreme haughtiness and presumptousness was amazing if you go back and read the words written back then. If you knew that 1925 was based on flimsy evidence would you have said something? Would you have written Rutherford or kept it to yourself? If you were an elder minding the congregation's business and keeping your concerns to yourself, yet you knew there was something wrong, how would you counsel someone else who came up to you for advice? What if that person was a lowly person who also knew exactly what was wrong with the reasoning behind 1925? Would you be humble enough as an elder to learn from that person and realize that these were serious concerns? As a matter of fact there were many Bible Students who went through exactly that back in 1925. And of course, the same goes for any who happened to see the weaknesses and problems with all the other dates predicted from 1881 through 1918, including 100% of the predictions made for the year 1914. Is it our responsibility to make sure and question or is it our responsibility to follow without questioning?
I know your statement above is a way of answering that question, and up to a point I agree. I can even stay quiet in my congregation. But for me it's still a matter of understanding our true responsibility and our conscience.
BTW, from what I know of you and your experience, (and yes I can read things about you in several places on the Internet), your book would be very interesting to many. I understand the hesitation, don't now if I would do it, even if I had your experiences. Would also be concerned about making money off the good news. But I know that you have some especially good ideas for the Muslim audience, for example, that you have some expertise at. And I do know that there are probably many ways to share good upbuilding thoughts and experiences in good conscience. Perhaps @TrueTomHarley has some ideas here.
-
7 hours ago, Arauna said:
I do not have time to respond to all comments but it is absolutely clear to me that NONE of you have taken the time to really study the entire sections on Chronology as set out in the Insight book. And -"NO"- the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronologies are NOT firmly established! ... There is too little reliable evidence for that. I read some of the (translated) lists and I was not impressed when I investigated these things......... .. . The Insight book also gives good reasons WHY they are not trustworthy..... while the Bible chronology is very well set out.
One does not need secular dates to establish bible chronology - but some people are not happy if they do not receive this. One can count the years from the date of creation of Adam until today......(go and look in the Insight book! it is all there! ) As I said before - we do not need any secular dates to corroborate the Bible because one can pinpoint the date of the start of Jesus' baptism in the year 29 CE (because there was no year 0) and work BACK! as well - and it still gets one to the same numbers and dates!
I think you are enamored of you own scholarly endeavors and pushing your own ideas above those of a groups of researchers from our organization who have all contributed to these articles and who have been looking at all possible evidences. Yes they are fallible but their arguments are more acceptable to me than the ones I have seen here on these pages.
And I said before the bible chronology is part of Jehovah's PURPOSE.... see how the chronology fits in with his purpose....
OK.. done. I have read it again. As always, I deeply appreciate the good research that has gone into the Insight book. When this book first came out under the name "Aid to Bible Understanding" I was just as amazed, especially at the "Chronology" section. It took me nearly four years of scratching out an hour or so each day to completely read the Aid book while still at Bethel. I have never completed the Insight book yet, although I recognize that most of the old entries have remained intact, verbatim, from the older Aid book.
That said, I would love to comment on many items of interest that I found in the "Chronology" article in Insight including everything I agree with and appreciated. First, I will try to limit my comments to those that are relevant to this discussion and the statements you have made above.
So here goes . . .
First, you said: "And -"NO"- the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronologies are NOT firmly established! ... There is too little reliable evidence for that."
I can say that you have understood very well the basic premise of the the first half of the Chronology article. It is clearly intended to make us us think that the Babylonian Chronology is not firmly established, when it really is, as I said above, one of the MOST firmly established of all ancient timelines. By mixing the Neo-Babylonian in with the Sumerian and Assyrian chronologies, especially by mentioning the much earlier mythical portions of those chronologies, we can easily get confused into thinking the Neo-Babylonian is just like the others. It's always easy to think that if something is wrong with part of something then something must also be wrong with the whole. But we should keep in mind that the Watch Tower publications are so sure of the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology, hat they take ONE of the dates from it (539) and for many years called it an ABSOLUTE date, and used that date as an anchor for the 1914 doctrine that has been repeated over 6,000 times, according to the current updated WT-Library CD. In fact scholars refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as ABSOLUTE dates, therefore the Watch Tower publications now only refer to 539 as a "pivotal" or "assured" date, rather than an absolute date..
*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
The histories of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical.A true statement "in the main" especially about their "earlier periods" but we are interested ONLY in the Neo-Babylonian period.
*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period.Notice that all these nations have still been mixed together, rather than marvel at the amazing completeness of the Neo-Babylonian period, based on literally THOUSANDS of interrelated, interlocking, dated tablets and monuments. It's true that it has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information. This is as we should expect, and it turns out that all these THOUSANDS of bits of information support the "accepted chronology." And we should note that the Watch Tower publications do refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as the "accepted chronology" -- not because one man named Carl Olof Jonsson accepts it, but because ALL the known Neo-Babylonian scholars accept the overwhelming evidence. Obviously, these experts don't accept it just because it supports the Bible's timeline, yet it is easy to show that it really does. And these same scholars are the ones that the Insight book relies upon for the 539 date. These THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence actually support the Bible's timeline much better than the Watch Tower's timeline.
*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.This doesn't mean that the Watch Tower accepts the "accepted chronology," of course, but the reasons that the Watch Tower gives are not real reasons. It is very easy to show that they are just pretend reasons. The Insight book inadvertently admits that these are just pretend reasons, if you look at it closely enough.
