JW Insider

So far, I can't help but see a strong parallel between Ray Franz and Rolf Furuli's choice of words, style and even some of his entire talking points. I already had five R.F. marks in the margins (pdf) before even got out of the Introduction. And it started not to matter whether the R.F. stood for Rolf Furuli or Ray Franz, so I stopped highlighting those kinds of parallels. Two of the parallels are so "eerie" that I wonder how aware Furuli is about how they sound. Here's one: Ray Franz became associated with the term "captives of a concept" as a way to explain how and why the GB see themselves in a position that is so difficult to explain Biblically. Furuli hits several of Ray Franz' points in the same order that Franz presents them: I do not question the sincerity of the members of the GB. But it seems to me that they are held captive by their belief that they are chosen by God as "the faithful and discreet slave," and that they have been appointed over Jehovah's Witnesses as their government with unlimited power. Here's another one, that echos the theme of R.Franz' second book: This letter shows that the members of the GB believe that they have the right to . . . overrule the consciences of individual Witnesses. But this is an attack on the Christian freedom that Paul mentioned in Galatians 5.1. Of course, that doesn't necessarily go to your point about Furuli's goals, because Ray Franz' style appeared to be much more reluctant about saying anything, but explained how he had been forced into a corner to explain himself due to rampant misinformation. This rang true with Ray Franz that he had never wanted to leave the organization, or try to do anything that would get him in any kind of trouble that would force anyone to try to make him leave, or try to undermine anything to do with current doctrines or teachings, after settling into his congregation. The problem apparently started only when the congregation wanted to use Ray Franz as an elder, and the local elders wrote the Society to find out if that would be appropriate. Until then there was apparently no reason to go after Ray Franz to try to get him disfellowshipped. So, "Chairman Ray" may have been the very opposite of your revolutionary. And Furuli is setting himself up similarly as a non-revolutionary. One major difference is that Furuli has evidently taken a more proactive role, and pretty much admits to assuming that he won't be answered, just because they haven't dealt with him or his issues yet. You might have nailed it when you wondered just how he knows they are refusing to consider his "corrections." But I'm pretty sure that he knows. He knows what is inevitable, or at least what would have been inevitable if he hadn't got this book out there first. A former circuit and district overseer can read the signs, especially one whose work has previously been welcomed into the hearing of the GB.

Originally it is French "Flanders." But there was some fleeing to "Germany" before fleeing to America. (There wasn't really a place callled "Germany" then.) But some of the earliest versions of the "Crispell" names remaining in France kept French-spelled versions of the name, like Crépel. (Of course, you probably know that the accent aigu e in French more often hides an "s" sound when transferred into French, which might indicate that the earlier version is elsewhere: étable –> stable; école –> scole –> school; il étudie –> il studie –> he studies; étranglé (from étrangler) –> stranglé –> strangled) I believe that all marrying into Dutch families was in "New Amsterdam" (New York). In the late 1700's, I'm told that some moved to Southern Huguenot communities, at least temporarily, and moved back up with the original Crispell families in the early 1800's. I have never tried to trace any evidence for this. (In which case, pretty much the whole story could as it is told below, with the exception that some of the Crispell relatives are currently in South Carolina and have been since antebellum days.) This is from: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Crispell-1 Antoine "Antoni, Anthony" Crispel formerly Crispell aka Crupel, Crespel, Crépel, Crepel Born 1635 in Sainghin-en-Weppes, Lilloise Flanders (now Nord), France Son of Charles Crispell and Margueritte Cousin [sibling(s) unknown] Husband of Marie (Blanchan) Crispell — married 31 Jan 1660 in Mannheim, Baden-Wurttemberg (Germany) Husband of Petronella (Dumond) de Mon — married 1680 in Kingston, Ulster, NY Descendants Father of Marimaddeleen Crispell, Pieter Crepel, Zara (Crispel) Suylandt, Jan (Chrispel) Crispell and Jannetje (Crispel) Hoffman Died 1707 in New Paltz, Ulster County, Province of New York ... Biography Antoine was a young Protestant farmer, who went to Mannheim in the Lower Palatinate (Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany). There he married and sailed on the 'Gilded Otter' to New Amsterdam on 27 Apr 1660. Upon arrival they immediately moved to Esopus in Ulster County, New Netherland. Anthony Crispell, a Huguenot (Protestant) from the Flandres francaises (Arrondissement de Lille, Nord), France, fled his native land to the Upper Palatinate in Germany. On January 13, 1660, he married Marie Blanchan, also from French Flanders, in Mannheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. She was the daughter of Mathieu Blanchan, a French Huguenot. Antoine and Marie Crispell left for the New World on April 27, 1660 in "De Vergulde Otter" ("Gilded Otter"). They landed at New Amsterdam in New Netherland. Many French Huguenots settled in this Protestant-led Dutch colony. First going to Esopus, now part of Kingston, NY, the Crispell family settled in nearby Hurley. On June 7, 1663, when the Indians destroyed the village, his wife and infant daughter (Marie-Magdalene) were captured with Antoine but they were soon released. The next year, the entire province was taken over by the English from Dutch rule. Antoine & Marie (Blanchan) Crispell had the following children:[1] Marie Magdalene CRISPELL, christened: 12 FEB 1662 in Hurley Peter CRISPELL christened: 21 DEC 1664 Lysbet (Elisabeth) CRISPELL christened: 3 OCT 1666; d: infant Lysbet (Elisabeth) CRISPELL christened: 15 OCT 1668 Sara CRISPELL christened: 18 JUN 1671 Jan (Jean/John) CRISPELL christened: 21 JUL 1674 in Ulster, NY

It's just a working hypothesis based on things I've seen from him, including a personal conversation. I am reading the book now, and won't finish until tomorrow. If the hypothesis is not evidenced I will either drop it, or discuss why it wasn't evidenced. But I'm OK discussing his book no matter what his reasons.. He sent me his last two books for free, but I must not be on his mailing list any more, because I had to get this one myself.

