JW Insider

I discovered something today that surprised me greatly, even though it should not have surprised me at all.

This post could have gone in the Jewish section or a Controversial Post section, but I chose to put it here because, for me, it concerns my beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and our recent reading of Isaiah. I base this discussion on a principle found in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, although Paul at the time was specifically concerned with a different subject:

(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .we ask you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us. . .

When I left Bethel, I had an opportunity to go to college. My work at Bethel had included picking up some valuable skills for study and research at libraries at Bethel and around NYC. Also, I was starting to pick up some Hebrew and wanted to learn more. I took a part-time job as an assistant editor and illustrator for a University publisher. This was the perfect job that became a kind of continuation of Bethel, and also allowed me to pioneer and to be on campus so that there would not be any push-back if I decided to attend college full-time. I took Computer Science as a major, but also took 8 semesters of Hebrew for 4 years. One of my reasons was because I had a strong interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I thoroughly enjoyed learning Hebrew, because much of the text used as a basis for learning was the Hebrew Bible itself. But after graduation in 1985 I got more heavily involved in congregation responsibilities, my first son was about to be born (1986) and the only jobs I could get in computer science were full time jobs. (Bureau of Labor Statistics,  then A D Little, Cambridge [NYC account for NYC property owners]). 

However, during the time I was studying the "Dead Sea Scrolls" I became suspicious that so many of them matched the LXX (Septuagint), but that some (Isaiah scrolls in particular) were touted to be so much closer to the MT (Masoretic Text). I was suspicious of quite a few more things, too. This made me wonder if some of these scrolls had not been all buried prior to 70 C.E. What if some of them were written or "edited" from, say 400 or 500 C.E, a time closer to when the MT became finalized [900 C.E.].? 

But no one else seemed to talk about these issues and anomalies. Every time I saw one mentioned, no one ever dealt with more than one single issue, with a potential explanation for it, and this gives the impression that the overall set of anomalies is not so serious. 

However, this morning I got up at 3am and decided to start taking these questions seriously, after dropping them for 30 years. I'm talking about dozens of research resources. I'm not done yet, of course, but I did find one simple overview that only touches on some of the issues lightly. This will give about the quickest idea of what most of those issues and anomalies are.

It's here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/03/31/dead-sea-scroll-mystery/121c7d28-aff8-47a4-893a-b94820204136/?utm_term=.3b7aaa886bcc

The issues mentioned here are quoted from the article linked above, written by Neil Altman.

• a series of marginal scroll markings that have now been identified as being Chinese symbols, probably from a period corresponding to the West's Middle Ages.
• About 800 A.D., writes Charles Pfeifer in his book, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible," "the Nestorian Patriarch Timotheus I wrote a letter to Sergius, the Metropolitan of Elam, in which he described the discovery of a large number of Hebrew manuscripts in a cave near Jericho," a discovery also cited by John Allegro in his account of the scrolls. The eventual disposition of these manuscripts is not known.
• Many scrolls were discovered not by archeologists, but by Bedouins, and passed through the hands of numerous people -- shady antiquities dealers and local priests as well the Bedouins -- before scholars were able to purchase them. This is the case with both the Order of the Community and the Isaiah scrolls.
• The discovery of codices in one of the caves; codices are manuscripts with pages written on both sides, and came into use in the 2nd Century A.D.
• The presence in the caves of lamps from the 3rd Century A.D.; while this does not directly affect the scrolls, it opens the caves to later entry.
• The use in the scrolls of consonants to replace vowels to assist pronunciation, as Solomon Zeitlin pointed out years ago, along with the use of final forms of Hebrew letters, suggests a late date.
• The discovery at Qumran of Arabic and Byzantine coins, which raises questions about the use of the site after its apparent abandonment in 68 A.D.
• A reference in one of the scrolls to the koshering of fish; though Jews supposedly wrote this document, Jews have never ritually prepared fish.
• The apparent use on the so-called "Copper Scroll" of both upper- and lower-case Greek letters suggests a late date for this curious finding, as does what I believe to be the presence of anachronistic script.
• The possible presence of Arabic and Roman numerals raises further doubts about the history of this very unusual metal document.

17 minutes ago, Jay Witness said:

These places are accepting people regardless of religious affiliation. How many Kingdom Halls are open to the general public certainly there are plenty of them in that area?.... ZERO! Why!?!?!?!!?

