JW Insider

8 hours ago, Chioke Lin said:

If you have no problem interacting with scholars, you can email him at, and see what his take is on it.

I have never tried to contact him, but in his own comments, and his writing, videos, interviews, etc, he has already answered every specific  question I would have wanted to ask of him. 

31 minutes ago, Arauna said:

unfortunately English does not have the Y sound.

I would have no problem at all with the pronunciation "Jehovah" (or "Yehowah" or even "Yahweh" or "Jahveh") although I think that Jehovah is the best alternative considering the evolution of the English language.

But I have never understood why you have repeatedly said that English does not have the "Y" sound. Of course it does.

3 minutes ago, Chioke Lin said:

since the night on the third day would have been completed, before dawn.

No. Because the night on the third day would not have been completed before dawn of that second day.

If someone dies on Friday afternoon and they are buried that Friday night, then the night of the first day is completed on Saturday. The night of the second day is therefore begun on the next night, Saturday night, and completed on the dawn of that second day which is Sunday morning. The night of the third day, would have been completed, therefore on Monday morning.

This is true even in our current conception of when a day begins, but would have been even clearer with the Jewish conception of when a day began, because their day started with nightfall.

33 minutes ago, Chioke Lin said:

Shouldn't the betrayal and arrest of Jesus be the start of his judgment? Which would be included in those 3 days and nights.

You can begin the start of his judgment then if you wish, but the sign of Jonah was that he was in "Sheol" for three days and three nights. Christians saw no need to take this to any kind of literal count of hours. The very fact that it could apply when Jesus may have been in Sheol for only two nights is good evidence that there was no good reason to try to count the exact hours to make something spiritually significant out of them.

28 minutes ago, BroRando said:

²  He will revive us after two days. On the third day he will raise us up,And we will live before him. ³  We will know, we will earnestly seek to know Jehovah. His going out is as certain as the dawn; 

I think you helped to make my point. Thank you.

Jesus was clearly resurrected before dawn when the women arrived. Angels even told the women that Jesus had already been raised, according to the scriptures you quoted.

Since that has been cleared up, I think there is another important point to make that's related to your obsession with chronology. I'm reminded of it by how much importance you give to the word word "dawn" Hosea 6:3, but probably don't give half as much attention to the word "presence" in Hosea 6:2. Of course the word isn't translated that way in the NWT, but here's another translation:

2After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His presence. 3So let us know—let us press on to know the LORD. As surely as the sun rises, He will appear; He will come to us like the rain, like the spring showers that water the earth.…

I do believe that Jesus' presence began when he came to earth, especially during his physical presence during his ministry. But the most important thing to all Christians since the "dawn" of his resurrection is the fact of his continued presence with us.

Matthew 18:20 (NLT) For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them.

*** nwtsty Matthew 28:20 *** (New World Translation)
And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

This should be the most important thing to us about the resurrection: not the exact timing but that Jesus is alive and is present with us right up until the "synteleia," or the conclusion.

So Jesus' presence began in 33 CE. And you can find some evidence for this even in Hosea 6:2. The Hebrew word there is פָּנָה   panim, the same word that the NWT translates as "presence" in many places:

(Deuteronomy 4:37) . . .in his presence by his great power. . .

(Deuteronomy 25:2) . . . in his presence.. . .

(Deuteronomy 31:11) . . .when all Israel appears before the presence of Jehovah . . .

(1 Samuel 21:6) . . .from Jehovah’s presence. . .

(1 Samuel 26:20) . . .from the presence of Jehovah. . .

etc. etc. etc. etc.

Of course, this is not the same "presence" as the final "parousia" which Matthew uses as a synonym for the highly visible "sign of the son of man."

3 hours ago, BroRando said:

Nisan 16, 33 CE - 3rd Day - Saturday at Sundown from 7:00 pm to Sunday at Sundown to 7:00 pm  Jesus was resurrected at dawn by 7:00 am. That's 12 hours.

The Bible does not say that Jesus was resurrected at dawn. It says that the women came to the tomb just before or just after dawn, while it was still dark, and found that the stone had already been rolled away. So the resurrection could have taken place at any time during that night. So instead of 12 hours by 7am it could have been as few as 1 or 2 hours, or perhaps 10pm that night, or midnight, or 2am or 4am or 5am. All we know for sure is that it happened BEFORE dawn not "AT dawn" as you claim.