Yes. I am aware. I'm just surprised, especially after reading and studying and discussing his last two books. I am aware of your stated position about them. I doubt that his views on chronology are firm. He gives plenty of evidence that he does not really believe they are firm. They are definitely not "established" in the least, except as weak theories he could never honestly defend. About all he ever established is that he was "clever" but incapable of dealing with the necessary issues related to chronology. Even amateurs like myself have had no trouble seeing through the scheme. 😊 Interesting. Perhaps he is in the process of sacrificing his association with Witnesses so that he will be the first non-Witness scholar in history to claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE. I have another theory as to what he is doing, much less interesting, but in total keeping with the evidence he has already documented about his ego, personality and track record. I'll see if it makes sense after reading his book (tomorrow).

This has taken me totally by surprise. A friend informs me that he also brings up the issue of higher education and disfellowshiping offenses. If some kind of break were to happen at all, I expected it from a conscience issue, concerning his chronology.

My last name is not Crispell, but one of my living uncles still has the middle name of Crispell. Their story is partly told at the link below. I don't really know how many of these stories are true. Some of the family is currently back in Charleston and they say that the move from originally from Charleston to Walkill/Kingston/NewPaltz. But some stories have them coming over directly to New York. I never bothered to trace whether both versions were true for different parts of the family. https://www.huguenotstreet.org/crispell Thanks for telling parts of your story. This kind of history is interesting. A lot of people don't know just how seriously the Catholic/Protestant divide has affected history over the last 500 years. It's no wonder that so many of the prophecies in Revelation were originally seen in those terms.

Just in case anyone wasn't aware, a few of JTR's recent posts had moved in this same direction, and I thought I'd share the entire song from which JTR referenced a couple of the lyrics. It struck me as too sad to respond immediately. Although I would not think it enough to draw any conclusions: "Seasons In The Sun" (originally by Jacques Brel) Terry Jacks (performer) Goodbye to you my trusted friend We've known each other since we were nine or ten Together we've climbed hills and trees Learned of love and ABCs Skinned our hearts and skinned our knees Goodbye my friend, it's hard to die When all the birds are singing in the sky Now that the spring is in the air Pretty girls are everywhere Think of me and I'll be there We had joy, we had fun We had seasons in the sun But the hills that we climbed Were just seasons out of time Goodbye papa, please pray for me I was the black sheep of the family You tried to teach me right from wrong Too much wine and too much song Wonder how I got along Goodbye papa, it's hard to die When all the birds are singing in the sky Now that the spring is in the air Little children everywhere When you see them, I'll be there We had joy, we had fun We had seasons in the sun But the wine and the song Like the seasons, have all gone We had joy, we had fun We had seasons in the sun But the wine and the song Like the seasons, have all gone Goodbye Michelle, my little one You gave me love and helped me find the sun And every time that I was down You would always come around And get my feet back on the ground Goodbye Michelle, it's hard to die When all the birds are singing in the sky Now that the spring is in the air With the flowers everywhere I wish that we could both be there We had joy, we had fun We had seasons in the sun But the stars we could reach Were just starfish on the beach We had joy, we had fun We had seasons in the sun But the stars we could reach Were just starfish on the beach We had joy, we had fun We had seasons in the sun But the wine and the song Like the seasons, have all gone All our lives we had fun We had seasons in the sun But the hills that we climbed Were just seasons out of time We had joy, we had fun We had seasons in the sun

When I first came to this site I chose the name "The Bible's Advocate" to discuss some doctrinal issues. But I never used it. I "temporarily" chose the name "JW Insider" because I also wanted to share a couple dozen trivia items that I figured no one else would be sharing. But I never got around to sharing the trivia items. By now, I'm stuck with "JW Insider" although I don't really like the name. And I also decided that the trivia items were . . . well . . . too trivial to worry about. But I figured I might start sharing a few more things and see how it goes. (My family has a long history with the Watchtower Society, some going back to Russell's time. Since my great-grandfather was on the convention speaking tours with Russell and Rutherford, you can still buy his picture on eBay along with several of the other associates of Russell. In fact, some original items were even given over to the Society for exhibits.) I thought about this again because I'm reading a very thorough historical book on Russell titled "A Separate Identity, Volume 2" by B.W.Schulz and R.M.de Vienne. In fact, I've got nothing to share that can compare with the page after page of information about Russell from that book. So much of it is completely new to me and even a bit surprising. I wish I had been following the blog run by the author, too, because I notice that when I went back for something I had bookmarked to read, it wasn't there any more. I'll try to promote the book again here. I think people here will enjoy it. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/87187-just-read-a-good-portion-of-b-w-schulz-new-book-separate-identity-volume-2/?tab=comments#comment-144581 So if you came here for some of the trivia that I was going to share, sorry. I don't have anything to compare. Well, I can share one thing that few people know. But I have never looked into it that closely myself. Much (most?) of the land that the Watchtower Farm owns in Wallkill used to belong to my relatives. I shared a fact before that Brother Booth (GB) once owned the farmland where they built the original Gilead School in Lansing. But the Wallkill story is of interest to me because there's a plaque up there in Wallkill associated with an old Huguenot related church with one of my relative's names on it. (Crispell) I think it's now part of the Reformed Church of Shawangunk which borders on the North side of the Watchtower property there, within eyesight of the Kingdom Hall at Bruynswick Rd and Red Mill Rd. (They are across from each other, on separate sides of the Wallkill River.) I don't know if they still do it, but it was once the Watchtower's responsibility to care for a part of the historical church's property, including the plaque. Of course all this is meaningless as it relates to the Watchtower itself, but it's part of a story about the movement of religion in the earlier part of the 1800's in the United States. These earlier relatives of mine were the first people to bring the French Huguenot religion up to New York (from around Charleston, South Carolina). There are still a couple of Crispell cousins in Wallkill, and even a Crispell School there, however, many of the Crispell family settled on the Wallkill River where the settlement was called New Paltz. I might have mentioned once before that an elderly woman at the Historical Society in New Paltz once dug an old family Bible out of a vault for me that had Dutch relatives listed, going back to the 1600s. (The French and the German and the Dutch began intermarrying in the 1800's here in this area.)