It's been my experience that Witnesses have a fairly easy time finding lodging with fellow JWs during events such as this. I took an interest in this story and called my parents, because we know a lot of Witnesses in Quincy, CA. I was conceived somewhere downstream from that same dam about 59 years ago. It actually overflowed once about 60 years ago and this was before they had built the concrete drainage. (They did that during Reagan's governorship, I think.)  Several brothers had possessions swept away, and one brother we knew found a dead bear in his garage. This was supposedly, my mother says, why they moved back down to the LA area before I was born. At any rate, the only brothers we know there now drove to stay with friends in nearby congregations. I didn't ask if KH's were opened up, but the idea I got is that they all knew friends they could stay with.

22 minutes ago, Jay Witness said:

What do you think of this?

Interesting. His political work for the campaign of William Jennings Bryan is another part of his past around this same time is of interest too, especially when we consider Rutherford's later politics approved for publication in the Golden Age, Watchtowers, various booklets and convention talks. (William Jennings Bryan himself is also of renewed interest to those who see current parallels with Donald Trump.)

17 minutes ago, TrueTom said:

If a person passes through a meat grinder and thereafter declines a transfusion, media will report fanatical opposition to a life-saving (is there any other kind?) blood transfusion as the cause of death.

I'm sure that a lot of newspapers will do this. "If it bleeds, it leads," etc.  And that's why news reports may not be as much of a problem for the Watchtower's Legal Department as are the number of cases studied by physicians who now have hundreds of well-studied cases for comparison, especially regarding certain types of pregnancy issues with and without availability and/or acceptance of blood transfusion therapies.

We have to be careful not to minimize the true sacrifice that many JWs have made over the years, sacrificing either themselves or their children, to their unwavering faith.

The brother who gave my wedding talk was a good friend for many years of both my wife and myself. He was the primary Watchtower Editor in the Writing Dept. For many years, he was also the primary brother at Bethel who took questions on the blood issue. When I was in his office, I often had to sit quietly when an unexpected call was transferred from parents, doctors, patients, Service Department, PR Dept, or "HLC" reps. Some of these were heart-wrenching and I was squeamish just listening. But it was clear that many brothers and sisters, or persons in their care, have made the ultimate physical sacrifice knowing full well that they would have lived with a blood transfusion and died without one.

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

a place I went to every year from 2002 to 2012

Of course, back then the pre-Watchtower site looked more like this:

On 7/26/2016 at 10:47 AM, Witness said:

Disfellowshiping and shunning covers a gambit of reasons.  It seems to be somewhat based on the whim of the elder body.

It's not supposed to be at the whim of the elder body, but there is no definitive way to be sure of repentance, so there will be different interpretations. There is another built-in issue: after a person has been disfellowshipped, there is an assumption that a certain amount of time must go by before repentance is real. The amount of time can also be a bit subjective based on many factors.

But elders are selected for their ability to understand matters and their ministry as "shepherds" should allow them to know the local situation better than others, and therefore guidance to the congregation in these decisions should be trusted to the elders.

Are you saying that you believe there are no circumstances whereby a person should be disfellowshipped (expelled) from a congregation?

3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

•   The Bible talks about behavior clean and unclean, but Jehovah has not registered exactly what does it cover inside a matrimony, so it is up to both of you. Then, there is no reason for a bad conscience any decision that both of you agree.
• ·        No one of you should force to the other to practice something disgusting or that made the other feel with bad conscience.
• ·        If both of you like something, even more, if only one of you want something and the other have no inconvenient, it’ll be an example of love to “pay the debt” so no one of you remains “hungry” and exposed to temptation (1Cor 7)
• ·        Any decision should remain indoors. If this matter spreads to the congregation it could have consequences (for example, privileges)

I can understand this completely. I believe that giving such counsel has been much easier for the past couple of decades. However, during those years when our counsel was supposed to be more dogmatic and pharisaic, I also had to give similar counsel to a sister with an unbelieving husband, and a couple where one of them was partially disabled.

However, I still think that it is proper to counsel a couple based on the principle in Romans 1, because it speaks of the "natural use of the body." It's true that we might have charged it with meaning that wasn't intended, but that also means that we might not have. Therefore, if conscience should play a role, then these verses ought to be included in potentially relevant counsel when helping one whose conscience is unclear. This also means that I would make an adjustment to your first and third bullet point. Just because both agree, does not necessarily mean that their conscience should be clear. I'm uncomfortable with using 1 Cor 7 in exactly the way you used it here as if should apply to an entire range of activities that might even push the envelope of what one spouse finds comfortable. It's possible that the verse is being "charged" with meaning that wasn't intended. 