Also, Nisan 16 can be as early in the year as March 22, and as late as April 23. So sunrise/dawn can be as early as 6:04am on April 23 or as late as 6:55am on March 22. Anywhere within In any time zone in the world, that's nearly a full hour's difference. In other words, even if we knew for sure that the women had actually just got there at the time of the resurrection, you would still be guessing if you claim that dawn was at 7:00am when it could have been at 6:00am.

Personally, I think the Bible writers are implying that it was close to dawn, but perhaps at a time during the night when guards would have potentially been sleeping. Later Christian tradition has the guards waking up their centurion and others to tell them the "bad" news, which doesn't mean much on its own, except that it shows no evidence of a 40-hour tradition here or in any early commentary. This, in spite of the fact, that there was a 40-day tradition about the temptation and the ascension. Surely if a 40 hour tradition was going to be of any import to "spiritual discernment" then the Bible would have given specific evidence that it was 40 hours, and not somewhere between about a 29-hour minimum and a 39-hour maximum.

With respect to this time period, the only tradition that we know that the early Christians held onto was the idea that it was like the sign of Jonah which was parts of 3 days and 3 nights. Unfortunately you can't translate 3 days and 3 nights to less than about 60 hours or more than about 72 hours. This is probably why some early Christian traditions start Jesus' death on Wednesday or Thursday (Nisan 13), and some say this is also a potential interpretation reflected in the Bible accounts.

2 hours ago, BroRando said:

Jesus was dead for 40 hours. Parts of three days.  So the 40 hours is actually less then two days.

I agree, generally. You can't know for sure that it was exactly 40, since the Bible doesn't tell us. It could have been just those 4.5 hrs (Fri) + 24 hrs (Sat) + 0.5 hrs on Sunday, or as many as 11 hours on Sunday. That leaves a range of 29 hours up to a maximum of 39.5. So I agree that 40 might be the maximum, outside possibility that the synoptics would allow for. And that's where I got the "1.64 days" [max] altogether, similar to your number, less than two days.

2 hours ago, BroRando said:

Jesus was dead for 40 hours. Parts of three days.  So the 40 hours is actually less then two days. Study what 40 means and you may gain spiritual discernment, otherwise like Satan, all can be lost.

You apparently stake quite a lot on the idea that Jesus was dead for exactly 40 hours even though the Bible gives us a range that apparently runs from about 29 hours minimum to 39.5 hours, maximum. I would agree that 40 is an outside possibility, but my point was trying to show that we can't be exact where the Bible is not exact.

And yet, you go so far as to imply that all can be lost, like Satan, if one doesn't accept the meaning of "40" and the fact of Jesus being dead for exactly 40 hours.

2 hours ago, BroRando said:

Satan thought a day to Jehovah was 24 hours but in reality it was 1,000 years. Adam therefore died within the day of 1,000 years.  

More speculation on your part. How do you know that Satan thought a day to Jehovah was 24 hours. Satan seems to be taking advantage of the idea that he knew it would not be within 24 hours that Adam would die. Besides, the Watchtower once taught that a "day" with Jehovah could have been 42,000 years long, since Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 creative days as a single day, and we used to teach that each creative day must have been 7,000 years long (6x7,000=42,000).

*** it-1 p. 594 Day ***
The entire period of the six time units or creative “days” dedicated to the preparation of planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing “day” at Genesis 2:4:

(Genesis 2:4) This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

So, for all you know, Satan thought that a day to Jehovah was 42,000 years long, or at least 7,000! Where would Satan have gotten the idea that a day to Jehovah is only 1,000 years, or as you say, only 24 hours??

Somehow, you don't make it sound like your "ministry" is based on faith in God and love of God and neighbor. By going through the machinations to calculate the number of hours Jesus might have been dead, I was hoping you would catch on that this is all just pure speculation and has nothing to do with the Christian objective:

(1 Timothy 1:4-7) . . .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. ⁶ By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. ⁷ They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

On 6/9/2022 at 1:33 AM, BroRando said:

• Jesus replied to them: “Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19)
• 'He will revive us after two days. On the third day he will raise us up, And we will live before him." (Hosea 6:2) Pentecost 33 CE + 2,000 yrs = 2033. Third day begins 2034.