No conspiracy here. It's about how we often we tend to throw carefulness out the window when things look like they are going "according to plan." If someone is really serious about a teaching or premise, however, they are definitely going to look for points that undermine the premise. The best essays, non-fiction books, lectures and presentations will present a premise, deal with the points that undermine the premise, deal with the points in favor, and then discuss how or why the various arguments should be weighted in favor of the presented premise. Volume 2 from B.W.Schulz deals with some WT issues just like this and discusses ways in which such mistakes are not conspiratorial, but have been driven from a belief system that didn't double-check itself. As the writers said, it's often just a matter of carefulness with the "facts." They didn't usually concern themselves with the reasons.

These examples, like most mistakes involving chronology, just show how easy it is to be mistaken. Our desire to believe something affects how careful we are about the evidence. I'm sure the person who found Bengel quote this was very excited about how it proves we were right all along about the old generation theory. But that theory was finally dropped, although the danger is still there to let it happen again. I'm certainly not saying I have not been fooled, more often than I'd like to admit. But I'm trying to be much more careful about things now. The WTS has not been wrong very often on most other topics, but chronology is one of those things that we still carry on from traditions that go back nearly 150 years now. I doubt they will get fixed all at once.

True. And that Revelation book was written at the same time as the 1989 article when a lot of these "hints" of world disaster from outsiders were highly prized. I think that change you mentioned was made around 2006. But it reminds me that the Society put out a new edition of the "Truth" book in 1981 even though we never did much with it. The time for the original "Truth" book (1968) had already passed, and this update was well nigh ignored compared to the original. And the edits were all focused on getting rid of the quotes from scientists or authors who had directly or indirectly pointed to 1975. (But replacing them with just enough space to replace only those parts so that most of the pages could be reprinted without redoing the pagination of whole book.) So it's a matter of just how many selective quotes were selected from those "some scientists." After a while the purpose of those quotes tells more about the selector than the scientists, especially because we could have found just as many or more who believed that science would resolve life-threatening problems. Back when we believed it was important to remind people that man had been on the earth for 6,000 years, the publications even looked for quotes that dropped that hint, and then italics might even be added to make sure readers noticed the reference to "6,000 years." Here's one from 1975: *** g75 8/22 p. 20 Is the Industrial Way of Life a Failure? *** Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm declares that the current sicknesses of industrial society can be dealt with “only if the whole system as it has existed during the last 6000 years of history can be replaced by a fundamentally different one.” [Italics ours] Fromm saw no particular significance in the number 6,000. But we certainly did. It's a little bit like the way the Watch Tower publications used J.A.Bengel, above, completely out of context on his point about the Hebrews believing a generation was 75 years. First of all the statement was completely false. And his context was only that it fit the time from Jesus' birth to the year 70. If you read the entire reference, you can see that it's just as much about how Jesus' words would fit the period of 40 years from the year 30 to the year 70. And that it would fit the 75 year idea, too. The idea of 75 years, supposedly found in the Seder Olam, was not there in the original Seder Olam (Rabbah) from the year 169 CE. It's not even in the most expanded version of the Seder Olam (Zutta) from 804 CE. (I took the picture from his 1862 version of his work on New Testament words. The 1877 version had changed Hebrews to Jews, but still contained false information about the supposed 75 years: The footnote (2) in the above is not about the 75 years but about how in the 40 years leading up to Jerusalem's destruction in 70, that there were earthquakes and famines and pestilence and war, just as Jesus had predicted. I point this out because it shows how easy it is to start selecting specialists and scholars (even if one needs to go back to 1862) to find a "fact" that isn't even a "fact" to support chronology. It seems important to me, because of the potential for doing this all over again with 2034 or the "devil in the details" behind Splane's chart.