Even if the principle is correct most of the time, I believe that any reasonable Christian couple should keep in mind that the real principle should not be that they simply agree, because agreement can be manipulated by emotion. Therefore, what someone might consent to at one time, might be something they would not have consented to at another time. Just the acknowledgment that this possibility might exist might make a couple think twice before engaging in experimentation that might prove dangerous either literally, or spiritually.

I don't believe we should ever use the Bible as a kind of legalistic book of rules, but every part of it can and should be used for guidance, discipline, encouragement, and training/adjusting our conscience.

I like your exposition of the verse in Proverbs 5:19. So true.

54 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I see you've referenced The Golden Age article, but do you know where the magazine got its information from?

The issue quoted from includes the following under the Christmas holiday heading, on page 195:

In its issue of December 26,
1927, the New York World carried a full-page
article on Christmas which showed beyond a
doubt that the day was observed by various
heathen nations for many centuries before the
birth of Christ. On the same date, the Chicago
Tribune, the Cincinnati Enquirer and the St.
Paul Daily News carried shorter articles proving
the heathen origin of the day. So did some
of the larger magazines of the country. Should
anyone desire to investigate the subject further,
after reading this article, I would recommend
a perusal of the following four books:
Kitto's Illustrated Commentary; Wilkinson's
Egyptians; History of Medieval Drama, by
Robinson; and The Two Babylons, by Alexander
Hyslop, an English clergyman. The last named
book is specially interesting in its revelations,
not only on the subject of Christmas,
but also on other holidays and feast days now
so popular.

However, the actual article on Valentine's Day has no reference to any origins that go back to Nimrod (although this is used for Easter and Christmas, etc). The portion of the above post from @Bible Speaks that looks like it comes from the Golden Age (starting with "The romantic nature of Valentine's Day...") is not from the Golden Age. It's from Catholic.org as is the next section starting out "The first representation..." The quote is interrupted with a reference to Nimrod which is an allusion to the chart that apparently derived originally from "The Two Babylons."

Here's the complete quote from the Golden Age regarding St. Valentine's Day, on page 208.

ST. VALENTINE'S DAY has nothing very
saintly to commend it as to its origin. The
whole month of February was given over by the
Romans to a period of almost unbridled licentiousness.
One of the common practices was for
a group of young men and young women to
meet together. The names of the young women
were placed in a box and the young men drew
them as chance directed and they became partners
for a day subsequently known as St. Valentine's
Day. The young woman's gift for the day
was a man.
The gift the young woman drew might be
more or less bad, mostly bad; and therefore the
gifts passed out on St. Valentine's Day are
often bad ones. It will be noticed that St. Valentine
is supposed to be the god of love, or at
least that cupids represent him. The dragging
of the word "saint" into this thing is only a
scheme of the Devil to make real saintliness
seem like what it is not, licentiousness.

10 hours ago, TrueTom said:

My study with Santa Claus is so 'yesterday's news' if this doesn't resolve in a certain way.

I think the best thing to do is to go into same the costume shop to buy a less conspicuous fake beard, and then if he tries it again next week you can trade "barbs" with him. Last pun, I promise. Or perhaps he remembered that 'love covers a multitude of chins.' Oh wait, just one more, OK? Maybe he's making progress, and he no longer believes in "once shaved, always shaved."

Seriously, though....

You should take the time, of course, to understand his reasons. Perhaps something he saw or read triggered it. As I recall there were a lot of pictures of people discussing travel plans in that particular Watchtower Study, and travel experiences might be all he ever talks about all year. There is also a little picture of a man carrying a large stack of presents on page 22, and a reminder to have a sense of humor on page 23. Or perhaps he was trying to hide his Santa-sized stomach from his line of sight to avoid "setting the mind on the flesh" (see paragraph 10, for example, in the "middle" of Sunday's study, p.16). Or perhaps he misunderstood the opening of paragraph 13 when it said it was possible for a Christian to change, and he decided to change right there at his seat. 

I have to say that it is difficult to believe that a doppelganger for Friedrich Engels could actually engage himself as the catalyst for such a capitalistic enterprise.

That's not the yeartext for 1914.

Because of the calendars, mostly, I recall most of the ones since 1964 or so. I was baptized in 1967, too, @Gloria Medina Our yeartext banner at the front of the Hall that year was beige-on-beige silk. (Here I am, send me.) Very hard to read except in a certain light.

I think someone changed the 1914 one so they could claim it matched the 2014 one, which wasn't true, of course. Probably part of an "innocent" attempt to drum up more speculation for 2014 as the 100th anniversary of 1914, and the year when our "last memorial?" was on Nisan 14 on 04/14/14, etc.

3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

By the way, any acknowledgment of error about this behavior in our publications?