*** it-1 pp. 448-449 Chronology ***
While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms.Notice the contradictory reasoning here. TENS OF THOUSANDS of clay tablets bearing inscriptions are supposedly minimized for being religious texts or mundane business documents. Notice what is left out, however: they are EACH ONE DATED to the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Also, by throwing some Egyptian papyrus scrolls into the mix, it's possible to imply that many of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents might be religious documents -- and this very likely makes us think they are reduced in value in determining a chronology. We are also supposed to get the idea that the historical writings are reduced in value because they glorify their emperors and military campaigns. We are supposed to think if "myth" and "exaggeration" here. These are the bad apples that are supposed to spoil the whole bushel.
*** it-1 p. 449 Chronology ***
Engraved in stone or inscribed in clay, some ancient pagan documents may seem very impressive, but this does not ensure their correctness and their freedom from falsehood. Not the material written on, but the writer, his purpose, his respect for truth, his devotion to righteous principles—these are the important factors that give sound basis for confidence, in chronological as well as other matters. The great age of the secular documents is certainly outweighed by the vastly inferior quality of their contents . . .Yes, these contemporary documents will never be the Bible. But let's at least admit to what they are. In fact, these TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents about mundane matters do not contain any of "myth" or "religion" or "exaggeration" and they are all dated. Not only that, but these dates are interconnected not just through the year of each king, but they include a second name, the name of the current "company president" always including who his father was, and sometimes even who his son was who would become the next president when his father died or retired. In addition to a complete timeline of the kings, you can also double-check it with a complete timeline of the firm's presidents and their sons, grandsons, great grandsons, etc. Thousands of the tablets come from the largest "financial firm" of that time, which handled real estate, banking, loans, and commerce contracts.
It's as if you had a great-grandmother you never met who claimed to live to be 120 years old, and then you went into an attic and found that she had left 10,000 checkbook receipts, loan receipts, deeds, etc., which are not only dated with the day and month, but she also added the year of each U.S. President to each check, so that they would say for example: Lincoln's 3rd year, Johnson's 1st year, Grant's 2nd year. But they also had the name of the bank president, and the bank president's son. So now you could see how long each U.S president served and even synchronize it with how long each bank president served. But the main thing is that she had several checks for each and every year of each president. And you would have no trouble putting them in order because she also had a memo on each check where you could double-check the father and son currently running the bank in every year, too. This way if there were two presidents named Johnson (Andrew and Lyndon) in her check receipts, you could know which was which.
But there is one more thing about the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents -- not mentioned. There are enough of them to show exactly what month of the year a given king died, because whenever a king was living the month and day and year of that king's reign was inscribed, but when he died the new king was shown sometimes in tablets of the same month just days after the new king was inaugurated, and the new king would be inscribed as being in his "0" year, or "accession" year.
There is one more point that is just as important. Some of these tablets match up with customer's names on preceding tablets, or some tablets refer to transactions that cut across the time period of two kings. This could be a loan made in the time of one king, but paid off three years later in the time of another king. Or it could be a payment for an item during the last months of one king, and another for the delivery of those items in the early months of another king.
In every case, we not only have tablets for every year of the timeline, but there is no way to claim the kings are in the wrong order, or that one might refer ambiguously to a different king of the same name. (This actually comes close to happening when some usurpers named Nebuchadnezzar show up, but their attempts lasted only a few months at a time, and happened long after the dates we are concerned about between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.)
Without mentioning any of these facts, the Insight book goes on with a quote from Ceran "The Secret of the Hittites." If you have the book you will know the true context of the quote.
*** it-1 pp. 449-450 Chronology ***
Well illustrating why secular histories do not qualify as the standard of accuracy by which to judge Bible chronology is this statement by archaeological writer C. W. Ceram, commenting on the modern science of historical dating: ". . .For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men.” —The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134.There are so many things wrong with this type of quotation when you realize that it is almost all geared toward accepting 539 (capture of Babylon) and not accepting 587 (destruction of Jerusalem). Yet both dates are from the same experts. Also there is no conflict between the Neo-Babylonian dating and the Bible, the only conflict is the Watchtower's interpretation -- which was only found necessary as a way to reach the 1914 date. But this book is talking about the Hittites. In fact, in just the next couple of paragraphs he uses an example of King Menes in Egypt from 2900 BCE! The purpose appears to be in order to mix up the problems of the early Egyptian timeline with the Neo-Babylonian. But it also leaves out the very next paragraph after King Menes. In fact, back in a Watchtower article that tried to bolster more faith in the predictions made about the 1975 time period, it actually used this same book to say that 539 was "assured."
*** w68 5/1 pp. 270-271 pars. 2-3 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
" . . . the book The Secret of the Hittites, by C. W. Ceram, in the chapter entitled “The Science of Historical Dating,” states: . . . “But as we go even deeper into the subject, our respect for the achievements of historical detective work returns. We learn that the scholars have been careful to distinguish between ‘assured’ and ‘assumed’ dates. And we discover that the chronological framework of ancient history rests upon at least a few firm points. Certain key dates, around which other dates are mustered, can be determined almost without error. They are ‘assured.’”