I don't recall that particular context. But I didn't include all the quotes from Wohl either. Also, if it were Wohl, he didn't say it until 1980. I noticed that there were several interesting quotes about the "industrial age" and "industrial revolution" that could be implied to fit what you (and Wohl) are saying, but I didn't see the one in the place where you saw it. This reminds me of another thing the Society said about the "generation." It's definitely not the quote you are looking for, but it reminded me about the kind of generation that Arauna mentioned: *** g88 4/8 pp. 13-14 The Last Days—What’s Next? *** How Long Can a Generation Last? The American Legion Magazine pointed out that 4,743,826 U.S. men and women had participated in World War I. But in 1984 only 272,000 remained alive, and they were dying off at an average of nine every hour. Does that mean, then, that the generation of 1914 has already disappeared? The Greek word for generation is geneá, used by Matthew, Mark, and Luke in their accounts of Jesus’ words. It can have different applications according to the context. However, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology defines it as: “Those born at the same time . . . Associated with this is the meaning: the body of one’s contemporaries, an age.” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament states: “The sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time generation, contemporaries.” These definitions allow for all those who were born around the time of a historic event and all those who were alive at that time. J. A. Bengel states in his New Testament Word Studies: “The Hebrews . . . reckon seventy-five years as one generation, and the words, shall not pass away, intimate that the greater part of that generation [of Jesus’ day] indeed, but not the whole of it, should have passed away before all should be fulfilled.” This became true by the year 70 C.E. when Jerusalem was destroyed. Likewise today, most of the generation of 1914 has passed away. However, there are still millions on earth who were born in that year or prior to it. And although their numbers are dwindling, Jesus’ words will come true, “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” This is yet another reason for believing that Jehovah’s thieflike day is imminent. So, what events should alert Christians watch for?. . . “Peace and Security” . . . For anyone who wants to do the math puzzle, there must have already been just about no one left from this number of persons still surviving who had participated in WWI. (Assuming there were 272,000 dying at 9 per hour since 1984.) That was near the end of 1984, because although it doesn't say, the American Legion article is from their December 1984 issue. So since there are 24 hours a day for 365.25 days every year, multiplying by 9, and carrying the 1, there would be 78,894 dying every year and, therefore, they would all be gone by April 15, 1988. And this article came out in the April 8, 1988 issue! And it was in March 1988 that the Awake! magazine had just begun adding the following to the inside masthead about "the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away." (That statement was in every issue for the next 7 and one-half years.) And, of course, it was just a few months later when the January 1, 1989 Watchtower indicated that Armageddon would be here by the year 2000. Someone caught that mistake in just enough time to remove it from the bound volume and the Watchtower Library CD. Of course, people don't really die off at constant rates like that (9 per hour), but I get the impression that someone was watching those numbers from that American Legion article a little too closely, perhaps from the time it came out. It's like you joked about before, about waiting for the last person to die off. (At least, I hope you were joking!) In fact, in the article above, it was the first time that the number 75 had been used for the "Hebrew" length of a generation, based on something this scholar named Bengel had said. And the scholar was actually referring to the highly discredited Seder Olam. And, of course, the Seder Olam doesn't say anything about a generation being 75 years. In the Seder Olam, except for the longer generations before the Flood, it would have been a closer match to the 490 years as being only 14 generations, per Matthew. That's 490 divided by 14 which is 35 years for each generation. The reason that Bengel wanted it to be 75 was because of his theory that the generation could therefore include not just the 40 years from Jesus' prophecy in 30 CE to 70 CE, but it was a generation that could have started when Jesus was born (which he assumed was about 5 BCE). Also, Bengel was only interested in 70 CE, but the real reason for the 75 years in the Awake! was the point about persons born in 1914 or the year prior, as it says. 1914 + 75, is 1989, and for the year prior 1913 + 75 is 1988. So this was cutting it pretty close. And according to the American Legion magazine, the last surviving soldier from WWI would be dead in just a couple weeks.

Wohl has also been quoted again: *** w04 2/1 p. 20 par. 9 “The Scene of This World Is Changing” *** Has “the scene of this world” really changed so much since 1914? In the book The Generation of 1914, Professor Robert Wohl observes: “Those who lived through the war could never rid themselves of the belief that one world had ended and another begun in August 1914. And again: *** w95 11/1 pp. 18-19 pars. 7-8 A Time to Keep Awake *** In line with the above, professor of history Robert Wohl wrote in his book The Generation of 1914: “A historical generation is not defined by its chronological limits . . . It is not a zone of dates.” But he pointed out that World War I created “an overwhelming sense of rupture with the past,” and he added: “Those who lived through the war could never rid themselves of the belief that one world had ended and another begun in August 1914.” How true that is! It focuses on the crux of the matter. “This generation” of mankind since 1914 has experienced appalling changes. It has seen the earth drenched with the blood of millions. Warfare, genocide, terrorism, crime, and lawlessness have erupted worldwide. Famine, disease, and immorality have stalked our globe. Jesus prophesied: “You also, when you [his disciples] see these things occurring, know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I say to you, This generation will by no means pass away until all things occur.”—Luke 21:31, 32. 8 Yes, the complete triumph of the Messianic Kingdom is at hand! Is anything to be gained, then, by looking for dates or by speculating about the literal lifetime of a “generation”? Far from it! *** w84 5/15 pp. 3-4 1914—Just History? Or Does It Affect You? *** Regarding the significance of World War I, English author J. B. Priestley wrote: “If you were born in 1894, as I was, you suddenly saw a great jagged crack in the looking-glass. After that your mind could not escape from the idea of a world that ended in 1914 and another one that began about 1919, with a wilderness of smoke and fury . . . lying between them.” The survivors of the “sacrificed generation” of 1914, as it has been called, [Footnote, Robert Wohl, in The Generation of 1914.] have lived through momentous times that started with trenches and cannons and that are ending with intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of causing world destruction. This “progress” fits in with Jesus Christ’s prophetic words: “Nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; . . . and on the earth there will be dismay among the nations and bewilderment at the roar of the surging sea. Men’s courage will fail completely as they realise what is threatening the world, for the very powers of heaven will be shaken.”—Luke 21:10, 25, 26, Phillips. These words of Jesus are part of the composite sign that marks “the end of this world.” As has often been shown in this journal, since 1914 this prophecy has been undergoing fulfillment on a grand scale. But Jesus added something very significant about the generation of 1914. What was it? He said: “When you see these things occurring, know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I say to you, This generation will by no means pass away until all things occur.”—Matthew 24:3, Ph; Luke 21:29-32. Oddly, no one ever seemed to question the last part of this theory, that when we see all these things occurring, we should know that the Kingdom of God is near. The generation wouldn't pass away until the the Kingdom would be born before the end of that generation that saw all those things. In other words, what was seen in 1914, was not a sign that the Kingdom had been born, but such things were the birth pangs prior to the Kingdom being born. Here's an interesting quote from part two of the article just quoted above: *** w84 5/15 pp. 4-5 1914—The Generation That Will Not Pass Away *** In his book The Generation of 1914, professor of history Robert Wohl presents an unusual definition when he states: “A historical generation is not defined by its chronological limits or its borders. It is not a zone of dates . . . It is more like a magnetic field at the center of which lies an experience or a series of experiences. . . . What is essential to the formation of a generational consciousness is some common frame of reference that provides a sense of rupture with the past . . . This frame of reference is always derived from great historical events like wars, revolutions, plagues, famines, and economic crises.” From that point of view, the Great War of 1914-18 and its aftermath certainly formed a “frame of reference” to mark a generation. As professor Wohl comments: World War I created “an overwhelming sense of rupture with the past. Those who lived through the war could never rid themselves of the belief that one world had ended and another begun in August 1914.” Jesus used the word “generation” many times in different settings and with various meanings. But what did he mean when he spoke of a ‘generation that would not pass away’? Some have interpreted “generation” to mean a period of 30, 40, 70 or even 120 years. However, a generation is really related to people and events, rather than to a fixed number of years. The Greek word rendered “generation” in the Bible has been defined as, “Those born at the same time . . . Associated with this is the meaning: the body of one’s contemporaries, an age.” (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology) “The sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time generation, contemporaries.” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament from Walter Bauer’s Fifth Edition, 1958) These definitions embrace both those born around the time of a historic event and all those alive at that time. If Jesus used “generation” in that sense and we apply it to 1914, then the babies of that generation are now 70 years old or older. And others alive in 1914 are in their 80’s or 90’s, a few even having reached a hundred. There are still many millions of that generation alive. Some of them “will by no means pass away until all things occur.”—Luke 21:32. He was also quoted again here in the 1981 Kingdom book, just a year after the original quote: *** kc chap. 14 p. 140 The King Reigns! *** “THE GENERATION OF 1914” In a book of the above title, Robert Wohl “suggests that generations are not mathematically definable in terms of numbers of years, but cluster around major historical crises, of which the first world war is the supreme example.”—“The Economist,” March 15, 1980