I don't recall one, but I could have missed it. Based on several other experiences I know about, I rather doubt this was ever acknowledged as an error. After all, it's based somewhat on scriptural phrases that were used a lot throughout the mid-1940's, and which saw a resurgence in the mid 1950's, when 'Armageddon talk' spiked for a few years, and then again pre-1975. The idea was based on ideas such as: 'woe to the woman suckling a child in those days' 'let those with wives be as though they had none' etc. Assembly experiences included more praise for single pioneers as 'those who had made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom.' Even discussions of Lot's wife were sometimes tied to marriage and childbearing as if it were one of the things this system offers us, but which was considered to NOT be a part of the theme of building up the nucleus of the "New World Society."

I believe this is something that tended to resolve itself with new ones coming in, and it has not been a serious problem, even in rhetoric, after 1953. I don't think anyone expected an apology or acknowledgment of error. 

10 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

I think it’s evident that the immediate outcome was negative. Note the expression in the article: “in the long term.” Did Jesus direct the GB to take this decision, because in this way Paul would give so fine testimony? Or, rather, was it a mistake the GB made but, instead, Christ took advantage of this, in other words, modify the outcome? Let the Bible answer us:

·        (James 1:13) “When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God … nor does he himself try anyone”

This is an excellent point, and one we lose sight of now and then. I recall seeing a post over on jw-archive.org where someone insisted that it was a good thing that so many "little ones" stumbled over 1975. They were just being tested and found wanting. Therefore it was a good thing that there was so much talk about 1975 (or "the 1970's," or the final years of "this generation," or the preaching work that would be completed in the "20th century").

You brought up Brother Willi Diehl's experience from the 1991 Watchtower:

*** w91 11/1 p. 29 ‘Jehovah Is My God, in Whom I Will Trust’ ***
In May 1949, I informed headquarters in Bern that I planned to marry Marthe and that we desired to remain in full-time service. The reaction? No privileges other than regular pioneering. This we started in Biel, following our wedding in June 1949. I was not permitted to give talks, nor could we look for accommodations for delegates to a forthcoming assembly, even though we had been recommended by our circuit overseer for this privilege. Many no longer greeted us, treating us like disfellowshipped persons, even though we were pioneers.
We knew, however, that getting married was not unscriptural, so we took refuge in prayer and put our trust in Jehovah. Actually, this treatment did not reflect the Society’s view.

I don't know exactly what the Society's view was in 1949 in Switzerland, but one can still easily trace the where the idea came from. Full-time service (while married) was only available to pioneers (including missionaries) in 1949. If you got married you were showing that you were not serious about full-time service. This is why, in general, no one would get married at Bethel (and be allowed to stay) until Brother Knorr married Audrey Mock in 1953. (Audrey was actually engaged to Brother Richard Wheelock who would have been one of the first, if he had been allowed to stay at Bethel, but Brother Knorr made him break off the engagement, and then married her himself.) 

*** w04 7/1 p. 26 A Satisfying Life Despite Heartaches ***
Since the 1920’s, Bethelites who desired to marry had been required to leave Bethel and serve Kingdom interests elsewhere. But in the early 1950’s, a few couples who had served at Bethel for some time were allowed to marry and stay. So when Nathan H. Knorr, who at the time was taking the lead in the worldwide Kingdom work, showed an interest in me, I thought, ‘Now, here is someone who will stay!’

In the 1960's and 1970's it was still quite common in my Missouri congregation for the old-timers to quote the infamous old line that Rutherford had used in a talk at the St. Louis assembly, directed primarily to 15,000 children sitting together out on the grounds instead of in the regular arena seats. Here it is:

*** w41 9/15 p. 287 'Theocratic Assembly at St. Louis' ***
The "sheep" will inherit on earth the blessings of the Kingdom. . . . They shall be children of the King, and he will be their King-Father. . . .Then the divine mandate shall be carried out, to fill the earth with a righteous, perfect offspring, and this by marriage and childbearing. . . . "Why, then, should a man who has the prospect before him of being of the great multitude now tie himself up to a stack of bones and a hank of hair?" (Applause) . . . "Soon you will see Barak and Deborah (I got a picture of her in this book), and when you see her you will love her very much. She is a real woman, and will be able to give you girls proper advice, you girls who are looking for a husband. When you see Daniel, David, Moses and all the prophets, listen to what they have to say, and they will properly advise you boys and girls.