3 Hence, outside the Bible’s timetable, most dates set by historians are unreliable. Only a few “assured,” or absolute, dates, such as 539 B.C.E., . . .Ceram didn't mention 539 here, the Watchtower added that. As far as the Egyptian chronology goes, note that the Watch Tower is only pushing for about a 100 year difference through much of it, and only a 20 year difference by the time of Josiah.
*** it-1 p. 450 Chronology ***
The difference between the above dates and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to as much as a century or more for the Exodus and then narrows down to about 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time. The following information shows why we prefer to hold to the chronology based on the Biblical reckoning.That 20-year difference was necessary in order to make Jerusalem's fall change from 587 (accepted date) to 607 (the date required for 1914 to work). It's not that there is any evidence for it. There is none. But what is extremely ironic is that the entire discussion of why the Egyptian dates are not accepted is almost a precise description of the same exact reasoning about why 587 is not accepted. But here's the real irony: every one of these factors that supposedly weakens the unaccepted dates are exactly the factors that were used in order to get the 539 date. In other words the Watch Tower Society doesn't really think these are weakening factors at all; we accept them all perfectly for 539, and even call 539 an ASSURED date because of the same factors. This is how we know that the reasons given are only "pretend" reasons.
Under Assyrian Chronology no attempt is made to synchronize:
*** it-1 p. 452 Chronology ***
The information above points to the conclusion that Assyrian historiography either is not correctly understood by modern historians or is of very low caliber. In either case, we do not feel compelled to attempt to coordinate the Biblical chronology with history as presented in the Assyrian records.For now, we can leave it at that because nothing there is critical to the points of discussion under Babylonian chronology. Twice as much space is devoted to the Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronologies and the issues surrounding their accuracy. This is the most interesting to this discussion, so I will continue some comments for discussion in the next post.
- Nana Fofana and ComfortMyPeople
-
1
-
1
-
On 8/5/2017 at 9:27 AM, AllenSmith said:
I'll bite. I'll respond to your wordplay directly. However, the sentence is "true" since as I was "censored" by the Librarian and "blocked" until I agreed to accept the warning given in private. Perhaps it wasn't made public but the sensor was made in private just like a judicial committee. A stipulation you found humorous given your comments in other threads with ANNA.
You are also aware of the many "deletions" by the librarian to protect his pet commentators, even though one is down right insulting, and is allowed to be degrading, malicious, and defamatory. While others shrug it off as humor. So, when you say "as far as I know, the first sentence is not true" we know you are being deceptive.
I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you without all the unnecessary rhetoric. I understand your situation somewhat, if you actually believe I am espousing the equivalent of apostate ideas, and you wish to counter them, but also wish to keep reminding an "audience" somewhere that you know "from whence such ideas come from," and need to clarify your distance while still engaging in dialogue.
And yes, I could tell that there is a bit of censorship going on here, (e.g. the "POSTER") although I figured it was self-censorship due to previous warnings about not directly calling a specific poster an "apostate" or reminding them of their "Satanic" roots, or effectively threatening people who merely "upvote" the posts of people you strongly disagree with. (I copied a few of those long topics to my hard drive, and several of them have your original posts in them, that have since been deleted from the current site. Those deletions all reflected problems like the ones I just mentioned.) Personally, I really don't care about being mislabeled as much as the site owners apparently do. I think that as long as we can share information, it's the Internet after all, and we can expect whatever gets thrown at us. But it does get to be a time waster for anyone who wants to wade through the debris. And I always assumed that's part of the reason why you and others have done this: it puts a protective wall of debris (anti-posts), so that people don't really get into the real [perceived] pile of garbage, the topic itself. That's actually the reason I've so often just ignored what you've said in the past.
I think a lot of people confuse the meaning of ad hominem a little bit, too. If you think someone is terrible and you say why you think that they are terrible based on why their argument is bad that is NOT ad hominem. It's when you say why you think they are terrible INSTEAD of saying why their argument is bad; that is an ad hominem. It's only when calling names is merely a diversion so that you don't have to defend against the argument itself. That's why Jesus was not using ad hominem when he spoke against the Pharisees, scribes, etc. He said they are 'wicked' BECAUSE of specific things they did or practiced.
I also agree that you (in all guises and names) have been generally peaceful, reasonable, and helpful in the majority of your posts, even where I disagree with the point. I also agree that when it comes to being purposely "obnoxious" (if that's the word) there have been others here who have taken the prize in that area. Of course, the lesson appears to be that if someone is trying to be both provocative and funny at the same time, then almost anything goes. But I can see why that looks hypocritical.
On 8/5/2017 at 0:47 PM, AllenSmith said:Even though his approach seems to have changed now to be inconsistent with previous arguments, most likely to entice a new audience, his hundreds of the previous post challenge the validity of the Watchtowers claims, about 607BC, 537BC, 1914AD, the invisible presence of Christ, Gentile Times, etc.
Sometimes, the danger of not responding to you allows ideas like this to fester, and then be used again as if they were true all along. My approach might appear more reasonable to you because I am beginning to understand your argument a bit better, but there is nothing inconsistent with previous arguments, which is why you cannot find any arguments that are inconsistent. I think you might be referring to the fact that I am not quibbling over a year or two difference, but if you go back to any of the old discussions you will find that this has always been the case. (I was the one, who agreed that the 3 weeks for Neb to get back from Hatti-land to Babylon always seemed just a bit too fast, even if Josephus is right about the short-cut.) Although I prefer 587, I can see a good reason for 586. Although the 70 years should end in 539, I can see a reason to go for 538. (The Jews could have come back in 537, but that wouldn't change when the 70 years ended a year or two prior to that.) You should be able to find all of these arguments in past discussions because they are all still around. These are not new arguments for a new audience. You might have conflated what I said with others like Ann, or ScholarJW, or others. You have done that before.