A quoin? Wrong generation. I'm sure the quote you meant is here, highlighted below: *** w80 10/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** What, then, is the “generation” that “will by no means pass away until all these things occur”? It does not refer to a period of time, which some have tried to interpret as 30, 40, 70 or even 120 years, but, rather, it refers to people, the people living at the “beginning of pangs of distress” for this condemned world system. It is the generation of people who saw the catastrophic events that broke forth in connection with World War I from 1914 onward. As indicated by an article on page 56 of U.S. News & World Report of January 14, 1980, “If you assume that 10 is the age at which an event creates a lasting impression on a person’s memory,” then there are today more than 13 million Americans who have a “recollection of World War I.” And if the wicked system of this world survived until the turn of the century, which is highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, there would still be survivors of the World War I generation. However, the fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that “the conclusion of the system of things” is moving fast toward its end. In this connection, the magazine The Economist of March 15, 1980, gave an interesting review of a book entitled “The Generation of 1914” by Robert Wohl. It made this significant remark: “Eventually Mr. Wohl voices his own opinions about the generation of 1914. In a terse and condensed last chapter he suggests that generations are not mathematically definable in terms of numbers of years, but cluster around major historical crises, of which the first world war is the supreme example.” This lines up very well with the Scriptural viewpoint that Jehovah’s Witnesses take on “the generation of 1914.” Yes, there was a generation of people that was living in 1914, and that saw the major historical changes from an era of comparative tranquillity to the present era of war, lawlessness and ruination. Many who are now Jehovah’s Witnesses were among them. Truly, 1914 marked “the supreme example” of change, for that year set in motion the foretold “beginning of pangs of distress” among the nations. Many persons are still alive who can tell us how catastrophically conditions on earth changed in the year 1914. And the world continues to plunge into worse and worse trouble. We can be happy, therefore, for Jesus’ assurance that there will be survivors of “the generation of 1914”—that this generation will not have completely passed away—when the “great tribulation” rings down the curtain on this wicked world system.

If there is a question about something, then it is not my place to say that I am necessarily representing what is TRUE. I am representing my particular take on the question. I may think it's true and might think I KNOW it's true. That doesn't make it true. At best, it's something that ought to be considered and questioned. It's our Christian duty to keep questioning to make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine. It is not our duty to represent our views as absolute truth that others must follow. Also there is a difference in not being honest and being dishonest. One may not be honest without realizing it, through sloppy research, biased thinking, misunderstanding, steeped in tradition etc. When something comes across as dishonest, I have stated the case to persons in responsible positions who will understand the problem. I don't treat anything as if there was purposeful dishonesty. I think there is some kind of balance we should all reach. There is always a danger of causing unnecessary divisions.

I did notice that you were quoted and referenced, albeit, anonymously in B.W.Schulz and R.M.de Vienne. Perhaps there is a future in collaborations.

