JW Insider

29 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

It coincides with Daniel 7:13,14,

As an aside, take note of which kingdom this fourth beast must refer to.

(Daniel 7:14-22) 14 And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed. 15 “As for me, Daniel, my spirit was distressed within me because the visions of my head frightened me. 16 I went near to one of those who were standing there to ask him about the true meaning of this. So he replied and made known to me the interpretation of these things. 17 “‘These huge beasts, four in number, are four kings who will stand up from the earth. 18 But the holy ones of the Supreme One will receive the kingdom, and they will possess the kingdom forever, yes, forever and ever.’ 19 “Then I wanted to know more about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others; it was extraordinarily fearsome, with iron teeth and copper claws, and it was devouring and crushing, and trampling down what was left with its feet; 20 and about the ten horns on its head, and the other horn that came up and before which three fell, the horn that had eyes and a mouth speaking arrogantly and whose appearance was bigger than that of the others. 21 “I kept watching as that horn made war on the holy ones, and it was prevailing against them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of the Supreme One, and the appointed time arrived for the holy ones to take possession of the kingdom. 23 "This is what he said: 'As for the fourth beast, there is a fourth kingdom that will come to be on the earth...'"

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

3 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

But the Revelation was given by God to Jesus then to John in the last decade of the first century after Jesus' ascension and He said the things were to take place shortly (2Pet 3:8); not about things that were already in effect like Jesus sitting at God's right hand which occurred in 33CE. 

But Revelation also includes revelations about things that have already occurred.

Note that the expressions about Jesus' power and salvation and authority and kingdom are part of the introduction to Revelation, before any vision has been recorded:

(Revelation 1:5, 6) May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood— 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.

This is also about past events which had already made those who conquered to be a kingdom. Jesus had already set them free from sins (salvation) by his own blood. He was already the firstborn from the dead, the King of Kings, the Faithful Witness. He is called the Lamb as a reference to this past event. Jesus was already called King of Kings in this introduction.

Much of what John sees is not just things to come in the future, but also "things that are" -- things already true.

(Revelation 1:19) 19 So write down the things you saw, and the things that are, and the things that will take place after these.

This is a feature of "revelation" in the Bible, where sometimes what is revealed is what has already happened or is currently happening. Note that this is true when the "curtain" is peeled back at the start of the book of Job. It's even part of the revelation explained by Micaiah mentioned earlier. Granted that the overall goal of Revelation is all about how these things that are true will culminate in the future for a final fulfillment, but this does not discount all the verses that show that salvation, kingdom, power and authority were already given to Jesus at his resurrection and his sitting at God's right hand. The idea that Revelation is really about Jehovah's control of the entire "sweeping history of Christianity" past, present and future, is also implied in names like "the first and the last" and above, "the One who is, and who was, and who is coming."

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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

Just in case anyone might not have been familiar with some of the verses mentioned in the bullet point list at the beginning of this discussion, we could spell out a few and add some more:

AUTHORITY

(Matthew 28:18) 18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.

(Ephesians 1:19-21) 19 and how surpassing the greatness of his power is toward us believers. It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 which he exercised toward 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.

(Colossians 1:11-16) 11 and may you be strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may endure fully with patience and joy, 12 as you thank the Father, who made you qualify to share in the inheritance of the holy ones in the light. 13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. . . .

POWER

(Matthew 26:64) . . .“You yourself said it. But I say to you: From now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

(Mark 9:1-7) . . .“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 Kingdom of God already having come in power.” 2 Six days later Jesus took Peter and James and John along and led them up into a lofty mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them; 3 his outer garments began to glisten, becoming far whiter than any clothes cleaner on earth could whiten them. 4 Also, E·liʹjah with Moses appeared to them, and they were conversing with Jesus. 5 Then Peter said to Jesus: “Rabbi, it is fine for us to be here. So let us erect three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for E·liʹjah.” 6 In fact, he did not know how to react, for they were quite fearful. 7 And a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud: “This is my Son, the beloved. Listen to him.”

(Romans 1:3, 4) 3 concerning his Son, who came to be from the offspring of David according to the flesh, 4 but who with power was declared God’s Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead—yes, Jesus Christ our Lord.

(Romans 1:16) 16 For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

(1 Corinthians 1:24) 24 However, to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

(Ephesians 1:19-21) [already listed under authority]  It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 which he exercised toward 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.

(Colossians 1:11-16) [already listed under authority] 11 and may you be strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may endure fully with patience and joy, . . .13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. . . .

(Hebrews 1:3) 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and 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.

(2 Peter 1:16-18) . . .we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather, we were eyewitnesses of his magnificence. 17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory when words such as these were conveyed to him by the magnificent glory: “This is my Son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved.” 18 Yes, these words we heard coming from heaven while we were with him in the holy mountain.

KINGDOM

The topic of Kingdom was already included in another topic a few months ago, listing at least a dozen scriptures. But I will include a couple here:

(Matthew 27:11) 11 Jesus now stood before the governor, and the governor put the question to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus replied: “You yourself say it.”

(1 Timothy 6:15) . . .He [Jesus] is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,

(Revelation 1:5) . . .Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”. . .

(1 Corinthians 15:24, 25) 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.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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

I cannot state anything succinctly. But I can start out with a shorter answer and then expand on it later with a longer one.

I feel the announcement in Revelation 12:10 did not take place in 1914 because the Bible is VERY clear that this was not the year that the salvation and the power and kingdom of our God the authority of his Christ came to pass.

What was the occasion and event through which salvation came to pass? Clearly, at the latest, it was the year when Jesus died and was resurrected. So this chapter of Revelation is apparently referring to the time when the announcement about salvation came to pass. When was it? One might claim that it was when Jesus' birth was announced and it could therefore be announced that Jesus (meaning Jehovah is Salvation) would be bringing salvation to Israel and to the world. Was Satan angry at Jesus' birth? [Yes] Did Jesus come through the nation of Israel as God's woman [Yes], whose symbols were the moon and stars? [Yes]

Whether it was at his birth, the announcement through John, his ministry or through his death, there is Biblical evidence that the time period belongs here. Remember that the book of Revelation is the most malleable of all books and has been made to mean almost anything anyone would like to make from it. (Even our most recent book on Revelation is already out of date, and you could probably be disfellowshipped if you insisted on teaching obsolete portions of the 1963 Babylon Book, and you could scarcely find even one full page that's still considered to be true in the Revelation commentary (The Finished Mystery) that was considered to be truth back in 1917.)