On 8/5/2017 at 0:47 PM, AllenSmith said:He has gone far enough to support many of the arguments written by “Carl Olof Jonnson” the author of the book “Gentile Times Reconsidered”. His belief as stated in past post is, this “apostate” has more credibility than the Watchtower.
I have said that I could care less what Carl Olof Jonnson wrote. All he did is repeat the evidence that is agreed upon by nearly 100% of the experts and scholars on the subject. It has nothing to do with him. My own independent study, which I did because of a dialogue I was having with Rolf Furuli, convinced me that HUNDREDS of scholars were right and Rolf Furuli had used a lot of logical fallacies and outright intellectual and scholastic dishonesty in a book that he sent me personally (for free, at that!). So far, neither you nor ScholarJW or anyone else have been able to show otherwise. It matters not that COJ might have come to the same conclusion. I have never spoken with COJ, I have spoken with Rolf Furuli. I have never read all of COJ's book. I have read every word of the last two books by Furuli. I have not "stated" that COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower, which is why you will not find such a statement.
Your claim that I stated that "COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower" reminds me of J.F.Rutherford. Rutherford was not impugning the credibility of the Watchtower itself just because he found more evidence for a new teaching. Was Rutherford saying that his doctrine of 1925 has more credibility than Watch Tower's doctrine of 1914 just because he said: [2nd quotation corrected in late edit. Thanks Allen Smith.]
"The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; . . ." — The Watchtower, July 15, 1924, p. 211.
"The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile Times. . . . The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures [than 1914] because it is fixed by the Law God gave to Israel." — The Watchtower, September 1, 1922, p. 262.
". . . the dates impart a much greater strength than can be found in other chronologies. Some of them are of so remarkable a character as clearly to indicate that this chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct. INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED. When a date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. . . . when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance . . . and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty. PROOF OF DIVINE ORIGIN. . . . this is proof of divine origin and that the system is not a human invention . . . — "The Strong Cable of Chronology" The Watchtower, July 15, 1922, p.217, 218.
QUESTION AND ANSWER: Have we more reason, or as much, to believe the Kingdom will be established in 1925 than Noah had to believe that there would be a flood? [Answer] Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. . . we expect such a climax in the affairs of the world . . . He is already present. . . . He is dashing to pieces the nations. . . .As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had . . . upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." — The Watchtower, April 1, 1923, p.106
"When you take up a more advanced study of the Bible, you will find that the year 1925 A. D. is particularly marked in prophecy." The Way to Paradise, p.220
No, he was not disparaging the Watchtower for having taught 1914. He was not putting one person as more credible than the Watchtower, because he obviously still accepted the Watchtower, and even though all the expectations for 1914 had failed, he still thought that there was evidence that something about 1914 was still true. Was Rutherford really saying that 1925 was more credible than 1914, or just saying that there was more evidence for 1925 than for 1914?
Similarly, I'm saying that there is more evidence against the 1914 doctrine than there is for it. Just like Rutherford, I think that multiple lines of evidence begin to make a proposition less an indication of chance, and more an indication of certainty. I am not using this to disparage the Watchtower in general which is right on many more things than it has been wrong about. Also, note that I am not even saying that the nearly 100% of experts (perhaps there are thousands) in the field of chronology need to be right. After all, Rutherford was not right about 1925 nor even about most of the other dates he referred to as "unqualifiedly correct." Nothing about my faith changes if secular experts show how the chronology corroborates the Bible (which it does) or if it supposedly "proved" the Bible incorrect (which it doesn't). Even if all the potential thousands of experts could prove it was 607 when Jerusalem was destroyed, it still would have no effect on my faith, for Biblical reasons. I have faith that Jesus was correct when he said that no one would be able to put a date on the parousia.
On 8/5/2017 at 0:47 PM, AllenSmith said:as someone mentioned has become a “PET” project for him. Once again, I hope is it crystal clear, I’m in FULL accord with the Watchtower for over 50 years, and as a theologian, I refute, past claims by others and Poster, as I did with “Raymond Franz” back in the day to his face. Perhaps a research on this forum from other threads will aid your candor.
I have never said it was a "PET" project. If I have a "PET" project, it has been to show that the Kingdom is one of the primary themes of the Bible, and that even the Hebrew Scriptures pointed to a Messiah who turned out to be identifiable in his day as Jesus Christ, and how this truth was revealed in such a way, even if it was a "sacred secret" that it was unavoidable and undeniable for the persons of his generation. But that is not a project that I have discussed much about yet on this forum. What I am doing here is sharing things I learned from other Witnesses years ago, didn't particularly want to believe, but which became undeniable to me after thorough study and prayerful consideration. It's not necessary that anyone follow it or believe it, but my conscience tells me that I should at least share in the things learned. New information is being found on this subject all the time, and I think some have had difficulty fitting this new cloth or new wine onto the old framework of the 1914 doctrine. I think the information shared might help these brothers and sisters. Others will have no use for it, which is OK, too:
(Matthew 9:16, 17) . . .Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old outer garment, for the new piece pulls away from the garment and the tear becomes worse. 17 Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins. If they do, then the wineskins burst and the wine spills out and the wineskins are ruined. But people put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
(Matthew 13:52) . . .every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”
A research on this forum from other threads will definitely and consistently show this to be the case.