Every now and then someone says something that says, in effect, "Ah! He understands me!" Then my next breath is breathlessly and frantically worried, "Uh-Oh! He understands me!!!" It happened once, a couple years ago, on this forum when someone named, let's say, "Joyce" presented a supportive point that favored my own take on 607 BCE. His point was (and is) thoroughty devastating to the 607 theory from a very simple Biblical persepective. I worried instantly that he might start seriously considering more about these forum discussions and actually change his mind on the topic. I worried about what that could mean to his respectability in his congregation if he were vocal about it. And what about a wife and kids? Or perhaps an elderly brother who depends on his generosity to get by? What if discovering that one doctrine is wrong could avalanche into a "faith disaster" where related dominoes fell? What if someone has a rug pulled out from under them with nothing to fall back upon? For two years, I consciously avoided repeating that particular argument that "Joyce" had himself presented, even though I always thought it was one of the most important points. I didn't want to be seen as going after a particular individual, manipulating a "chink" in the armor. Yet, I gladly went on to discuss other points. It happened more recently, a few weeks ago, when someone named, let's say, "Anna" asked if I thought the GB had it wrong on the "cry of peace and security." Then she went on about how she agreed that the Bible context does not support the explanation we get from the GB. That scared me again, immediately, and I almost said it as a response to her. But it would not have been understood as a serious concern in a context where I was still expressing the same opinion on that topic. It would have seemed disingenuous, or manipulating. Still, I worry about where a discussion with her husband might end up. What about her children? What about her reputation in the congregation? Where I have a difference with the view expressed in the WT, I always hope I have made clear that these are not things to just bring up openly in the congregation setting. For those who don't wish to deal with such topics, I am happy to be counted among those who are seen as "crazy" or "haughty" or even "apostate" because that makes it easier to dismiss for those who wish to dismiss. Of course, others will recognize a point, here and there, as something worthy of a discussion, or pushback, or counter-argument. I look forward to that type of response. Also, I know that a few others have been watching this forum. Not persons from Bethel(s) as far as I know. But I get contacted now and then about whether someone can quote or use what I've said here on someone's website, with or without attribution. My answer is always, go ahead! For the same reasons I just gave above, I don't care how or where or why a person would want to repeat anything from here. But I have no concern about controlling how anything is used by others. Perhaps others here get similar requests. I should also add that I don't consider anything said here as "enlightenment" to be recognized. I treat this forum more the way I would want people to treat a comments section over at jw.org, if they had one.

I think the end could come in the next 2 minutes, before I finish writing this post. And the current chaos would certainly fit the kind of end times we expect. It also shows us just how fast things can go from typically bad to extraordinarily bad. How even the best of intentions can quickly send us to "Hades in a hand-basket." But these signs, which we definitely see, are not supposed to be used to support a supposed Bible chronology. The Bible appears to tell us that in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul. Whenever any humans have done that, it always has ended in failure, embarrassment, and it brings reproach on those who "go there."