So the best places to start understanding Revelation are going to be in the parts of the Bible that are outside of Revelation. So we start with the topic of salvation, because the announcement said that salvation came to pass at the same time as the authority and power and kingdom.

SALVATION

(Luke 19:9-11) 9 At this Jesus said to him: “Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save what was lost.” 11 While they were listening to these things, he told another illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they thought that the Kingdom of God was going to appear instantly.

(Luke 3:4-6) . . .“A voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah! Make his roads straight. 5 Every valley must be filled up, and every mountain and hill leveled; the crooked ways must become straight, and the rough ways smooth; 6 and all flesh will see the salvation of God.’”

(Luke 2:30-34) 30 because my eyes have seen your means of salvation 31 that you have prepared in the sight of all the peoples, 32 a light for removing the veil from the nations and a glory of your people Israel.” 33 And the child’s father and mother continued wondering at the things being spoken about him. 34 Also, Simʹe·on blessed them and said to Mary, the child’s mother: “Look! This child is appointed for the falling and the rising again of many in Israel . . .

(Luke 1:68-80) . . .“Let Jehovah be praised, the God of Israel, because he has turned his attention to his people and has brought them deliverance. 69 And he has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David his servant, 70 just as he has spoken through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, 71 of a salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all those hating us; . . . 79 to give light to those sitting in darkness and death’s shadow and to guide our feet in the way of peace.” 80 And the young child grew up and became strong in spirit, and he continued in the desert until the day he showed himself openly to Israel.

(Acts 4:12) 12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”

(Acts 28:27, 28) . . .’ 28 So let it be known to you that this salvation from God has been sent out to the nations; . . .

(Romans 1:16) 16 For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

(2 Corinthians 6:2) 2 For he says: “In an acceptable time I heard you, and in a day of salvation I helped you.” Look! Now is the especially acceptable time. Look! Now is the day of salvation.

(2 Timothy 2:10-12) 10 For this reason I go on enduring all things for the sake of the chosen ones, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is through Christ Jesus, along with everlasting glory. 11 This saying is trustworthy: Certainly if we died together, we will also live together; 12 if we go on enduring, we will also rule together as kings;. . .

(1 Peter 1:10, 11) 10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the undeserved kindness meant for you made a diligent inquiry and a careful search. 11 They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow.

For the most part the announcement of salvation was the announcement of the "good news" (the "good announcement"). We know that by the time Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, he could announce that "Now is the day of salvation."

It would be superfluous to say that another time would come up prior to the judgment and resurrection that somehow superseded this good news about salvation through Christ from the first century. In fact, it could even be said to contradict what Paul and others were saying. So I see no reason to claim that the announcement of Paul and Jesus had only a limited scope, or wasn't really true when they said it, but had to wait until some future date. Also, it would seem very presumptuous and haughty to negate the direct words of the Bible just so that it could be applied to a time when no one even noticed that Jesus had begun a presence, or had begun reigning.

POWER, AUTHORITY AND KINGDOM

And then we have all the Bible evidence that Jesus began reigning at the time when he began ruling as king -- which Paul says was when he sat down at the right hand of God.

And then we also have all the Bible evidence that Jesus was given all power and authority in the same year he died after his resurrection and his being seated at the right hand of God.

All this gives the impression that, in order to support 1914, we have been willing to contradict all the scriptures outside of Revelation just so that we can make a claim that fits a theory about a verse inside of Revelation.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

so if 607 BCE is such a clunker, how did it get to be a foundation in the first place?

That's just it. It wasn't a foundation in the first place. The "foundation in the first place" was something called "Israel's Double" based on a now debunked idea that Israel would get a "double" amount of time, resulting in a parallel dispensation between Israel and Christianity, the Old and the New. Many Second Adventists scrambled quickly for new explanations after William Miller's spectacular failure. Miller had predicted Christ's Return in 1844, based mostly on the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14, coupled with the idea that the 7th Millennium had just dawned (6,000 years from Adam).

One of several popular updates to Miller's chronology, was to fix the start of the Millennium to 1872. Then "Israel's Double" counting from the death of Jacob (a.k.a. "Israel") to the death of Jesus in 33 C.E. gave the length of Israel's first dispensation (era/age). That was calculated to be 1,845 years. Adding 1,845 years to the year 33 C.E. showed that the second dispensation would end in 1878. 1845+33=1878.

But that was when Jesus had become King in 33 C.E. and therefore King again in 1878. Jesus became "present" as the Christ back in 29/30 C.E. and therefore also in 1874. But the preaching to Israel could last until 70 C.E. which was a full 40 years from the time Jesus started preaching after his baptism. Therefore, this was one of the reasons to believe in a 40 year "harvest" that would last from 1874 to 1914 (as it did from 30 to 70).

Therefore the October 1889 Watch Tower, and Volume II of Millennial Dawn (also in 1889), and several other issues of Zion's Watch Tower repeatedly spoke of "Israel's Double" especially since that time.

With this all in mind, recall our statements and the Scripture testimonies on the subject of Israel's double;--that the first part, from the beginning of the nation at the death of Jacob to the rejection of the nation at the death of Christ, was a period of 1845 years of waiting for the promised kingdom, during which they had divine favor and supervision (discipline, etc.); and that when they then rejected and crucified the Redeemer, they were sentenced to a "double" or repetition of their already long period of waiting --during which God would show them no favor, manifest no interest in them. Every Jew of intelligence and piety is able to recognize the fulfilment of these predictions of the prophets.--Zech. 9:12;Jer. 16:18; Isa. 40:2.

And note the fact so pointedly marked --that where their double of waiting for the Kingdom expired, the kingdom did come in 1878; which we think MILLENNIAL DAWN, Vol. II., clearly proves from the Scriptures.