If we use Matthew, Mark, Luke (but not John) we see that Jesus died around 3pm on Friday, just before Sabbath, which would have started around 7:30pm close to Nisan 14. (The Jewish calendar, as you know, starts the new day at sundown.) Jesus remained in the grave the entire Sabbath day (Saturday), and sometime Sunday morning, the women came to the grave and found the body missing, signifying that Jesus had already been raised up.

At a minimum, therefore, Jesus had therefore been dead for at least 4.5 hours on Friday. Then then entire 24 hours on Saturday. And anywhere from 0 hours to 11 hours on Sunday. Assuming he had been raised during the night watch, or no later than around 6am on Sunday when the women came to the grave. (7:30pm to 6:30am is 11 hours). If we assume, for argument's sake, about half way into the overnight watch, then Jesus was raised around 1:30am.

So 4/24ths + 24/24ths +6/24 = 34/24ths. (=1+10/24ths) So Jesus was in the grave for around, we could guess, the equivalent of 1.4 days. If you decided to multiply that by 1000 years (per day) you would get only 1,400 years. If you tried to be accurate you could not get less than 1.1875days or 1,188 years and not more than 1.64 days or 1,640 years.

Of course, you are using Hosea to give you the excuse to round off all of this to two days. (So that you can add exactly 2,000 years to 33CE.) But the Greek Scriptures already round off the number of days to 3, since it was parts of 3 days (even if only a small part of Friday, and a small part of Sunday). This is why the parallel to Jonah was made (where Jonah was in the "grave" for three days). 

I don't see where you find the right to round off to two days in the "grave" if the Bible rounds to three days, and it was literally only about a day-and-a-half from 3pm Friday to 6am Sunday.

This whole thing reminds me of the assumption Russell once published, that because the Bible says Abraham's sacrifice of a bird was a "young bird" that the bird can be assumed to be "one year old" and he therefore it was turned into exactly 360 years, using a day for a year and multiplying the year times 360.

To me, all this seems like you are taking extreme liberties with statements of the Bible that have already been fulfilled, and you are trying to push another fulfillment onto them. I also agree with Arauna that the entire idea of using Jesus' death and resurrection to create a new prophecy does not seem correct. It seems presumptuous to base a prediction of a new prophecy onto one that the Bible says was fulfilled.

6 hours ago, BroRando said:

International Bible Students Association: "Nevertheless, when viewed from God’s standpoint, we are still “shortly after” 1914. Although Russell himself did not think the time of trouble would be this long, he did allow that it could be. It is possible that the time allotted for this period is 120 years (1914+120=2034),

I appreciate that you finally fixed part of your mistake.

In the past few years you kept insisting that this quote about 1914 +120 years came from Russell himself. Later, you reworded slightly to make it look like it came from the beliefs of Russell himself. Now you finally admit above that it comes from the "International Bible Students Association." It doesn't of course. As I documented for you already, it's just a recent quote from a modern-day Russellite-styled "Bible Student" (not the IBSA) who still hopes to protect Russell's reputation against the  the failure of those old 1914 predictions.

The man you are quoting from is just another Internet forum contributor and writer, probably much like yourself, who would love to see that 1914 still has some specific significance to the "generation that will not pass away." I suspect that, like a lot of us, you see the folly of the word-game that some of the brothers (like Brother Splane) have begun playing with the multiple overlapping lifespans that make the length of that generation "fuzzy." You want to see 1914 become a clearer demarcation point that still plays a direct role in Bible prophecy.

Our publications admit that all the various teachings we had about the "generation" from 1879 to about 2009 were incorrect teachings. A lot of Witnesses I have talked to, still want those old statements to be correct, even if it means stretching things a bit. I still hear a Witness now and then say that there have been persons in Siberia that lived to be 120.

At least you are not emphasizing the possibility of a 120-year lifespan. I think a lot of Witnesses don't understand that by trying to hold to 1914 this way, they are really just making a mockery out of Jesus words. This idea that at least one person might have been born in 1914 and live to the year 2034 implies that Jesus was really saying something like this:

When you start to see all these things occurring, lift up your heads and rejoice, because all of you will be dead, except for maybe one of you. And if that one 120-year old person endures to the end, he will be saved. He will also be very thankful that the days of tribulation were cut short on account of the chosen one, him.