- ComfortMyPeople and Nana Fofana
-
1
-
1
-
Your style of response is not clear. I'm not sure if that was on purpose, but I will do my best to comment by including comments interspersed within the quotation of your post below. Your comments are in blue, so mine will be formatted in black, primarily. I don't know who is doing the asserting of all the dates you quote, and I assume there may at times be more than one possible reading or supposition about certain dates. If I recognize the specific secular date as one in which research provides evidence that it is correct and that it also finds support in the Bible, I will label it "Bible-supported secular date(s)." 539 for the capture of Babylon is a Bible-supported secular date which you and others have agreed with, too. 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem is a non-Bible supported, non-secular date for that event. 607 for the rebellion of Jehoiakim might come within a year or so of the Bible-supported secular date synchronized with that event. (I have never worried about arguing over +-1 or even +-2 years in some cases.)
1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:Example 2: The assertions with dates.
Whose assertions? Yours? Secularized? Suggested as improvements over the Watchtower's dates? Likely the presentation that both the secular and the Watchtower version of the chronology may both have enough merit to get you to the same point in 607 as a start of the downfall that brings destruction and desolation on Jerusalem. Even from two different perspectives 607 is reachable.
Appointments ran concurrently after the death of King Josiah 609BC
*** it-2 p. 118 Josiah ***
Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.)You are using the Bible-supported secular dates here. The Insight book calls this date 629, not 609. (I know you are already aware that these dates use the secular basis, but not everyone will be aware of that.)
Egyptian appointed vessel Jehoahaz 3 months 609BC
*** it-1 p. 1265 Jehoahaz ***
Jehoahaz was 23 years old when made king, and he ruled badly for three months in the early part of the year 628 B.C.EYou are using 609; likely a Bible-supported secular date. Insight shows 628.
Babylonian appointed vessel Jehoiakim 609BC
*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
Jehoiakim’s bad rule of about 11 years (628-618 B.C.E.)You are using 609; likely a Bible-supported secular date; Insight uses 628.
1.609/8BC 2.608/7BC 3.607/6BC = 3 years 2 Kings 24:1
2 Kings 24:1 Context: Babylon Controls Jehoiakim
1In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 607/6BC
2 Kings 24:2 Context: Babylon Controls Jehoiakim 607/6BC
2The LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Arameans, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken through His servants the prophets
Note from JWI: This is not the only way to count the years, as you know, but as I said before, this is not a place where I will quibble over 1 or even 2 years. You are still using the Biblically-supported secular years, here. Not the Watchtower's. In fact one method of counting starting from the Watchtower's date of 608/7 as year one, could also consider this to be a "0th year" so that 608/7 is the starting point of counting and 607/6 is the first year, 606/5 is the second year, and 605/4 is the third year. This is still not too far out of reach to make your point, but it does appear that the latter method might come a little closer to the Biblically-supported secular accuracy, since other evidence doesn't have Nebuchadnezzar coming up until 605 and 604 might have been his first full regnal year.
So, 2 Kings 24:2 indicates Jehoiakim rebelled after 3 years. However, it doesn’t “State” that Prince (King) Nebuchadnezzar would set out to “DESTROY” Judah. Daniel states in Daniel 1:1 that King Nebuchadnezzar “Besieged” Jerusalem. The Destruction would come from GOD through the prophets by means of “missionaries” from many nations. So, it could be said that “destruction” commenced in 607/6BC
Note from JWI: This is very close to the way I understand it. However, I also understand that Babylon (not necessarily Nebuchadnezzar specifically) was given its surest path to rising power after Assyria began to fall in 612 and therefore especially through 609. The specific actions that would start against Judah and Jerusalem need not start immediately, just as with Tyre in the prophecy of Isaiah. But I do believe that the first desolations began about when you say, within a year or so of 606.
Now under secular history, King Nebuchadnezzar was NOT yet King until 2 years later. Then Prince Nebuchadnezzar could have been foreseen as King since the “Prince” had already started commanding his own ARMY before he became King. Another indication of the Prince being seen as King as a “General” and “Commander”, alongside King Nabopolassar.(Co-Regent)
Note from JWI: Never had a problem with that. I have suggested it as a possibility in a thread a couple years ago. Also note that in the Bible "Nebuchadnezzar" became almost synonymous with the dynasty, even to the point where his successors were spoken of as if they were his son and grandson. So it is even possible that anyone from Babylon or through Babylon's permission even, could be counted, even Nabopolassar. But I think your suggestion here is more likely.
Another thing secular history doesn’t consider is, King Nabopolassar was becoming frail and ill. Another reason why Prince Nebuchadnezzar might have stepped in for his Father to take “control” of the matters of state at that time. History does show Prince Nebuchadnezzar “racing” back” to Babylon upon hearing of his father’s death. A feat he accomplished in just 3 weeks in 605BC from Carchemish to Babylon according to history. 1,167 kilometers that would take a mere 15 hours today, but according to opposers, Nebuchadnezzar had the best of the best, top of the line super fast “horses” back then.