And this must have been pretty convincing because the February 1890 Watch Tower prints approving letters about how persons have been responding to these latest publications. (Dawn content was also included as a replacement for the content of some recent Watch Tower issues in 1889.)  One person responded by trying to sell off everything and giving what was left over that he could offer to the Watch Tower:

DEAR BROTHER RUSSELL:--After reading Dawn, Vol. II., the chapters on "The Times of the Gentiles," "The Jubilee Cycles," Israel's Double and the Time Chronology, I became convinced that we are indeed in the time of the harvest, while the chapter on the manner of our Lord's second coming and the harmony of present indications leaves no room for even a doubt. Then in place of marrying and settling down, as I undoubtedly would have done, I sold off my personal property, paid all my indebtedness except a mortgage on some land, to engage in this harvest work. As I have not as yet been able to sell the land, and it being mostly unimproved will not rent for enough to pay the interest on the mortgage and the taxes, I thought to spend about a week in the spring putting in enough of a crop to pay the expenses of the place till I can sell it. If I can sell it for even a good deal less than I thought it was worth two years ago, I would have a few hundred dollars left to use as an offering to the Lord. My neighbors thought me very foolish at the course I have taken, and when I began to hold up the truth I met with opposition, but our blessed Lord and Saviour suffered without the gates and we may go to him without the camp bearing his reproach. I esteem the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. I will not be afraid of them, neither of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks. Yours in the Lord, W. B__________.

All this is confirmed in the Proclaimers book:

*** jv chap. 28 p. 632 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
Based on the premise that events of the first century might find parallels in related events later, they also concluded that if Jesus’ baptism and anointing in the autumn of 29 C.E. paralleled the beginning of an invisible presence in 1874, then his riding into Jerusalem as King in the spring of 33 C.E. would point to the spring of 1878 as the time when he would assume his power as heavenly King. They also thought they would be given their heavenly reward at that time. When that did not occur, they concluded that since Jesus’ anointed followers were to share with him in the Kingdom, the resurrection to spirit life of those already sleeping in death began then. It was also reasoned that the end of God’s special favor to natural Israel down to 36 C.E. might point to 1881 as the time when the special opportunity to become part of spiritual Israel would close. . . . That 1878 was a year of significance seemed to be fortified by reference to Jeremiah 16:18 (‘Jacob’s double,’ KJ) along with calculations indicating that 1,845 years had apparently elapsed from Jacob’s death down till 33 C.E., when natural Israel was cast off, and that the double, or duplicate, of this would extend from 33 C.E. down to 1878.
Extending the parallels further, it was stated that the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (37 years after Jesus was hailed as king by his disciples when he rode into Jerusalem) might point to 1915 (37 years after 1878) for a culmination of anarchistic upheaval that they thought God would permit as a means for bringing existing institutions of the world to their end. This date appeared in reprints of Studies in the Scriptures. (See Volume II, pages 99-101, 171, 221, 232, 246-7; compare reprint of 1914 with earlier printings, such as the 1902 printing of Millennial Dawn.) It seemed to them that this fitted well with what had been published regarding the year 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times.

By the time of  "Dawn" (Volume II) it was beginning to be a more important part of the 1914 explanation. But even in the chapter on the Gentile Times, from page 73 up to page 90 of that chapter, Daniel 4 is not mentioned, yet, except as a reference to show that sometimes the word "times" can also refer to literal years. This is contrasted at first with the more important use of "seven times" in Leviticus that is a better match to Jesus' use of "times" in Luke 21:24. The real focus on the seven Gentile times was in Leviticus:

Now bear in mind the date already found for the beginning of these Gentile Times--viz., B.C. 606--while we proceed to examine the evidence proving their length to be 2520 years, ending A.D. 1914. . . .  

Turning to Leviticus we find recorded blessings and cursings of an earthly and temporal character. If Israel would obey God faithfully, they would be blessed above other nations; if not, certain evils would befall them. The conclusion is stated thus: "And I will walk among you and be your God, and ye shall be my people;...but if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments, ...I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies; they that hate you shall reign over you." "And ye shall sow your seed in vain; for your enemies shall eat it." "And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, THEN I WILL PUNISH YOU SEVEN TIMES more [further] for your sins." Lev. 26:17,18,24,28

This threat of "seven times" of punishment is mentioned three times. . . .  But these chastisements having failed, he applied the threatened seven times: the crown was permanently removed, and Israel, as well as the whole world, was subject to the beastly powers for seven times. Thus it befell them according to God's warning--"If ye will not yet for all this [previous chastisements] hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times."

. . .  These seven times therefore refer to the length of time during which the Gentiles should rule over them. And to this period of "seven times" our Lord undoubtedly referred when speaking of "the Times of the Gentiles."

The tree dream is finally mentioned, however, at some length, from page 90 to 97. Russell uses it under the heading "Another Line of Testimony." But he admits that it is only through a type-antitype method because in Nebuchadnezzar's case this had referred to literal years:

  . . . the Hebrew word translated "seven times" in Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28, is the same word so translated in Daniel 4:16,23,25,32, except that in Daniel the word iddan is added, whereas in Leviticus it is left to be understood. . . . In Nebuchadnezzar's case they were literal years, but, as we shall yet see, both Nebuchadnezzar and his "seven times" were typical. . . .  True to Daniel's interpretation, we are told that "All this came upon the king, Nebuchadnezzar," and that in this insane, degraded, beastly condition he wandered among the beasts until seven times (seven literal years in his case) passed over him. Daniel's interpretation of the dream relates only to its fulfilment upon Nebuchadnezzar; but the fact that the dream, the interpretation and the fulfilment are all so carefully related here is evidence of an object in its narration. And its remarkable fitness as an illustration of the divine purpose in subjecting the whole race to the dominion of evil for its punishment and correction, that in due time God might restore and establish it in righteousness and everlasting life, warrants us in accepting it as an intended type. . . .  The exact date of Nebuchadnezzar's degradation is not stated, and is of no consequence, because the period of his degradation typified the entire period of Gentile dominion . . . .