On June 4, our local NPR station broadcast some BBC interviews about the fact that this year, and for the last 3 years, no public vigil/memorial was allowed on the anniversary of the "Tiananmen Square Massacre." The last two years, officials used Covid as the excuse, but this year it was clearly more than just Covid or any other pox at play. But as I listened, I almost had to laugh at the BBC interviewer who had found a person who spoke good English decrying the new rule about memorials/vigils this year. The man agreed that it was wrong to stop the memorials, and then he was asked if he thought his life or at least his freedom was in danger for giving the interview. The interviewee fumbled for a bit, knowing what the interviewer wanted, but very nicely told him that as a Chinese person he still has leeway to speak about it, but that it was still wrong for the government to disallow the actual memorial events, because it's a part of history he remembered as a child, and he wants his children never to forget it.

The program cut to a replay of the BBC reporting way back from that day in 1989, and I noticed something odd in the exact wording of the report when the announcer said: "We are heading toward the Square now, and we can hear gunfire coming from not far away." This was actually one of the accurate reports, because, while there were protests on the Square that became violent, that gunfire wasn't coming from the Square but was many blocks away from the Square.

The explanation is presented very simply in a "Tweet" from someone who just got banned from Twitter for it, even though it is true, but almost never reported this way in the West. This is the way some journalists on the spot at the time also reported it, until the Western narrative changed and the numbers of dead also had to be multiplied drastically.

On 5/29/2022 at 10:55 AM, JW Insider said:

And unless someone asks me to, I won't even restart the topic in the Closed Club, where it was suggested it belonged in the first place.

About a week ago, and then yesterday, too, two different persons asked me some "legitimate" questions about things that were already said on this topic. I had hoped to turn the topic away from the book itself and just discuss more general issues about early Bible Student history.

I also realize that a lot of false claims have been made. By not even trying to respond, it might give the impression that I agree with the false claims. I probably shouldn't feel this way, but somehow it just seems dishonest to start a discussion and then allow so many false statements to go without any comment.

But WalterPrescott is correct that the particular book I brought up here is really mostly going over material that has been hashed and rehashed before. Nothing terribly new here, even if it's a pretty comprehensive and detailed historical review which can now be found in one place instead of going off to dozens of separate resources.

So, I think my best compromise would be to go ahead and answer the questions that have come up both here and through PM's. Also, since some people are offended by the book, or its author, I will forget the book and just give an overview based on the same historical resources and evidence that we can all find, many of which have already been brought here and elsewhere on the forum over the last few years.

I'm not saying I'll do this right away, but I will probably get around to starting it in several days.

42 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

The problem back then was the legitimacy of the business. Since the board of directors, weren't a legitimate body under the law, then everyone that wasn't under compliance ended up being a critic on how a lawyer ended up legitimizing that business under Russell's instructions. Instructions that by in large are still followed today.

From your very first posts on this topic until now, many of your posts have contained claims that apparently have no evidence to back them up. And so many of the sources you have been quoting are merely the same sources that contradict your claims. Perhaps you could start explaining the reasons you make claims that appear to be the exact opposite of where the evidence leads. I know you like to point out how others are distorting nearly everything on this topic, but you never point out any specifics. Also, when you just make claims without any evidence, it could be that your own claims are just as distorted, or even more so. Just something to consider.

For example, why not start with your above claim that the board of directors weren't a legitimate body under the law. Where did you get that idea?

4 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

So whom did Russell think would inherit the Earth. ?

All the non-Christians (who would soon learn to become Christians as the millennium progressed). Of course this would be after the then-imminent rapture of the rest of the 144000. Then the left-behind Christians would likely die off normally and get their lesser heavenly reward over the next few years as they each met their own natural or circumstantial death.

7 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

When a president decides, that doesn't mean he doesn't get input from others. So, YES! Team effort.

Of course, this is very possible, I just haven't seen any evidence from our publications, or from anyone who had lived through that time period. One of the biggest complaints about Rutherford, even admitted by MacMillan, is that he so often made decisions that ignored the input of everyone else. Not saying that happened in this case, but it would be interesting to see some evidence that he was a team player.

5 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I think the scriptures make it clear that only the  Anointed are YHWH's Temple. 