Note from JWI: I don't know why you say history doesn't consider this. It's such a common historical feature of dynasties and intrigues and in the avoidance of potential coups. Also, I don't know why you need to focus on "opposers." Remember, if you are the one taking a stand against a bit of historical evidence then you are the "opposer." As I've said before, it wouldn't surprise me if there was just a bit of exaggeration here. But the main point is that he raced back in order to claim the throne within 3 weeks. So what if it took him 4 weeks? It was usual for the top horses to be assigned to the King's family, and we have no reason to doubt that he was already a wealthy prince.
Now common sense should dictate that King Nabopolassar didn’t hand over the “reign” to Prince Nebuchadnezzar? Since he was already dead, so, that last will and testament must have been given to Nebuchadnezzar earlier by “Proclamation” to all within Nabopolassar government. However, there is a suggestion in history to indicate before someone from the royal line received the royal crown? The next in line needed to be seated on the throne which gave the Prince the urgency to return home.
Reasonable.
So, could Jeremiah have seen Prince Nebuchadnezzar as King? YES! It could also be that on the 19-year indicated in scripture, it could be referring to the 19-secular year of Nabopolassar.
For the first part, Yes. For the second part, NO. I already know why you think it is possible from previous posts and hints, but I can give several good reasons why it isn't going to work out. Not yet, not now, however.
Now, apostates, skeptics, and opposers argue that 587BC is the actual destruction of Jerusalem. However, what they don’t see is their own “errors” if we use their secular history to “prove” 607/6BC to be CORRECT. If one takes Jeremiah 52:12-17 Context: The Temple and the City Burned
Again, what's all this reference to apostates, skeptics, and opposers? People who have full faith in the Bible also believe that 587 (+- 1 year) is the correct date. I believe it and I am very happy that the Bible is corroborated by secular records and archaeology. We don't need such corroboration to have faith in the Bible, but it is a good thing to remember when discussing the Bible with skeptics. Also, it might not sound right to you, but almost ALL persons who have studied the chronology of this period use the 587 +-1/yr date. That makes you and most other Witnesses, the "opposers." And while we are at it, we are all apostates from our prior beliefs. This includes yourself. If you once believed, for example, that the FDS was the entire remnant of the 144,000 at any given time on earth, and you now believe they are only the GB, that makes you an apostate from your prior belief system. The same is true of those who have made a 20 year adjustment in when they believe that Jerusalem was destroyed. That includes me.
Again, however your specific point about how their secular history can be used to "prove" 607/6 to be correct is not really a new point, is it? Anyone who ends the 70 years around 539 is probably starting it around 609/8 which is only a couple years different. You can't use the terms "errors" or "prove" in your context above, because it's not necessarily that accurate, but I agree that it's close enough to consider.
Jeremiah 52:12-17 Context: The Temple and the City Burned
12 Nebuzaradan served the king of Babylon. In fact, he was commander of the royal guard. He came to Jerusalem. It was in the 19th year that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon. It was on the tenth day of the fifth month. 13 Nebuzaradan set the Lord’s temple on fire. He also set fire to the royal palace and all the houses in Jerusalem. He burned down every important building. 14 The armies of Babylon broke down all the walls around Jerusalem. That’s what the commander told them to do. 15 Some of the poorest people still remained in the city along with the others. But the commander Nebuzaradan took them away as prisoners. He also took the rest of the skilled workers. That included the people who had joined the king of Babylon. 16 But Nebuzaradan left the rest of the poorest people of the land behind. He told them to work in the vineyards and fields. 17 The armies of Babylon destroyed the Lord’s temple. They broke the bronze pillars into pieces. They broke up the bronze stands that could be moved around. And they broke up the huge bronze bowl. Then they carried away all the bronze to Babylon.
When we go backward 19 years? We end up with 606BC. An inconsistent date for the acclaimed and famous years 587BC. A one-year difference on the proposed secular enthronement of Prince Nebuchadnezzar of 605BC.
Exactly (almost). By one way of counting, at least. I'm not getting why this would be a problem for anyone.
So, here we can see that Jeremiah is correct to start Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in 607/6BC. The 19 years referred to in scripture is actually the “time” given for the destruction of Judah by many incursions(Invasions-Attacks) that were made by the Babylonians and other nations.
It doesn't bother me, either.
Even if we extrapolate the 19 years from Nabopolassar Reign 626/5BC when Nebuchadnezzar became king according to scripture, it would end up in 607/6BC, and that was the “intent” that Jeremiah proposed in 2 King 24:2 by the defiance of King Jehoiakim in 607/6BC 3 years after he was made King, and was echoed by Daniel.
if you change scripture to Watchtower or WTS, then you could say that 626/5 was when Nebuchadnezzar became king according to the WTS. But I'm not so concerned with this theory. It's not necessary, and doesn't fit the evidence. And ultimately it doesn't fit the Bible, which is the best reason to reject it.
Here, of course, opposers would suggest the Watchtower would be wrong given secular facts, however, thier secular facts are inconsistent with their own secular chronological order as well. That's why scripture is more credible without actually being there, which many secular historians thrive on.
Just a plainly false statement. The secular chronology in this case shows that the scriptures are credible.
Therefore, suggesting one shouldn’t be dogmatic about 607BC, 1914AD, should also be accepted then, about the years 587BC and 539BC, that has been a "PET" project and a theme for about 2 years now. Opposers also suggest the Watchtower makes adjustments to fit their theory, while SECULAR history by means of opposers does the same, such as in VAT4956, 568BC.