I didn't have space to include all the statements that are ironic in their confusion about what Nebuchadnezzar represents. He represented the dominion of all nations, the whole race and dominion of evil. Yet only this Gentile's 7 years of degradation represented Gentile dominion, not his years of actual Gentile domination. His restoration to Gentile dominion therefore would represent the end of Gentile dominion when Jesus (a non-Gentile) is restored to the throne of Israel. 

1914 had already been established more clearly through other methods (which we no longer accept). However, by 1890 Russell was here treating Daniel 4 at least on par with all other evidence. It was a bit better than the treatment in that first article about the seven Gentile times he had published in the Bible Examiner back in October 1876. At best, initially, one could say that the seven times was not "dependent" on Daniel 4 alone, but that Daniel 4 provided supplementary evidence to Leviticus. In fact, Russell spoke of the "seven times" as a less clear method of showing that 1914 would see the end of the great time of trouble Gentile nations had caused. In Bible Examiner, after using mostly Leviticus, but also combined with Daniel 4, he had concluded:

We will ask, but not now answer, another question: If the Gentile Times end in 1914, (and there are many other and clearer evidences pointing to the same time) . . . 

Note, that it was the many other evidences that were clearer than either Leviticus or Daniel 4. These clearer evidences had already been based on 1874 and 1878 which Russell had shown were more sure because they had been indicated through so many different "independent" proofs.

1 hour ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

If people cannot grasp what the understanding was from 1874, 1878, 1881 to 1914, and what the Bible students under the direction of Pastor Russell figured out in 1915, about how the generations before 1914 would not experience?

Before I read your name, Gnosis Pithos, I read your first sentence and still didn't have a clue who you were. The second sentence was an immediate give-away, however, based purely on the style. I even knew exactly what city would come up if I looked up the IP address, which I won't publish here, because not everyone has access to this information. I glanced over at the name, and also recognized it as a name you used a couple years ago on jw-archive, where you also made it clear that it was only one of several alternate names you were using. When I did finally look up the IP, I was a bit surprised that "Gnosis Pithos" used the EXACT same IP address as Allen Smith, AllenSmith and JWTheologian etc, etc. Since your previous explanation was that JWTheologian might be another person in the same household as you, all I can say is that you must have a crowded house.

Anyway, I don't really care about that, I just thought it was a funny experience. But, no matter what, I'm wondering if you might be able to explain some of what you meant. For example, can you explain what the understanding was (from 1874, 1878, 1881 to 1914) that people cannot grasp? What had these Bible students under the direction of Russell figured out in 1915, about how the generations before 1914 would not experience?

53 minutes ago, bruceq said:

The first instance in the Biblical record when rain is specifically mentioned as falling is in the account of the Flood.

True. But what we were avoiding was the explicit statement that "Noah had never seen rain before" which was once considered an article of his faith.

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

but I just don't understand how a central doctrine of the jw faith cannot cause serious concern when it is inconsistent with the Bible.

Most Witnesses still think it is consistent with the Bible. Those who find that it isn't consistent, probably no longer see it as a central doctrine and therefore are able to dismiss it without causing a serious concern. I think it's because there is still so much more to the core teachings, and they might even seem enhanced in value when one critiques the overall set of remaining doctrines.

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

Our attitude towards God’s judgements is what is important as you stated above, if I understand you correctly.  

Absolutely. And I appreciated the comments you added from 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Ezekiel, and Psalms. "Offering ourselves willingly" gets right to the heart, our motivation.

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

In your well researched dissertation, I think you can go a little further to explain these. You usually have much resources.

1.       If you care to, kindly explain this some more for me. I thought it referred to the fact that it didn’t rain, and that the water canopy was suspended above the earth.

“Just as in Noah's day, when the world was apart from the water, then suddenly in the midst of water:

“(2 Peter 3:5, 6) 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with waters.”

I believe you have been a Witness long enough to remember when we often made the point that it had never rained prior to the Flood. It used to be in one of the talk outlines, which was updated to remove it. It's not a point that any publications have repeated for 60 years. (Since the February 15, 1956 QFR.) I mention this because I do not know what the current view is on the physics of the water canopy as described. When I was doing some research on another topic, a member of the Governing Body told me that we had "dropped" the idea that each of the creative days were 7,000 years long, so that the 6 creative days had taken 42,000 years and we were already 6,000+ more years into the 7th rest day: in effect in year 48,004 Anno Mundi* at the time this came up. It was important in the 2/1/1973 Watchtower as a support for 1975 (p.83). But then, even though I was told for sure that this had been dropped and would never be mentioned again, it was mentioned again anyway. (In a January 1, 1987 QFR.)

So my comment wasn't trying to reference the canopy teaching nor to dismiss it. I notice now that it looks like I was paraphrasing verse 5 alone, but I was paraphrasing both 5 and 6 together.

35 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

You must have put a great deal of time into this research. Very much appreciated.

Glad you appreciated it, but it was more like a 'stream of consciousness' dissertation, where I just kept adding comments as I went along, hoping they'd stay fairly close to a central theme. I can't really say I spent any time at all preparing it.

39 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

Though you make your points very well in this dissertation, I still believe, that the previous understanding can go alongside this without doing much harm because as you well pointed out:

“the person is not going to leave Jehovah just because of a perceived delay, but also he is not longing for the day of disaster. Perhaps it refers to the right attitude toward God's judgments.”

If you are referring to the previous set of cross-references, I had no problem with it, but it was easy to misunderstand, for me at least, without more context. I like some of the additional cross-references added in the rNWT. To me they often show a greater depth of thought.

If you are referring specifically to the 1914 doctrine, I can't quite figure out what you mean by "previous" since it is still very much "official" doctrine. Perhaps you meant from my perspective, in which case, I agree that even if the 1914 doctrine, is wrong, or unnecessary, it need not cause "much harm," assuming that we continue to highlight several of the counterbalancing ideas.