No problem there. For several years, only the anointed were called "Jehovah's witnesses." For Rutherford, it was the way that the types and anti-types worked out for the identification of Israel in Isaiah 43. They were not to speak of a member of the "Other Sheep," "Great Crowd," as Jehovah's witnesses.

Russell had previously discussed the verse and presented it nearly the same way, saying that it meant that all true Christians would be called true Israelites, the Israel of God.

Russell's comments:

[Isa. 43:7] "Called by my name —Israel means "People of God" and the name will ultimately apply to all who are his. " .

. .  Those who thus covenant with God are begotten of the spirit of God, and as many such as are thenceforth led of the spirit of God, they are the recognized sons of God (Rom. 8:14)

But Russell considered the "Great Crowd" to also be a heavenly class, and anointed, just not the antitype of the more consecrated priestly Israelites: the Bride/Body that made up the 144,000. Russell's views on Isaiah 43 were confusing, however, because he was a Zionist who believed that the Jews were already returning to Palestine, setting up to make earthly Jerusalem the administrative capital of the world.

[Isa. 43:5] Gather thee —As certain as this prophecy has been fulfilled in the preservation of down-trodden Israel in all lands, so certain will it be fulfilled in their restoration to their own land. R232:5*

Rutherford gave up on Russell's Zionist views around 1930, opening the way for a clearer understanding of spiritual Israel. And a clearer understanding of Isaiah 43.

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

Another thing JW's should be aware of. It was 1931 when they "openly" declared themselves Jehovah's Witnesses. That was the affirmation, year. That doesn't mean people hadn't being trying to make a change sooner. They started floating the name change since 1922 by variations like Witnesses of Jehovah. It was briefly mentioned in an 1928 convention as well. Therefore, it became a team effort, not just Rutherford.

The Proclaimers book alludes to something like this on page 152-3: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993013

Yet, Isaiah 43:10, 12 was never discussed in any detail in The Watch Tower during its first 40 years of publication.

After that, however, their study of the Scriptures directed the attention of Jehovah’s servants to significant new developments. God’s Kingdom with Jesus as Messianic King had been brought to birth in the heavens in 1914. In 1925, the year that this was made clear in The Watch Tower, the prophetic command, in Isaiah chapter 43, to be witnesses of Jehovah was given attention in 11 different issues of the magazine.

In The Watch Tower of January 1, 1926, the principal article featured the challenging question: “Who Will Honor Jehovah?” During the next five years, The Watch Tower discussed some portion of Isaiah 43:10-12 in 46 separate issues and each time made application of it to true Christians.* In 1929 it was pointed out that the outstanding issue facing all intelligent creation involves the honoring of Jehovah’s name. And in connection with the responsibility that Jehovah’s servants have regarding this issue, Isaiah 43:10-12 repeatedly came up for consideration.

Russell had spoken of John the Baptist as having the privilege of being the first of Jehovah God's witnesses of the Light, and had spoken of the Great Pyramid in Egypt as being "Jehovah's 'Witness.'" But, just as the Proclaimer's book stated, Russell had not really discussed the "issue" in Isaiah 43 in much depth. He had referenced Isaiah 43:7 and 43:11, but never dealt with the term "witnesses" the way Isaiah 43:12 does.

The jw.org website says that the name appeared for the very first time in print on July 28, 1931, along with a picture of the paper (The Messenger): https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/global/Ninety-Years-Embracing-the-Name-Jehovahs-Witnesses/

On July 28, 1931, The Messenger, a newspaper produced by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society that reported on convention news, used the name Jehovah’s Witnesses in print for the first time.

I've never seen it credited as a team effort, though. Everywhere in our publications where the name change is discussed, it always seems to be credited to Rutherford and divine providence.

*** jv chap. 11 p. 152 How We Came to Be Known as Jehovah’s Witnesses ***
. . . A. H. Macmillan, an administrative associate of three presidents of the Watch Tower Society, said concerning that announcement by Brother Rutherford: “There is no doubt in my mind—not then nor now—that the Lord guided him in that, and that is the name Jehovah wants us to bear, and we’re very happy and very glad to have it.” Which viewpoint do the facts support? Was the name ‘a stroke of genius’ on the part of Brother Rutherford, or was it the result of divine providence?

Several more posts were just moved here from the Rutherford topic.

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

I guess more post will need to be moved!

You are right. This time it was a bit harder, because there were a couple of them that started out more closely related to Bible Student history, but they strayed too far from this topic.