All I can do is give you my opinion on this, and hope you don't take it too harshly and think it's somehow about you. A lot of us (Witnesses) have been forced into a corner on this one, hoping that we can find a way to express the doctrine in a convincing way. My father is 88, and has been an elder for 50 years and a congregation servant / presiding overseer for another 15 years prior to that. I don't think there was ever a Watchtower doctrine that he didn't try to defend to the very best of his ability. My father said he believed that this new generation theory made sense and he would defend it just as he had defended all the previous generation theories for the past 80-some years. But I finally asked him to explain it, and he laughed, and knew immediately that it was not possible. Instead he explained how the brothers were doing the best they can because there has to be an explanation if this system goes beyond 2034. (He believes that 2034 would be the last possible year that the OLD theory about "generation" could still make sense Biblically.) He also bases this idea on the Noah "generation." My mother took a shot at it, and when she realized that she could not make a sensible rationale to defend the theory, she also ended up saying that it will probably still happen within the time period of 120 years from 1914, but that this "overlapping" explanation was just the closest way to allow for that without actually putting the date 2034 out there. She is one of those who believes, "let the reader use discernment" when reading the Watchtower's last mention of the 120 years before the new "generation" theory was given: *** w03 12/15 p. 15 pars. 6-7 Our Watchfulness Takes On Greater Urgency *** In Noah’s day, Jehovah declared: “My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.” (Genesis 6:3) The issuance of this divine decree in 2490 B.C.E. marked the beginning of the end for that ungodly world. Just think what that meant for those then living! Only 120 years more and Jehovah would bring “the deluge of waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens.”—Genesis 6:17. 7 Noah received the warning of the upcoming catastrophe decades in advance, and he wisely used the time to prepare for survival. “After being given divine warning of things not yet beheld,” says the apostle Paul, “[Noah] showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household.” (Hebrews 11:7) What about us? Some 90 years have passed since the last days of this system of things began in 1914. We are certainly in “the time of the end.” (Daniel 12:4) How should we respond to warnings we have been given? “He that does the will of God remains forever,” states the Bible. (1 John 2:17) Now is therefore the time to do Jehovah’s will with a keen sense of urgency. BTW, my grandmother-in-law just died at 105 on Saturday. She would have been 106 in a couple of months. We had a small memorial service with a family gathering. No Zoom. A cremation was already done. She was not anointed, but was born in 1914 just before the Great War. She survived the Spanish Influenza and apparently would have survived this most recent pale imitation, except that an intestinal blockage got her instead. She lived right up to the end with perfect teeth, perfect hearing, perfect eyesight, and a better memory than most anyone I ever knew. She always joked that she was a freak of nature. But I bring this up because a Witness mentioned the supposed 120 year limit on a human lifespan. And, of course, if she had been anointed, would she have qualified the first group of the overlapping generation to include persons who were born in 2020? *** kr chap. 1 pp. 11-12 par. 18 “Let Your Kingdom Come” *** The generation consists of two overlapping groups of anointed ones—the first is made up of anointed ones who saw the beginning of the fulfillment of the sign in 1914 and the second, anointed ones who for a time were contemporaries of the first group. At least some of those in the second group will live to see the beginning of the coming tribulation. The two groups form one generation because their lives as anointed Christians overlapped for a time. Anyone who was anointed after the death of the last of the anointed ones in the first group—that is, after those who witnessed the “beginning of pangs of distress” in 1914—would not be part of “this generation.”—Matt. 24:8. Of course, my father knows I have taken a different approach on matters related to chronology, but he still believes as most Witnesses do about 1914. As you know, I'm happy with the fact that Jesus is invisibly present and that he is now King of his Kingdom, and that we are in the last days, and that Jehovah and Jesus are building up a Christian congregation as a Witness for God's name, and who represent Jehovah's view of matters in a dying world, and who take responsibility to preach the good news while there is yet time. I believe that we do the best at imitating the first century congregations to the extent possible in the twenty-first century. So to me, it makes little difference in today's congregational setting whether some think that all of these things only became relevant after 1914. We are where we are today, and it's the same for me as it is for my fellow brothers and sisters. There is no quarrel about it. But that doesn't change my opinion. I think that we should stop embarrassing ourselves about these matters. It's one thing to believe that 1914 is right because a war started that year and a bad earthquake hit in 1906 (San Fran, CA) and then 1920 (China), and a pandemic hit in 1918. These are all close enough to make people wonder, and sincere people can't help but wonder about whether these fulfill prophecies. So here's that opinion that I apologized for in advance because I thought it might sound too harsh. What is embarrassing is that any humble child could see through any analogous misuse of language. If you promise a child an ice cream today, and fail to deliver, you can't convince the child that tomorrow is the same as today because tomorrow overlaps with today at midnight. Why not just humbly admit that you thought you could do it today but you made a mistake? Just tell the child that you didn't know, you thought it would happen, you are sorry, and that you will do your best tomorrow. Trying to change the definition of today, so that it includes tomorrow is dishonest. We have quite simply used a false definition of "generation." This is not honest. It brings shame and reproach on Jehovah's name and on the organization and brotherhood that we love. It is clearly a stretching of the definition beyond what is legitimately possible, and is apparently done so out of presumptuousness and haughtiness, which is always easier than humbly admitting that we just don't know. It is also based on a feeling that rank-and-file Witnesses can't be trusted to keep urgently busy and alert unless someone is reminding them of how close the end might be. And, last but not least, it may also be a temporary work-around to avoid putting the date 2034 out there as a last possible solution to keep 1914 viable. This has been implied by several Witnesses, including my mother, and probably my father too. If this 2034 thinking is still on the mind of any in the GB, then if the end doesn't come prior to 2034, I don't think anyone in the GB would even begin to consider readjusting the 1914 date until after 2034. There is definitely a danger of 2034 becoming another 1975. What's worse is that increased activity and urgency leading up to 2034 could result in relieving some of the Society's financial difficulties, and therefore be seen as having Jehovah's blessing, creating another vicious cycle of "boom and bust." Just like 1975.

Even prophecies that were already fulfilled reflect principles that concern our time. Those principles are about Jehovah's ability to protect and save his people. They are about trust in Jehovah, and trust in his ultimate power over his enemies, over other governments, and his trust in Christ Jesus to accomplish his purpose through the Kingdom. The time elements were concerned with the original prophecy, but still provide lessons for our time. They show that Jehovah has a timetable, and that no matter how impatient we humans become, we can trust that time and history are still in Jehovah's jurisdiction, not our own. So it's not that I am "scared to be wrong" but scared to call Jesus a liar. Jesus said the times and seasons were none of our business. He said that the end would come as a surprise this time, even if in times past Jehovah had declared his doings in advance to his servants the prophets. But even with this idea that Jehovah will always declare his purposes in advance, he did not promise to give the time element. Also, even if some time elements were used in Revelation that SEEM to refer to a future time period prior to the END, this doesn't mean that Jesus was wrong. They could have been used as time elements referring to things that already happened in the past, even in the first century. And they also could be symbols that pointed the reader back to the original scriptural context, just like mentioning a past Bible character like Moses or Elijah. The 1,260 days in Revelation 12 might be an excellent example of this: In Revelation 12, for example, I think it can refer (initially) to the fact that Christ's Kingdom came out of Israel. Israel had been protected up to this point to produce the promised seed. Israel had been pictured as God's woman several times, and had even been pictured as the sun, moon and 12 stars (Genesis 37:9), alluding to a part of the Bible that introduces how Jehovah kept Israel protected even when in Egypt without a land of its own. Israel is and was protected from God's enemies for the purpose of looking forward to the birth of this Kingdom. So the reference to 1,260 is a reference to Jehovah's ability to provide and protect this Kingdom through the ages, just as he protected it from attack by Satan when Jesus was born, when Jewish enemies of Jesus wanted to get rid of him, when Roman authorities killed him, when both parties continued to try to silence the apostles. And Jesus even gave instructions that would save the citizens of that Kingdom from the most significant tribulation that had ever come upon the Jewish religion in 70 C.E. So why the reference to the 1,260 days? I think it should have reminded Christians of another period of 1,260 days where a woman was protected through Jehovah's provisions. James spoke of it in his letter (as does Luke 4:25): (James 5:17, NLT) Elijah was as human as we are, and yet when he prayed earnestly that no rain would fall, none fell for three and a half years! (Luke 4:25) “Certainly there were many needy widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the heavens were closed for three and a half years, and a severe famine devastated the land. I suspect that the original Jewish-Christians were much more familiar with the "OT" than most of us are today with even the "NT." So some of these symbols in Revelation produce a kind of mental index to the "OT" where they were already acquainted with the lessons. Readers and hearers of Revelation would know that the original spoke of a woman who was fed for 1,260 days in the midst of this famine. And they would also remember how Jehovah's prophets were also cared for during the famine. The "lesson" of the 1,260 is already there as a reference to the original context. I'm not sure that it is all that important that Jesus ministry could have also been about 1,260 days. Or that from the time the Jewish-Christians should have left Jerusalem to the time Jerusalem was destroyed was also a period of about 1,260 days. The real lesson was the protection that the "New Israel" or "New Jerusalem" would expect in spite of the fear of extinction by persecution, for example. And this lesson had already been proven in the resurrection of Jesus in spite of Satan's attack. Or the survival of Jesus in spite of Herod's (Satan-inspired) attack. Or the survival of the Jewish-Christian congregation in spite of the Roman attack on Jerusalem.