I wouldn't even bring it up, however, if I didn't think it had the potential for doing some harm. That's because I believe that Jesus was completely serious when he repeated all those ideas about not knowing the time of his parousia. I believe we feel we have found a loophole by claiming that Jesus really meant to say the time of judgement at the END of the parousia, so that it is somehow OK for us to know the time of the parousia. The problem is that knowing the time would have such an effect on our motivations that any specific types of conduct could be hypocritical. We might easily find ourselves motivated by the closeness of judgment, not purely out of willingness and love. Imagine, therefore, if we had translated the original word genealogies in the following passage with "chronology" which is, in fact, one of the primary uses of genealogies in the Bible.

(1 Timothy 1:3-5) . . .command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to chronology [literally, genealogies]. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.

Verse 5 summarizes pure Christianity, and Jesus made clear that the "moral" of verse 5 was the same "moral" of not knowing the times or seasons of the parousia.

On 11/15/2016 at 5:17 PM, The Librarian said:

It is better to leave the information up so as to squash the false rumor for the next 1000 people.

I think that most people see a collection of eight photos/articles at the bottom of the screen. (I mean the "Powered by Google" grid of articles and/or ads to click on.) We probably don't all see the same selection of 8 items, but in my case it is always heavily slanted to the fake news about JWs, or JW celebrity news, or both (Trump warns Russia over JWs, Jackie Chan is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and this current one, etc.)

It is the one topic I am least interested in, rarely click on, and it always embarrasses me that these types of articles are readily believed by Witnesses, and sometimes even SOURCED by Witnesses.

I understand that there is a certain use to keep such rumors "up" to drive traffic, but is it only gullible traffic that is desired? I have found some of these fake topics to be easily proven untrue in a matter of seconds, but sometimes these things stay up, even after I have shown the poster the proof. (The last one was to @Bible Speaks and there was not even a response.) I've seen this happen with other people also, just as it happened in this thread.

I prefer to not have such articles demeaning the site, but I know that it's at least possible to change the title of this topic, even slightly, to indicate that we all know better. I'm surprised it wasn't changed months ago, or within a couple hours of the initial post.

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

prepping us in the meetings for the BIG ANNOUNCEMENT next year or so which everyone can see coming

I hate to be left out when "everyone" else can see it coming. What "big announcement"?

@Nicole You can be counted as a Witness if you are a publisher, even an unbaptized publisher. Others might say they are Witnesses even if they only agree with Witnesses, and plan [someday] to become one. Some might have some reservations about baptism for their own reasons, perhaps good reasons, perhaps not good.

There was a time when a person was not asked to get rebaptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses if they felt that their previous baptism by members of another religion was still a valid dedication to do Jehovah's will. A person would have to be very old to have come into the organization under those particular circumstances.

I can also think of one person who told me they believed that if a Witness was spirit-anointed, they no longer needed water baptism, because the spirit supersedes the water. (I don't see their evidence for this.)

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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

As usual, I thought that was worded very well and it expresses several excellent points. But it might be useful to highlight that any claim that the year "1914" is found in prophecy is already totally dependent on corroboration of secular academia. That's because there is no such thing as stating any Biblical year in such terms without secular corroboration. That includes 29 CE, 33 CE, 70 CE, 2370 BCE, 4026 BCE, 640 BCE, 539 BCE, and of course 587 or 586 BCE. Every one of these dates, whether we think it's exact, or if we think it's within 20 years, or even within 500 years, will always require secular corroboration.

10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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

I'm glad I could count on you to remind us all that putting up a list of bullet points doesn't mean that 1914 has already been shot down. But it's an easier and easier target to hit, and the two life-span generation puts an even bigger bulls-eye on its back. Whether or not the book of Daniel, Ezekiel, Matthew or Revelation ever intended to point us in advance to a specific event or activity in the 20th century, no one can rule out that Jehovah might still have had in mind a specific type of work to be done. Jehovah manages who he allows to be king and who he wishes to be deposed. He would not do this without some purpose, as with Nebuchadnezzar. Jehovah is in charge of history, and his thinking is beyond our own. If he can raise kings and despots to his purpose, surely everything he has either inspired or permitted in every age has a purpose. The kingdom we pray for is about God's will both in heaven and on earth. We must be alert to opportunity in every season of our own lives and perhaps we may even obtain guidance about opportunities based on the particular season the world is in.

We should always point out what is unreasonable (Philippians 4:5), but we can't always just rule out every idea that appears unreasonable to human minds. Our thoughts are not God's thoughts. A humble spirit will allow us to be used as Jehovah sees fit.

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Did not Micaiah predict defeat? Did this not happen once the King fell?

I was not referring to Micaiah, I was referring to 400 other prophets.

8 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

Which prophets of God prophesied something that did not come true? 

I need more clarification as to how you tie this to false teachings and false doctrine. Are you saying that false teachings were accepted because there are those written about in the Bible who ridiculed prophesies and then they did come true? If this is the case, please provide examples where the false teachings because true at some point (which wouldn't make them false teachings).  

We have several examples where prophets of God prophesied something that did not come true:

(1 Kings 22:5-8) 5 But Je·hoshʹa·phat said to the king of Israel: “First inquire, please, for the word of Jehovah.” 6 So the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about 400 men, and said to them: “Should I go to war against Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad, or should I refrain?” They said: “Go up, and Jehovah will give it into the king’s hand.” 7 Je·hoshʹa·phat then said: “Is there not here a prophet of Jehovah? Let us also inquire through him.” 8 At that the king of Israel said to Je·hoshʹa·phat: “There is still one more man through whom we can inquire of Jehovah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good things concerning me, only bad. He is Mi·caiʹah the son of Imʹlah.” However, Je·hoshʹa·phat said: “The king should not say such a thing.”

We also have Jonah, for example. But I was referring especially to prophets who spoke in the name of Jehovah but may not have been true prophets. Perhaps they thought they were, and they were disappointing to themselves, too.

Saw something interesting on this scripture related to the Bible reading (Ezekiel 12) for next week:

(2 Peter 3:3,4) 3 First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.”

The first thing was the cross reference from the NWT. The pre-2013 NWT cross-referenced 2 Pet 3:4 to Ezekiel 12:27 and I think I might have misunderstood the value of the cross-reference:

(Ezekiel 12:27) “Son of man, look! those of the house of Israel are saying, ‘The vision that he is visioning is many days off, and respecting times far off he is prophesying.’