This was the attitude toward marriage among regular publishers. Imagine what it was like toward those chosen for full-time service! Over the previous 10 years, some awful things were being said about marriage and courtship and family relationships. "Having no natural affection" had become a kind of requirement if you wanted to show you were serious and spiritually mature. Dating and courtship was considered an "offense" to long-time Witnesses, although it began quickly changing among new ones being baptized. My own father wasn't even allowed to date until Knorr got married in 1953, and then he was immediately allowed to date for the first time, and my parents then married in January 31, 1954, exactly one year after Nathan and Audrey Knorr married on January 31, 1953. (And of course, if you did marry, you could not have children if you desired to ever go into the circuit work, as others in my family of that generation had done.)

A lot of this type of slightly warped thinking remained at Bethel for at least another decade. Note:

*** w61 12/15 p. 767 Questions From Readers ***
How can girls guard against temptation in this sex-crazy world?
When a girl reaches the age of puberty or physical maturity, her body has developed in the matter of sex more than in the mind. . . . However, the time will come when there will be great danger in such actions. Why? In answer to this question, we can learn about nature and sex from the bovine family of mammals, both wild and tame.
Large herds of cattle, both male and female, wander over the plains feeding. Ordinarily the male or bull would not think of approaching the female or cow for sex purposes. If he did approach he would not receive a hearty welcome, but, rather, he might be gored by the cow’s horns. There is no petting or sex relations between bull and cow permitted, because the female is not in physical condition to breed. The bull seems to understand this and keeps in his own place. However, when the female of the species is in condition to breed, she makes the matter known. If there is no male in the herd, she will go elsewhere looking for one and she is unsettled until she finds one and then is bred by him. Now she is contented, and the end result is a calf. In this connection it is interesting to note that the male animal has no season at which he is not willing to engage in the breeding act. If we humans would take a lesson from these creatures, we would learn something of importance in matters of sex, as to its purpose and the results of its operation.
As with a cow, when a young girl who has reached her puberty is in physical condition to conceive and become pregnant, her sex emotions are greatly aroused. . . . If the boy friend should become sexually aroused and lets her know it and then she yields her body to the advances of the amorous boy friend, she is likely to become pregnant as a result of just one sex experience of this kind.

It's just an opinion, but I think that the type of "divisions" we should be more worried about than doctrines in the congregation are these types of differences that lead to judging others. The brother (Diehl) who married was judged as if he was worthy of being disfellowshipped. When the Bible speaks of divisions in the congregation it's often about how we tend to judge others. (James chapter 2)

Also, I don't think that these things from the 1950's and 1960's are worth troubling ourselves over. At this point the experience might be almost humorous to us, although at the time it resulted in people sacrificing their opportunity to have children, or even a spouse. But no one held a gun to their head, and Christians have faith that Jehovah can make up for all physical losses. But it doesn't show love to trouble our brothers with unnecessary legalism like this. All we can do now, is to remember the experience so that we apply principles learned to any new decisions. There are definitely still people at Bethel, even now, who feel they are somehow more righteous and spiritually mature for having given up their opportunities for marriage and children. So we should always be on the watch for attitudes of self-righteousness and superiority. It's just one way in which we, as faithful servants, might start "beating" our fellow servants.

5 hours ago, John Lindsay Barltrop said:

Pollution is one form of how man is ruining the earth

I agree with this, too. But this also could mean that all persons who burn fossil fuels, drive a car, use fuel-based electricity, fly in a plane, take a cruise, etc., are all ruining the earth.

Of course the answer we expect to satisfy us is that we are more reasonable in the way we ruin the environment. That we are not like the big energy companies that take these fuels out of the ground for us. So this means, therefore, that as long as we only participate in ruining the earth, that we aren't going to be brought to ruin. I don't see many of us (or any of us) shouting this particular warning from the housetops to everyone who is ruining the earth. Most religions are silent about this particular warning, or even become complicit in the the politically expedient idea that politics trumps science on this subject. It's "politically correct" to be weak and hide from this problem.

(Surprisingly, one of the biggest factors ruining the earth is the "Western" version of suburbs, in spite of the fact that this appears to make more of the earth look like thousands of little parks.)

Echoes of the crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians. And the way Sushi Muslims commit crimes against Sashimi Muslims, and vice versa. 

Hey JTR! How are you?

BTW, this site is interesting http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/ on that quote attributed to Stalin. The site shows where he might have gotten it from or where else it actually might have come from if it wasn't Stalin himself who said it.

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

JWInsider said his father used to laugh, but I remember a fairly heated discussion with my mother and my quoting the scripture at Matthew 24:36 to her. She agreed that the Bible said that, but went on to say that the Witnesses were right in 1914 (referring to the War and world change) and that they could be right again (about 1975 being the end). (I wonder how many Witnesses know that other Bible students arrived at that chronology leading to 1914 and not just the Bible students associated with Russell.)