Not exactly different in the way you imply. Although you are definitely right that the meaning is different. Paul quoted from the LXX translation, which may or may not be more accurate than more modern Hebrew manuscripts of Exodus. The NLT (New Living Translation) has a footnote that explains it. It's really just the difference in saying I will show my power "to you" or show my power "in you." The difference can be made by changing only one letter in Hebrew. (Exodus 9:16, NLT) But I have spared you for a purpose—to show you my power[fn] and to spread my fame throughout the earth. The footnote says the following: 9:16 Greek version reads to display my power in you; compare Rom 9:17.

Intriguing. Found this about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/breast-cancer-graphic-visualisation-of-tweets-wins-award-1.3008575 Breast Cancer: Graphic visualisation of tweets wins award Wellcome Image Awards: Irish academic team used 92,915 tweets with ‘#breastcancer’ A graphical interpretation of Twitter posts about breast cancer is among the 22 finalists in the 2017 Wellcome Image Awards. The graphic visualisation was created by an Irish academic team using the contents of 92,915 tweets containing the term #breastcancer which were sent over an eight-week period. Eric Clarke, Richard Arnett and Jane Burns of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland developed the work, which used methods that make complex data more accessible and understandable. The three were “very honoured” to be selected as one of the winners of the Wellcome Image Awards for 2017, Mr Clarke said. Dots in the graphic represent Twitter users, and larger connecting lines between them show how often a post was shared. The very large nodes show trending data, with one tweet having been retweeted thousands of times.

To the extent that they were not convinced in their own mind, then yes, they were potentially going against their own conscience. But in their Bible-based training, how many elders actually question the blood doctrine, for example, as if it is man-made? I think that almost all elders are convinced in their own mind that this comes directly from Jehovah because it's found in Acts 15 & 21. If someone were to tell an elder that organ transplants were no different than blood transfusions because you can never get rid of every bit of the whole blood in a muscle or organ then it would be just as easy to convince the elders on these grounds, too. But I agree that elders have acted on "knowledge" that seemed true at the time, but turned out to be "false knowledge." And there is too much reliance on the "probability" that heaven has already agreed with the GB about those things elders will judge. The idea that Jesus gave about things bound or loosed in heaven does seem to be an acceptance that the Christian congregation will need to make decisions requiring some to have authority over others. Like telling a person that he must make changes before he is welcome back in a congregation that meets in someone's home, or telling the same person that he can meet with Christians at the "synagogue" in town, but that others will be asked not to voluntarily interact with him until he makes those changes. This will require "authority" of some over others. And what if that authority must be exercised over a fellow elder? (1 Timothy 5:19-21) . . .Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality. Jesus is saying that some can be chosen to have such rights over others, which implies organizational authority. (Selecting elders, who act as "older men" acted in OT times, as judges.) But Jesus is also saying that his invisible presence with them will be available. This assumes a prayerful, humble attitude that treats the words of Jesus and the "mind of Christ" as if he were physically present. This will keep such judgements from becoming too arbitrary, or based on false knowledge that is only correct for a specific time frame and then becomes obsolete. Those particular "short-lived" ideas appear to have been started by individuals in the organization who were given their position due to charisma, bombastic personalities, or the appearance of great individual wisdom. No one would dare go against them. It was not a case of two or three gathered in Jesus' name, but a personality cult around a single person. Rutherford recognized the personality cult around Russell, but very few bothered to point out the personality cult around Rutherford and F.W.Franz. If these men had been humble enough to consult with others over their biggest decisions, there would have been fewer of these "frames" you mentioned. But this is the "bane" of every organization. Paul spoke of the same to the Corinthians, who wanted to follow their special superfine apostles. Men from James seemed to have been too willing to take the side of James on an important issue, so Paul spoke to the Galatians about how they were accepting improper authority from these so-called "pillars of Jerusalem" even though these pillars never imparted anything new to Paul himself. A well-balanced Governing Body of experienced older men can serve the congregations very well, and there SHOULD be a lot of trust in what they decide is important. When it comes to imitating their judgements, we should follow their lead depending on how well their conduct turns out. (Their "conduct" would include how their past judgments have turned out, including those temporary "frames.".) But there are limits, as you pointed out. We carry our own load, and stand on our own before the judgement seat of God. Elders have their own responsibility to pay attention to their teachings. They could harm the flock because the flock expects to be able to follow. (1 Timothy 4:15, 16) . . .. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you. (Hebrews 13:17) . . .Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.

This is apparently just another reference to the "flight of the woman" based on other things you've said elsewhere. James 4 & 5 seem to be especially appropriate now that you have added wealth into the mix.

You mentioned this in #4 above.