Without the context, this verse alone looks like a discussion about patience in waiting for the fulfillment of the promised prophecy. After all, Peter will go on to say that in Jehovah's timetable something could go on for a 1,000 years in our time, but could still be like a day in Jehovah's eyes. Of course, the verse in 2 Peter (and also the verse in Ezekiel 12) is not about fact that something might be fulfilled in a far off time, but about the ridicule.

In the rNWT this is made easier to see by adding another verse from the context of this one in Ezekiel 12. Now, the 2013 Revised NWT includes the following verse in the cross-references:

(Ezekiel 12:22) 22 “Son of man, what is this proverb that you have in Israel that says, ‘The days go by, and every vision comes to nothing’?

Now it makes sense, that Israel had seen so many prophets and visionaries declare things that didn't come true so often that it had become like the fable of "the boy who cried wolf." (Also, btw, I found this verse to be much more readily understandable in the new rNWT.) @ComfortMyPeople reminded me of this verse when he spoke about how we have plenty of precedent for handling error. We need not be discouraged overmuch, as if this is something that should never be expected to happen. Imagine being in a congregation where some of them were saying there was no resurrection!

Another verse that has been added to the cross-references to the passage in 2 Peter 3:3 is the first verse in the passage below:

(Jeremiah 17:15, 16) 15 Look! There are those saying to me: “Where is the word of Jehovah? Let it come, please!” 16 But as for me, I did not run away from following you as a shepherd, Nor did I long for the day of disaster. You well know everything my lips have spoken; It all took place before your face!

It's interesting that 2 Peter is about "ridiculers" but this verse is about a person who does not want to be a ridiculer, but is anxiously looking for the promised prophecy to come true. I added the next verse because it provides another interesting point that the person is not going to leave Jehovah just because of a perceived delay, but also he is not longing for the day of disaster. Perhaps it refers to the right attitude toward God's judgments.

One last point is that those who read both 2 Peter 3 and the parallels in the book of Jude might be surprised to see that both of these books together make a very consistent point that they were already in the "last days." It is both now and all the way back through to the first centuries that Christians would expect to hear persons ridicule them by saying "Where is this promised parousia?" and they would make the point that things are going on pretty much as they always were.

In Jude it's also easy to see that he was speaking about the "last days" or "last time" having already started in Jude's day:

(Jude 16-20) 16 These men are murmurers, complainers about their lot in life, following their own desires, and their mouths make grandiose boasts, while they are flattering others for their own benefit. 17 As for you, beloved ones, call to mind the sayings that have been previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18 how they used to say to you: “In the last time there will be ridiculers, following their own desires for ungodly things.” 19 These are the ones who cause divisions, animalistic men, not having spirituality. 20 But you, beloved ones, build yourselves up on your most holy faith, and pray with holy spirit,

Of course, if it were about our own day, and if the parousia was going to be a long period of time, such as 103-plus years, for example, then the real response would be: "Don't you know that things are NOT going on as they always were? Didn't you notice the big wars and earthquakes that started the parousia? Are you blind to the sign?"

The "parousia" of course is a "visitation" and it came on Jerusalem 37 years after Jesus prophesied such a visitation. We can see that the visitation (parousia) wasn't the entire period of the generation with its great wars and great earthquakes in one place after another and pestilences and food shortages. It was the final visitation event when judgment was visited upon Jerusalem:

(Matthew 23:35-38) . . .there may come upon you all the righteous blood spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zech·a·riʹah son of Bar·a·chiʹah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you.

It must have been especially important when speaking of the final visitation of judgment (parousia) to remind the ridiculers that there was a good reason that things were going on just as they had been since the days of their forefathers. It's because, if there was not going to be a sign in advance, that it (the visitation - parousia) would come quickly and suddenly and without warning as a thief. Just as in Noah's day, when the world was apart from the water, then suddenly in the midst of water:

(2 Peter 3:5, 6) 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with waters.

Jesus was the one who had said that things WOULD go on just as they had been going on in the days of their forefathers.

(Matthew 24:37-41) 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned.

This is just like when Paul said that it would also be a time when they were calling out peace and security! (Wars would occur but they would not be a defining sign of his parousia.) The ridicule is not about claiming that the parousia wasn't really there, it was ridiculing the delay of the parousia, just as they were ridiculing the delay of the judgment visitation in Ezekiel 12. The only advance warning we have is the reminder that it will come as a thief and we should therefore watch what sort of persons we should be at all times:

(2 Peter 3:11-18) 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence [visitation] of the day of Jehovah,. . . 14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation,. . . 17 You, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on your guard so that you may not be led astray with them by the error of the lawless people and fall from your own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. . . .

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So probably the only thing that we might consider to be different is the idea that the Gentile kings had their day and the times of these nations and their kings ended 103 years ago. 

If you move the day back 20 years, does that fit with any verses? Should it be expected to?

If one were to work from the date of Jerusalem's fall in 587 (or 586 BCE) then you could add 2,520 years to it and reach the year 1934. If you are looking hard enough for something, you can always find it and make it significant through some bit of world history or organizational history. (rise of Hitler, Roosevelt, Federal Reserve Act, Jewish immigration to Palestine begins, etc.)

Also, although the all the independent Babylonian sources are clear about when Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year began, the Bible uses both dates for the destruction of Jerusalem.

(2 Kings 25:8, 9) 8 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah,. . .

(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) 32 The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. 2 At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem, . . .

There is no absolutely sure way to tell if this difference referred to two different ways of counting Nebuchadnezzar's year of reign, of if one refers perhaps only to a siege that started a year earlier. There is even a problem in deciding for sure whether the year began in the spring or the fall. Both methods are used in the Bible, and it's sometimes difficult to figure out which is which.

(2 Chronicles 36:10) 10 At the start of the year,* King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar sent to have him brought to Babylon,. . . [* NWT footnote: "Possibly, in the spring"]

In other words, one could stretch the 2,520 years to even reach only to 1933, or possibly as far as 1935 which was once a more significant date in our own history. It was, for nearly half a century, thought of as the end of the call to the heavenly hope, but now it is only seen as the year when the announcement clarified the earthly hope of the Jonadab class, and since which date the vast majority of new Witnesses have been "called" to an earthly hope.