It's true that my father laughed at the way Brother Toutjian's experience was "toned down" (in 1984 or so) but the discussion with the Gilead missionary (who was also an elder) was probably a lot more like the discussion you had with your mother. And although I wasn't there, I'm sure he didn't laugh when being disciplined by a District Overseer for adding a quick caveat about Matthew 24:36 to his talk. I think the talk was called "The Time Left is Reduced."

It was one of those talks where we mentioned the exact number of months left before 1975. I asked him about it and it wasn't just that he just quoted the scripture of course. He also made a comment against the idea that Matthew 24:36 means we can know the year, even though we don't know the day or the hour. A lot of people were saying this same thing: "It might say we don't know the day or the hour, but that doesn't mean we don't know the YEAR!!"

You said that a lot of people don't know that other Bible students arrived at chronology leading to 1914, but it's also interesting that the World Wide Church of God, which also had some roots in the 19th-century Adventist movements, was preaching 1975, too. I think that they first brought it up on the radio around 1955 and then Herbert W Armstrong published his book in 1956: "1975 in Prophecy."

At the time, the 1955 Watchtower was still using 1976 as the end of 6,000 years since Adam's creation. But just like Charles Taze Russell had already taught, we realized that we didn't know the time between Adam's and Eve's creation.

• *** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***
• According to Genesis 1:24-31 Adam was created during the last part of the sixth creative-day period of 7,000 years. Almost all independent chronologists assume incorrectly that, as soon as Adam was created, then began Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period of the creative week. Such then figure that from Adam’s creation, now thought to be the fall of 4025 B.C., why, six thousand years of God’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of man’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of Jehovah’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, Jehovah’s sabbath, began.  Why, it must have taken Adam quite some time to name all the animals, as he was commissioned to do.

On 2/8/2017 at 6:04 PM, Arauna said:

These "Satanic Verses" are found in verses eighteen to twenty-two in suraht An-Najim of the Qur'an,^[14] and by accounts from Tabari, but is seldom mentioned in the first biography of Mohammad by Ibn Ishaq. The verses also appear in other accounts of the prophet's life. They permitted prayer to three pre-Islamic Meccan goddesses: Al-lāt, Uzza, and Manāt—a violation of monotheism.

I assume a lot of other people already knew this, but I didn't. Thanks for sharing it. I even have a copy of Satanic Verses on a bookshelf, but never cracked it open.

10 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

Seems lots of brothers use only the Online Library but not the other resources like the Watchtower CD.

Ah! OK. I think you're right.

47 minutes ago, Bible Speaks said:

Some info is blocked on the site.

What does this mean? What info is blocked? On what site?

1 hour ago, Bible Speaks said:

Yes do you have other links? That is what I found only, 

What you are quoting was written in the original Insight book in 1988. If you have the latest 2016 Watchtower Library on CD/DVD you can see what happened. Just search on:

1914 "The World" newspaper

Look at the oldest references first, and pay attention especially to the years of these publications:

You will see the quotation in the Watchtower in 1955, 1960, 1961, 1967 and 1984. I'll just quote that last one:

*** w84 4/1 p. 5 1914 a Marked Year—Why? ***
the ‘International Bible Students [Jehovah’s Witnesses],’ best known as ‘Millennial Dawners,’ have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. ‘Look out for 1914!’

It had also been used in the 1975 Yearbook the same way.

And the very last use of it in this way was in the Revelation Climax book in 1988, (same year as the Insight book). That false portion of the quote has never been used in any of our books written after 1988.

AFTER 1988

The most important point is to notice the Proclaimers book from 1993 is the last time this newspaper is referenced. But the Proclaimers book was researched by persons who had reviewed the actual teachings about the "Day of Wrath" and had tried to give a much more accurate picture of the beliefs about 1872/1873 being the Dawn of the Millennium. And they knew that the "Day of Wrath" ran parallel with the "Harvest" from 1874 to 1914. They didn't want statements in this book that opposers could pounce upon to prove that it was not accurate. (A few crept in anyway, some during the final editing process, but that's the nature of publishing.) 

So the Proclaimers book researchers, in 1993, knew that they could not use the entire quote, and reduced it to only the portion of that newspaper that we could claim was an accurate assessment of what the Bible Students and the Watch Tower had actually been saying:

*** jv chap. 5 p. 60 Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914) ***
“Look Out for 1914!”
 When World War I broke out in 1914, “The World,” then a leading newspaper in New York City, stated in its magazine section: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. . . . ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the hundreds of travelling evangelists, who, representing this strange creed [associated with Russell], have gone up and down the country enunciating the doctrine that ‘the Kingdom of God is at hand.’”—“The World Magazine,” August 30, 1914.