Completely agree, of course, that one shouldn't be dogmatic about 607 or 1914. Dates of any kind, but especially the uses made from 587, 607, 539 and 1914 have absolutely no effect on my faith. If the Watchtower continues to make adjustments to their theory, I'm listening closely. It takes a lot of humility to admit a mistake after 120 years, but they have already humbly admitted to literally hundreds of them, and I'm sure those won't be the last.
-
6 hours ago, Arauna said:
I believe the Bible to be correct and I think the slave has done some excellent research. ... Go and read Chronology in the Insight Book and you will see the many different reasons and calculations they use for getting to the same year that most secular historians as well as the Jewish scholars reach as 539 BCE- and Jewish scholars also put the return at 537 BCE.
The Insight book goes into the many eclipses etc..... and it also goes into the counting of the years which you refer to as 19 years ..... because there is no year 0 and also cardinal and ordinal numbers also changes the months and possibly the year....It also gives the secular sources of the year 539 etc etc... Read the entire Chronology section PLEASE!
I am sure that after you have read the evidence you will rethink some of your own ideas.... and hopefully those persons who agree with you as well!
Yes, I believe the Bible to be correct, too, of course, and I agree that in the Insight book we have a wealth of excellent research. I am re-reading the Chronology article there and am looking at ALL the different reasons and calculations they use for getting to 539 BCE. I will go ahead and read the entire Chronology section again before I hit "Submit Reply." I will give it a completely open mind, and will only make notes that are positive and supportive of the article along the way.
...
...
...
Not done yet! I have read it twice before, and very carefully at that! But I'm giving it another go and will not be done before tomorrow, perhaps noon. I did see your last post as a reminder.
-
2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:
Since the "librarian" doesn't allow me to confront questions given to me by the regular commentators that are defended by the moderator? I can simply say the Watchtower is correct to suggest the disciple's interest was of establishing an earthly kingdom NOT a heavenly Kingdom. So, the suggestion of the disciples having considered an invisible kingdom or the return of Christ(Invisibly) has been distorted for that time period. Reread my post, thank you!
As far as I know, this first sentence is not true. Whenever anyone wishes to confront a question you have all the leeway you need, exactly as everyone else does. It's always been up to you if you wish to respond to a question or not. When I re-read your post, I have the same question because you didn't answer it. It's not a problem if you don't wish to or even if you have some other agenda, like the one you point out below.
2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:My only concern here is to allow visitors to this website NOT read here what they would normally be accustomed to reading in apostate sites. If anyone wishes to refute my comments, then do so by the grace of God, not by past understandings that have been revised to meet the needs and understanding by each generation.
I understand your concern. But if you are saying that the information I stated was a "past understanding" then I never saw or remember the place where this "past" understanding was ever corrected. I think I know of a couple of Watchtower articles that imply that there could have been a few different ideas in the minds of the disciples, but there has not been any clear statement that the disciples asked the question with the idea that these words about a parousia or a synteleia would refer to an invisible presence. Yet, we do have this clear statement that they had no idea about an invisible presence.
If you are saying that your only concern or agenda here was some kind of obfuscation to highlight the idea that this kind of discussion reminds you of apostate content, then I can assure you that it is based solely on Biblical study, prayer, research, and reason, and a very strong attempt to give all possible "benefit of the doubt" to the Watch Tower publications first.
-
2 minutes ago, Anna said:
Are you sure about that, that they refuse?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
-
I appreciate the scriptures you quoted as they completely coincide with these same points already made. But I can't quite figure out why you also said the following at the top of your post before you mentioned the scriptural points:
1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:Example 1: of many disingenuous comments by the “POSTER” that would be in error to suggest Jesus disciples were unaware of Christ invisible return in Matthew since that “wasn’t” something they had in mind at that time. [. . . .] Therefore, the reference of the Watchtower admitting of something they hadn’t considered themselves is inconsistent with the Watchtower teachings.
I already agree 100% with the portion I left out, [ . . . ] but I'm wondering what the remaining part means. Are you saying you just don't like the word "admitting," or are you saying that when the Watchtower said the following, below, that they were actually wrong or they were inconsistent with their own teachings?
*** w64 9/15 p. 575 Questions From Readers ***
At Matthew 24:3, when Jesus’ disciples asked him about the “sign” of his presence, what did they have in mind, since later events show that they did not at that time understand that it would be an invisible presence? . . . [Answer]. . . But not yet having received holy spirit, they did not appreciate that he would not sit on an earthly throne; they had no idea that he would rule as a glorious spirit from the heavens and therefore did not know that his second presence would be invisibleIf so, in what way were they wrong? In what way were they inconsistent? Is there a place where the Watchtower changed its view and said that the disciples actually were concerned about a possible invisible presence?
Matthew 24. Is the INVISIBLE PAROUSIA doctrine based on less likely, special definitions of SIGN, PAROUSIA, CONCLUSION, LIGHTNING, GENERATION, and "GENTILE TIMES"?
in Topics
Posted
Obviously, Revelation doesn't identify the enthronement as the Parousia, so that this first sentence (on its own) comes close to a type of circular reasoning. It's like saying "I don't believe they are separate because when Revelation mentions one of the two events, I don't believe they are separate there, either. Of course, I know you are focusing on the "short while" from an enthronement to the time the Parousia is over. (Which is at the end of the thousand year reign, per your posts.) But you are still defining Parousia according to beliefs that are not stated in Scripture.