Hanging on to the "1914 prediction" was considered a vestige proving that Jehovah's spirit was truly with the early Bible Students in a more special way than just their separation from Babylon the Great. Remember that it didn't really matter when Jerusalem was destroyed, as long as 1914 had still been predicted. (The actual initial method used was not even concerned with the destruction of Jerusalem.) When the idea of 2,520 years was added to the mix, the year for the destruction was determined, basically, by counting backwards from 1914. When Franz determined that Russell had made a one year error (due to his incorrect belief that there had been a "zero year") the destruction of Jerusalem was merely changed to 607 so that 1914 would still work. 1914 has always been the goal, not the actual date for Jerusalem's destruction.

Therefore, I doubt very much that a 20 year change is in the works. It would only buy the generation 20 more years, anyway, and would still require a two-lifespan generation to cover the FOUR⁺ biological generations that have seen "1934." (My 103-year-old grandmother-in-law [from Long Island, NY] would have been 20 in 1934 and was just here visiting her great-granddaughter over a week ago.) 

There are additional problems with revisiting the Daniel 4 and Luke 21:24 to make a change. It will receive renewed scrutiny, and having failed us in the past, will probably not seem so convincing this time. People will notice that there is no second fulfillment mentioned in Daniel 4, and a recent Watchtower (3/15/2015) has already come out to say that we no longer add second fulfillments unless the Bible explicitly tells us that one exists. As far as Daniel 4 is concerned, the entire dream was fulfilled on Nebuchadnezzar. Also, people will surely question how a brutal haughty King that destroyed Jerusalem can somehow represent Jerusalem. (We once taught that Nebuchadnezzar pictured Jesus, making Jesus a kind of Greater Nebuchadnezzar.)

If allowed to scrutinize the topic, all the other questions will surely surface this time, including the supposed "rule" that a day is always a year. If this were true, then why did Daniel multiply Jeremiah's 70 years by 7 to make 490 years? ("70 weeks of years"). Why do our publications never use a day for a year when the Bible speaks of 1,260 days, 1,290 days, or 1,335 days. Why are the 3.5 times of Revelation kept as a literal 1,260 days? Why does Revelation 11 say that the "Gentile Times" were only three and one-half times, or 42 months long?

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think of the expression 'it is the victors that write history.' It is a political statement regarding world powers, but it applies to everything.

I haven't invoked the part of this story that involves the "political" powers that have played no small part in keeping the 1914 doctrine written into our own history. But as you already admit that it applies to everything, I will oblige. Not that this has anything to do with real evidence for anything, but for me, it at least counters the common idea that if something is believed by non-Witnesses or ex-Witnesses it must be wrong. In this case, the same evidence I have already presented was also believed by several members of our own Governing Body, and even more members of our own Writing Department, plus at least one Gilead Instructor and at least two respected members of the Service Department. One is a current Governing Body Helper, and another still works in Writing and both still give convention talks, etc.

As a New Yorker you are not living too far away from some of those who were close friends of many of the people I mention, and you might have an opportunity to validate any part of what I'll mention below:

Daniel Sydlik of the Governing Body once said to me "off the record" that he thought we should just scrap the entire chronology and "start from scratch." I had heard that he had said this to several brothers prior to 1974, and I wanted to know (in 1978) if he still felt that way now that he was on the Governing Body. At the time I was only willing to question the 1918 and 1919 doctrines, and I went to him because I had been told by several people that he dismissed them as fantasy. Ewart Chitty, Ray Franz and Lyman Swingle had also made similar comments even about 1914, not just 1919. I had only heard Lyman Swingle say it personally, but I knew people who said that Chitty and R.Franz had also no longer believed that 1914 was a doctrine we should promote in the way we were doing it. The people who told me this were two of my best friends in Writing and one more very good friend in the Service Department. When Brother Schroeder complained to me about people willing to dismiss 1914, he inadvertently gave me 3 more names in the Writing Department when he said that it included everyone currently in Writing who worked on the Aid Book. The brother who gave my wedding talk, Brother Rusk, was a hard-line loyalist to anything that Fred Franz believed, and he also warned me against my friendship with 3 brothers in Writing, two of whom worked on the Aid Book.

I would never have had the nerve to ask why no member of the Governing Body had not stood up to Fred Franz and questioned the chronology doctrines outright. But several members of the Writing Department explained what they thought was happening. And their ideas were consistent: When serious doctrinal issues were being questioned (like chronology) there was very little that could be done prior to 1977 because it didn't matter what the Governing Body thought anyway, because Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz would override it in favor of "conservative" policies and doctrines. Also, neither Grant Suiter nor Milton Henschel ever cared much for scriptural discussions, which was obvious by the way they handled morning worship only as if it were "business reporting." So any scriptural matters were decided by the Oracle (Fred Franz). The Governing Body from 1971 to 1977 was not really a Governing Body yet anyway in the sense that they could actually bring up major doctrinal issues for questioning. Swingle could grumble about 1914, and R.Franz had already done the research for the Aid Book chronology article, but when R.Franz was added to the Governing Body in 1971, it was with Gangas, Greenlees, and Jackson -- and those three just mentioned were 100% supporters of Fred Franz. In 1974, when Sydlik and Schroeder were added and were known wild-cards, it was still at a time when the Governing Body had no authority to decide anything of any consequence. Also, of course, they were added at the same time as Ted Jaracz, Charles Fekel, Karl Klein, and Ewart Chitty were added. Those four were considered to be 100% Fred Franz supporters, even sycophants was the word used of most of them. Chitty admitted to a very close and respected friend of mine that he had grave reservations about 1914, but I have my doubts he would have pushed against the strength of Fred Franz on a doctrinal issue. (Of the last four, Jaracz, Fekel, Klein, and Chitty, I will not break down all the different rumors about each one, but I will say that it might have seemed obvious, based on their histories, that they would always vote with Fred Franz.) Barber, Barr and Poetzinger were added in 1977 and it was assumed by at least one friend in Writing that they filled out an even wider safety net to keep all votes for change from ever reaching 66.67%. I have to say that I knew almost nothing about any of these last three, and they never said anything during morning worship that gave a hint that they might have had preferred views or teachings that they felt were priorities.