Anyway, they are now over in that same old "other" recent thread: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/89872-posts-moved-from-a-recent-topic-about-a-jfrutherford-book/

4 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Can you in honesty prove that the JW Org is built on a good solid foundation ? 

I don't follow the "Org," I appreciate the organization for how it has been instrumental in currently helping millions of people build their faith on a solid foundation: faith in Jehovah, Christ Jesus, and the words and teachings of the Bible. I appreciate that it very efficiently and effectively has been instrumental in teaching tens of millions more, and getting the word out to hundreds of millions. (I.e., setting an example for preaching and teaching "good news" about a time under the Kingdom when there will be no more war, no more divisive politics, no more racism, and a time when Jehovah's provisions will make all things new, returning heaven and earth to His original purpose.)

I don't believe we need worry too much about the history of an organization, as if that is what Jesus meant by building on a solid foundation. What the organization was back between, say, 1884 and 1935, or even between 1935 and 2021 is also not of such great concern to me. I'm interested in the history mostly to the extent that I want to make sure that what we currently teach about that history is accurate and not distorted.

I have other interests in history, more generally, because I find it fascinating. Not just religious history, but all kinds of history. I always learn about various mundane themes (sociology, class, leadership, politics, psychology) that seem relevant as historical situations tend to be repeated.

Also, my great-grandfather was a "Pilgrim" in the Chicago Bible Students who traveled with Russell to speak at conventions, and he continued on under Rutherford. He said that most of the Chicago Bible Students were "Russellites," as he himself had been, and most of them left under Rutherford. Some of his "brethren" had left even earlier. Some had left in 1909 over doctrinal issues (New Covenant, "The Vow") some in 1914 and 1915 over failed predictions and expectations. So I admit that some family stories and "artifacts" of the Bible Student era hold my interest for more mundane reasons, too.

Even if the original organization had been no more than another faction of Catholicism or Protestantism that didn't believe in Trinity, Hellfire or War, that would be more than enough of a good start. My only expectation, historically, is that it would continue to progress, to put off more and more false teachings. Then we should find some evidence of Jehovah's blessing as it should attract more people who are looking for a kind of Christianity with a reasonable core of Biblical values and therefore find a brotherhood that encourages and promotes Christian conduct and activities. But the foundation is Christ, not the Organization. 

4 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

But you've often spoken about your concern over the teachings of '1914' as if it is just dragging an old tradition into 'new light'. 

1914 is a good case in point. I'm interested in how our chronology traditions developed, and how these teachings were justified, and changed, and re-justified, with both secular mistakes, and Biblical interpretion mistakes. But I'm not interested in anecdotes about the personalities of those people who carried on and defended the chronology traditions. Those traditions (1844, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1925) either stand or fall on whether they had Biblical support. The human and secular support, or lack thereof, is far less relevant. The point should not be to embarrass Wm Miller, Nelson Barbour, Joseph Seiss, Charles Russell, Morton Edgar, or Joseph Rutherford, but to check such teachings against the Bible "touchstone."

1 hour ago, Peter Carroll said:

these apostates seem to be living in the past ,clutching at straws ,men long dead cannot defend themselves and they know this..it must be a sad life

I definitely can agree there's a lot of that going on. There are apostates who think that they can go back and find past mistakes and predictions and former beliefs, and they think we should all just conclude that we must have no reason to go on because of some issues in the past. But progress means there will always be some of this. The persons who should be more embarrassed are those churches whose own scholars have seen doctrinal problems for hundreds of years, but they are so stuck in tradition, that they will hardly change a thing. And then the things that they will gladly change are simply compromises with the world to make it easier to keep their following. 

As you say, it must be a sad life for people like this. When I look at the number of years some people have put into their own pet projects, it often seems like such a sad waste. Even those persons in Christendom of the last century who spent years doing the tedious work of making a Bible concordance, or working out the grammar of an ancient language, or even those who spend a lifetime cataloguing all the insects of a tropical jungle. Even though it's sad for them, we can still sometimes find some benefit in the works of others in gathering and presenting information, no matter what their personal beliefs are. 

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

Once again, what's the interest?