The Bible says that Jesus reigning as king is the equivalent of "sitting at God's right hand." We should have already known that from all the references to his Kingship in the first century. He is called "King of Kings" not the future King of Kings. He is said to have been given a position above all governments and lordships and above every name named when he sat down at the right hand of God.
Remember, please, that 1914 was supposed to be the true "end of the Gentile Times" which should be defined as the time when "he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power." That's actually how it was defined when it was predicted for 1914. (And then 1915, and then 1918, and then 1925.) So the "predicted" end of the Gentile Times never occurred in 1914 anyway.
But Jesus was already enthroned at his resurrection when he sat down at the right hand of God. The claim that this was just over his congregation is not scriptural:
(Matthew 28:18) . . .“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
(Ephesians 1:20, 21) . . .Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.
(Hebrews 1:3) . . .he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
(Hebrews 7:2) . . .First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.”
(Hebrews 8:1) . . .he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
(1 Timothy 6:15) . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,
(Revelation 1:4, 5) . . ., 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”. . .
(Revelation 2:26) 26 And to the one who conquers and observes my deeds down to the end, I will give authority over the nations,
(Revelation 3:21) 21 To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Of course, there are many more Scriptures than that, but there is one particular one, that might be especially relevant here:
(1 Corinthians 15:23-26) 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence [or, AT HIS PAROUSIA]. 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
Notice how Paul replaces the phrase "He will sit at God's right hand" with "he must rule as king." In fact, notice that when the Gentile Times are over Paul refers to it as "the end" as in, the final end, not merely a conclusion or a 100+ year presence. Christ is resurrected, then those who belong to Christ are resurrected at his parousia to join him in the destruction of those Gentile governments and authorities and powers.
Until that time those who belong to the Christ (spritual Israel: "Jerusalem") have been warred upon and trampled upon by the Gentile, but they join him in battling and putting an end to all Gentile rulership:
(Revelation 13:7) . . .permitted to wage war with the holy ones and conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. [Gentiles]
(Revelation 17:14) 14 These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.”
(Revelation 2:26, 27) . . .And to the one who conquers and observes my deeds down to the end, I will give authority over the nations,[Gentiles] 27 and he will shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels, just as I have received from my Father.
The specific argument made from the term "short while" is not definitive. That's because from Jehovah's perspective, the time has been short since the last days began.
(1 Peter 1:4-6) . . ., 5 who are being safeguarded by God’s power through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last period of time. 6 Because of this you are greatly rejoicing, though for a short time. . .
(1 Corinthians 7:29) 29 Moreover, this I say, brothers, the time left is reduced.. . .
(1 Peter 4:7) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. Therefore, be sound in mind, and be vigilant with a view to prayers.
(Romans 13:11) 11 And do this because you know the season, that it is already the hour for you to awake from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than at the time when we became believers.
(Revelation 1:3) 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.
In fact, the Devil knew that he was in the last days when Jesus already saw him fall like lightning, and this is why the Devil has worked against Christians for the short period of time ever since.
(1 Peter 5:7-10) . . .. 8 Keep your senses, be watchful! Your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone. 9 But take your stand against him, firm in the faith, knowing that the same kind of sufferings are being experienced by the entire association of your brothers in the world. 10 But after you have suffered a little while, the God of all undeserved kindness, who called you to his everlasting glory in union with Christ, will himself finish your training.. . .
Does this not describe the Devil as angry, "seeking to devour" yet for Christians, they know that he has only a "short period of time" so that they suffer only a "little while"?
Remember that Revelation need not prophesy the future in every case, but can also "reveal" things from a heavenly perspective. Of course, these truths are not always limited to a specific period of time, either. It is just as likely that these same truths come to a more complete fulfillment at the very end, and even more finally definitive again at the end of the thousand years, when "nations" are mentioned again.
Revelation can still mean several different things, just as our own Watch Tower publications have given different meanings to the same verses many times over the last 140 years or so. We can't know the final meaning of it yet, but we should no better than to try to force it to contradict other scriptures.
And one of those contradictions is the idea that Jesus said not to look for signs like wars, earthquakes, pestilence and famine. He said these things would continue to take place, but these are NOT signs of the final end (synteleia). These are the very kinds of things that Jesus said would mislead us. And the reason, is pretty obvious from the rest of the chapter: because a thief gives no sign that he is about to break into your house. The parousia must come as a surprise. People will go along and do the kinds of things they have always been doing, just like they did in the days of Noah and Sodom. But the real and final end, the synteleia, will come as a surprise. Therefore, the SIGN is the sign of the Son of Man.
I believe this too, only I think that all these things have have glimpses of fulfillment from the very first century:
(1 Corinthians 10:11) 11 Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.
It absolutely was. Note that Daniel was sealed up until the time of the end when Jesus arrived upon the earth and what we needed to know about the future could then all be revealed at that time. In fact, this is why Revelation is written at the time when all the scrolls could be unsealed, because the time had arrived:
(Galatians 4:4) 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son. . .
(Ephesians 1:8-10) 8 This undeserved kindness he caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and understanding 9 by making known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed 10 for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. . . .
All prophecy pointed to Christ. The full limit of the appointed times arrived, and there is nothing more to measure by means of chronology. If there were, it would contradict dozens of scriptures, many of which have been previously mentioned.