By the time any dangerous questions could have been asked, Schroeder spearheaded a crack-down on such questions, starting in early 1980, and I even watched him try to position himself as the new "Oracle" in the event that "King Saul" died. (The expression, "That won't change until King Saul dies" was heard as a kind of joke many times in the Writing and Service Department, and it actually referred to someone else before Fred Franz.) Some people were very serious about it, however. At any rate, "King Saul" kept his power by minimizing the work Schroeder was doing throughout the 1980's and sometimes pushing for explanations that were exactly the opposite of what Schroeder proposed. (To be fair Schroeder proposed some fairly odd changes, which I won't get into here and now.) But one of the specific items that Schroeder had proposed was the idea that the "generation" should be seen as the generation of the "anointed." He even went to give talks in Europe promoting this new view. In response, Franz pushed for making it the generation of the "wicked" which actually made more sense in light of some scriptures. Schroeder also pushed one last time on trying to prove that the heart was not just a figurative, but a literal seat of emotion, love, hate, envy, etc. Franz responded with a long Gilead Graduation talk in excruciating detail about the meaning of the liver and fat, and why the fat was forbidden just as blood was forbidden. It seemed very serious, but Schroeder told me what he thought of it.

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If this is a reference to 607 (it is not JWI's fault if I do not do my homework), I think of the expression 'it is the victors that write history.' It is a political statement regarding world powers, but it applies to everything.

Yes. Partly 607, and partly the inconsistent views and inconsistencies in translation and explanations surrounding the 70 years desolation and captivities, the 70 years of Babylonian hegemony. Each of these bullet points could probably be expanded into 10 more bullet points, and a lot more scriptures than the ones listed. I'll give just a few examples which would all be included in the first bullet point:

1. The NWT has a fairly obvious mistranslation in Jeremiah 29:10. It has been discussed ad nauseum, but the general view from Hebrew scholars is that we have chosen the word "at" instead of "for" because the more obvious translation would lead people to notice that the verse is directly about Babylon and only indirectly about Judah. Our current doctrine requires the opposite.
2. There was a time when the entire NWT was only translated into a dozen additional languages, and in order to say that these were actual "Bible translations" and not just translations from the English into another language, brothers in a couple countries with Biblical language skills translated directly from Hebrew. Two of these translations came out with the dreaded "for" instead of "at" and had to be changed back to match the NWT English.
3. After many consistent denials of the validity of "for" here, the Isaiah's Prophecy book made use of the exact same point about Babylonian hegemony in the discussion of Tyre.
4. The Insight Book admits that Zechariah 1:12 and 7:4 must have been written almost 90 years after 607 BCE, which would be 90 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, if it had happened in 607. Ten different independent "witnesses" and literally thousands of dated contract documents all combine to provide evidence that it was only 70 years earlier that Jerusalem was destroyed, not 90. Yet, Zechariah 7:4 also indicates that it was only 70 years earlier, showing that Bible history is confirmed by archaeology. This is something that we would normally get excited about, whenever archaeology confirms the Bible record. But in this case we don't say anything because we have a doctrine that has forced us to add 20 years to every date prior to 539, all the way back to the creation of Adam.
5. [edited to add:] Also I had included the reference to Ezra 3 in that initial bullet point because it says that the sound of those who must have been 70-plus-year-olds (per Zechariah) wept with such a loud voice that some people couldn't distinguish the shouts of joy from the weeping. This is far from definitive, but in the Watchtower's theory of events, this would have referred to the sound of the 90-plus-year-olds. If we accept the history from Zechariah 1 & 7, they would have been within the range of the expected life-span, 70-plus.

   (Psalm 90:10) . . .The span of our life is 70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong.. . .

   (Ezra 3:12,13) 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.
    

On 6/19/2017 at 7:55 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

And we can also be very interested in those "times and seasons that the Father has not placed in, or has released from, "his own jurisdiction". (There is ample evidence of this in the Hebrew Scriptures).

We know the reason why some portion of the "times and seasons" in the Hebrew Scriptures were "released" from "his own jurisdiction." You mentioned it when you quoted 1 Peter 1:10-11. It pointed to the time when Jesus would appear, suffer, be glorified, and therefore the time of salvation.

would be available through the suffering of Christ, and the glory that would follow.

On 6/19/2017 at 7:55 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Also by Peter at 1Pet.1:10-11: "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the undeserved kindness meant for you made a diligent inquiry and a careful search.  They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow.."

Therefore, Christians KNEW that they were currently in the day of salvation:

(Romans 13:11-13) 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. 12 The night is well along; the day has drawn near. Let us therefore throw off the works belonging to darkness and let us put on the weapons of the light. 13 Let us walk decently as in the daytime,. . .

(2 Corinthians 6:1, 2) 6 Working together with him, we also urge you not to accept the undeserved kindness of God and miss its purpose. 2 For he says: “In an acceptable time I heard you, and in a day of salvation I helped you.” Look! Now is the especially acceptable time. Look! Now is the day of salvation.

(Revelation 12:10, 11) . . .“Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death.

From this point on (after Jesus had been given ALL authority in heaven and on earth - Matt 28:18), they trusted that Jehovah had the future times and seasons in his own jurisdiction, and only needed to know that they should keep always on the watch precisely because they could not know the times and seasons. That's why keeping on the watch was always about conduct and faith and never about trying to look into chronology.

As you are probably aware, the problem isn't just with the need to create a two-lifespan generation, but everything about the 1914 theory is problematic from a Scriptural point of view:

• All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13)
• Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand and already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25)
• Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5)
• Jesus said that the parousia would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was not visible. (Matt 24:23-26)
• Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42)
• Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, any translation except NWT in this case)
• The synteleia (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20)
• Jesus was already called King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14)
• Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18)
• The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27)
• The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26)
• The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3)
• The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14)
• The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

I'll move this point to a new thread, because it appears that it could easily create off-topic discussions.