I could ask you the same, as you appear to have a much stronger interest in all this old past history than I ever will. My interest is not related to tracing the many break-off groups, or worry about what they taught or didn't teach. Or what embarrassing mistakes were made. My interest is to look at whether information we currently teach about our history might have been distorted. I don't want to learn only biased, one-sided information if there is a lot of evidence to consider that I hadn't considered before. I like to learn about all the evidence before I judge something as right, wrong or somewhere in between.

I don't blame anyone, however, for jumping to the conclusion that all books by former Witnesses are going to be worthless. Plenty of them are. And plenty of them appear to discuss material that I have absolutely no interest in. I'm not interested in anecdotes that highlight embarrassments and mistakes of the past. As I said above, my interest is in what we are teaching currently about this time period.

I learned a lot from the book. Not directly from Persson, but from the sources, resources, material and evidence that he presents.

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

So, his perception of Rutherford's time from 1916-1919 is NOT substantiated,

I couldn't care less about his perception of Rutherford's time, just the specific (verifiable) details reported. It's the documentation that is substantiated. It's the fact that someone else went to the trouble of culling through hundreds of pages of this documentation and made lists of all the major resources used, and gives us the page numbers in those resources that we can find and look up ourselves. This is something you rarely get from simple biased presentations of any kind of history. These include the resources that are pro-Rutherford and resources that were anti-Rutherford.

Persson's perception of it all might be wrong. But we can make up our own minds because many of his resources are re-printed in full in the books appendixes. Some of these are valuable Watchtower resources were never re-printed in any Watchtower versions of our history. So most of us have never seen some of our own resources.

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

Like you told me, anyone can flip through a book and post just the negative aspects of it. Heed your own words when reading apostate literature. 

Exactly!

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

What all those apostate books do is, recycle old info. 

You gave the impression earlier that because some apostate books are inaccurate that all of them are. If there were 100 apostate books in the world, and half of them were terrible, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other half are just as terrible. It's not possible to generalize this way about "all those apostate books."

Besides, you are quoting above from "apostate" resources, too. Rutherford referred to several of the breakaway groups as "the evil slave." But it didn't mean that ALL of what they said and did was wrong. For example the Standfasters were also considered "the evil slave." Yet they broke away because the Watchtower Society was compromising on political issues, war, war bonds, etc. Yet, the Standfasters, began taking a stand against "flag salute" years before Rutherford began defending this same stance. The Standfasters also came up with an earthly class of non-anointed Christians many years before Rutherford began teaching the existence of such a class. So it's not like everything that apostates said and did must always be rejected. Rutherford himself was able to correctly apostasize from Russellite teachings, so that he had abandoned almost all of Russell's unique teachings before 1930.

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

On 5/31/2022 at 8:02 PM, WalterPrescott said:

JWI, how does that compare? It seems trivial when, bad explanations have already been made long ago. It seems irrelevant for another apostate to rehash the past, when that apostate only has unsubstantiated info.

You are right that it certainly would be trivial and irrelevant if it was just another book of bad explanations and unsubstantiated info. But you asked how does that compare? I'd have to say that this book is the first one I have read that is literally full of substantiated info. There are times when it defends the Watchtower's (and MacMillan's statements) against those of previous apostates and ex-JWs who have written books with unsubstantiated claims.

On 5/31/2022 at 8:02 PM, WalterPrescott said:

If we are to believe, everything apostates offer as fact, Rutherford, was a drunk, whore chaser, Beth Sarim held his concubines, and he's buried in the garage floor at Beth Sarim.

Persson's book focuses on the events of 1916 through 1919. But you can tell he is trying to do a pretty fair and balanced job of dealing with a lot of these other later claims about Rutherford, too. He has no problem pointing out the "ignorance" of some of these  authors who were too quick to just pick up on anything that sounded negative about Rutherford, but didn't check the facts. He even uses the term "ignorant" when describing conclusions made in some previous apostate books, but only when he can substantiate why they were wrong.

For example, he spends pages presenting some valuable evidence that Carl Olof Jonsson has uncovered that contradicts a lot of the lurid claims about Rutherford's drinking. Jonsson trusts the opinion of this brother who knew Rutherford pretty well, and who claims that he never saw Rutherford publicly drunk.

I have just moved about 130 more posts from here to the other topic linked here:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/89872-posts-moved-from-a-recent-topic-about-a-jfrutherford-book

Hope this doesn't cause any confusion.