Note that they specifically left out the false portion of the quote this time, in 1993, and this 1914 newspaper has never been used again in a Watch Tower publication written after 1993.  (And it has not been used incorrectly since 1988.)

The subject matter is relevant to the book "God's Kingdom Rules" of course, but in the same place where we would usually expect this newspaper reference in prior publications we now only find the following:

*** kr chap. 2 p. 15 par. 10 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
The faithful anointed writers who contributed to that journal saw that Daniel’s prophecy regarding the “seven times” had a bearing on the timing of the fulfillment of God’s purposes regarding the Messianic Kingdom. As early as the 1870’s, they pointed to 1914 as the year when those seven times would end. (Dan. 4:25; Luke 21:24) Although our brothers of that era did not yet grasp the full significance of that marked year, they proclaimed what they knew far and wide, with long-lasting effects.

*** kr chap. 2 p. 22 par. 29 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year. But even they could not have imagined how accurate that prediction would turn out to be.

The idea that a "time of trouble" would begin in that marked year dates from the Watch Tower in 1904, so this is what is now meant by "long before 1914." As early as the 1870's the one thing still considered to be correct is that the "seven times" also called "the Gentile Times" would end in 1914. Of course, at the time this meant that all the Gentile Kingdoms would see their final end in 1914, so they didn't even get the idea about the "Gentile Times" right, either. Interestingly, the newspaper "The World" did get that particular belief correct (that the WT had predicted the end of all kingdoms in 1914) but this is a portion of the newspaper article that we have almost never quoted.

8 minutes ago, Bible Speaks said:

This is from the latest information on wol.jw.org site. Perhaps the other was not included for a reason?

There has been an ongoing debate for many years both inside and outside the Bethel headquarters about how to present the information about 1914. In a few Watchtowers the predictions that were made prior to 1914 have been presented more accurately. 

14 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

The ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”

This is incorrect. Here is what the Watchtower ACTUALLY said about the Day of Wrath in 1880:

*** Watch Tower, July 1880, "The Closing Work" p. 3, [Reprints p. 115] ***

From these statements, the parallels, and other scriptures, we conclude that the day of wrath is included in the Gospel harvest, and, therefore, that the age and harvest extend to 1914, covering a space of forty years from the Spring of 1875 . . . 

So the "day of wrath" covers a portion of the 39 years of harvest starting some time after the Spring of 1875 and extending up to 1914. 

In fact, the article goes on to show that anyone who claimed that the "day of wrath" might extend beyond, or after 1914, were considered to be "opposers" of the Watchtower's teaching:

*** Watch Tower, July 1880, "The Closing Work" p. 4, [Reprints p. 116] ***

Then the idea we advance that Christ entered upon the official work of King in 1878 is in harmony with the application of the harvest here given.  But what becomes of the idea of those who now oppose us in these things, that Christ does not come into possession of His crown, until after this day of wrath? . . . that the harvest and the treading of the winepress must be located away beyond 1914? It seems too much like desperation for them to take such ground, . . .  Will any one be so reckless as to take the ground that. . . . the time of trouble or day of vengeance with which those times end, take the ground that the day of wrath extends beyond 1914? 

In other words, since Jesus officially became King in 1878 (according to the Watchtower) the "day of wrath" began at about that same time, and runs from 1878 to 1914. Only desperate opposers would be so reckless as to think that this day of wrath could extend beyond 1914. 

This was still clear in 1896, only 18 years prior to 1914. Note below that "the Day of Wrath" does not begin in 1914 but it ENDS IN 1914!

*** Watch Tower, May 1896, "True Bible Chronology..." p. 112, [Reprints p. 1980] ***

Hence, the year ending Oct. A.D. 1872 was the year 6000 [Note: 6,000 years of human history ended in 1872 and the Millennium DAWNED in 1872] . . . . The year ending Oct. 1914 A.D. will be 6042 and the full forty year "day of wrath" from October, 1874, will end Oct. 1914 A.D., the full limit of Gentile Times to tread down Jerusalem and its people.

In fact, the Watch Tower Society continued to promote campaigns to distribute the "Studies in the Scriptures" books up until about 1933, where the only adjustments to the book on this topic were the changes to some of the references about 1914 to extend them to 1915:

*** Studies in the Scriptures, [Millennial Dawn], Volume IV, ["The Day of Vengeance" later changed to "The Battle of Armageddon"], p. 604-605. ***

A "generation" might be reckoned as equivalent to a century (practically the present limit) or one hundred and twenty years, Moses' lifetime and the Scripture limit. (Gen 6:3) Reckoning a hundred years from 1780, the date of the first sign, the limit would reach to 1880; and, to our understanding, every item predicted had begun to be fulfilled at that date; the "harvest" or gathering time beginning October 1874; the organization of the Kingdom and the taking by our Lord of his great power as the King in April 1878, and the time of trouble or "day of wrath" which began October 1874, and will cease about 1915; . . . Those who are walking with us in the light of present truth are not looking for things to come which are already here, but are waiting for the consummation of matters already in progress. Or, . . . it would not be inconsistent to reckon the "generation" from 1878 to 1914--36 1/2 years-- about the average of human life today.

There are literally dozens more such quotations in the Watch Tower publications, all in perfect harmony with the above. It should also be noted that in 1904, just 10 years prior to 1914, the teaching about "time of trouble" or "tribulation" was adjusted. This particular "time of trouble" was previously expected to last a few years prior to 1914, and was adjusted to include a time beginning in 1914 and lasting for a period of time that was sometimes indicated to last until about the end of 1915. But this was not the same as "the Day of Wrath" which would run from 1874 until 1914, and especially apply from 1878 until 1914. 

So, no Bible Students were ever proclaiming that the Day of Wrath would dawn in 1914!

35 minutes ago, Bible Speaks said:

For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”

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

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

It's easier to misinterpret than accept who is doing the ad hominem attacks with their self-governed interpretation of scripture.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more!

As you said previously, we should have a "PASSION FOR TRUTH." A passion for truth necessarily requires that we avoid error.

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Something like the difference between the man and the travelling merchant at Matt.13:44-45.

Yes. I understand, very insightful application of the "parallel" illustrations.

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Even lately I have encountered responsible brothers who press for my agreement with the view that we will be unlikely to have our next Regional Convention in this system of things.

A little of that comes up every year. The 2014 Memorial was a bit over-hyped this same way:

*** km 3/14 p. 2 par. 4 Will You Seize the Opportunity? ***
Will this Memorial be our last? (1 Cor. 11:26) We do not know. 
 

Rutherford used to make statements like this in the closing comments of the annual conventions. It can turn out to be true one of these times, too, of course.

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This 1974 article was not specific on a "1975"  reason for postponing child rearing and showed that many had made such a decision for secular reasons.

True. And that is why I never indicated that it was about 1975, only that it was about the "imminent" end of this system. And you are right, the article also pointed out the possibility that your child might starve to death, or even "stab you in your belly."  

*** g74 11/8 p. 10 Is This the Time to Have Children? ***
Thus a mother in Sweden wanted . . . her thirteen-year-old daughter . . . to learn Bible principles. She asked her husband to assist . . .  She suddenly drew a knife, and screamed: “Stay out, or I’ll stab you in your belly!”   Almost daily similar experiences are heard of or read about. They even occur in so-called “good” homes, and in families where efforts are made to bring children up properly. Young couples who observe the deteriorating moral climate are not infrequently heard to remark: “I’m glad we don’t have to rear children in this wicked system.” They are determined to wait for better times to have their young ones.
,

"They" certainly weren't waiting until the problems of this system got a little better, were they? The 1974 Awake! was written at a time when there was an average 6-month lead time for Awake! articles from the time they were written until they were published, and a 4-week lead time for the Kingdom Ministry. Therefore this article about having children was likely written at almost exactly the same time as the following from the 1974 Kingdom Ministry:

*** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.
 

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

*** Ec 8:12-13 ***
I am aware that it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him. 13 But it will not turn out well for the wicked one, nor will he prolong his days that are like a shadow, because he does not fear God.

I think of that a lot. It's true that I may have been involved with a congregation that made more out of 1975 than others, although I think that all 20 congregations in our circuit were all about the same. But even though I made decisions based on some of the articles above (and the assembly talks that went with them) I never thought it hurt me. And even if it had hurt me, it would still not have hurt me in the long run. 

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Perhaps a new topic could be "What is the difference between zeal and fanaticism. Illustrate."

Perhaps. I was surprised to discover several more things just in the last year that indicate that  Rutherford must have thought he had inherited a "cult." 

*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.
 

I think the difference in zeal and fanaticism matters less than the motive or content driving that zeal, or even fanaticism. As Paul said: 

(Romans 10:2) . . .For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge.