JW Insider

In a brotherhood, sometimes its better to open up to family, when you might not be quite as open to strangers. Depends on the circumstance. If we trust that elders are there to help, we would not hold back. If we trust that enemies are there to hurt, there are times when we can be cautious as serpents, but still innocent as doves.

Jesus once made a network, even though it was being overloaded. (John 21:6) . . .“Cast the net on the right side of the boat and YOU will find [some].” Then they cast it, but they were no longer able to draw it in because of the multitude . . .

It's already a serious matter, so you don't have to exaggerate with "millions" of people, if it probably is on the order of only a few hundred at most, worldwide. Jesus meant for us to think about the more important things. A law should never get in the way of showing love or saving a life. Even laws should be prioritized, so that we know that the law about showing Love of God and Love of Neighbor are even more important than Do Not Murder. Of course, the reason for this priority is that a person who truly loves God and Neighbor will never murder, and will not even be saying or thinking the kinds of things that lead to murder. Therefore those laws already cover nearly every other one of the commandments. The law on blood need not be difficult. I have, for a long time, been under the impression that Christians don't need to get into the details of science or chronology or archaeology to understand the Bible's requirements. Therefore, if the Bible says "Abstain from blood" ("New Testament" not OT), then we need not dive too deeply into any science to understand the meaning. We merely abstain from blood. We don't get all involved in counting the fractions to see if we have really met the requirements of the law, because by prioritizing the weightier matters of law, we can go beyond the requirements: (Matthew 23:23, 24) . . .Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things. 24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel! That said, there is ample reason to look at the Scriptures carefully to make sure that another person's conscience has not been imposed on our own. Even the apostle Paul did not wish to impose his own conscience on others, and one of the topics he spoke about where he differed from the "Jerusalem Council" was on the matter of eating items that had been sacrificed to idols. Yet that item had been included along with abstain from blood as an item that had been considered settled by "the holy spirit and we ourselves." So which part was holy spirit and which part was "we ourselves"? I think this is where "conscience" can and should still do its work.

You still seem to have the idea that persons who are truly anointed will be inspired by God's holy spirit and not let personal viewpoints get in the way. Look again at Acts 15: (Acts 15:2) . . .But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them,. . . (Acts 15:6, 7) 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place,. . .

I wanted to stay out of this because of the way the answer might sound worse than I hope it sounds. I think the real answer should acknowledge both of your ideas. Because I think the policy changed on account of a belief by some that the original policy showed "hardheartedness" in the face of "doubts" at the level of a primary policymaker. Not so much F.Rusk/Dr.Dixon, but mostly from the research by G.Smalley (Writing Dept) which had "earned" him a larger say in the policy. Too many people were dying, and because of doubts about the overall policy, these deaths seemed unnecessary. The more that the "hardhearted," older generation, wanted to speak of "martyrs," the more that the soft-hearted younger generation wanted to see the entire blood policy thrown out. I believe that allowing fractions was a compromise between the "old guard" and the new. Even some Witness doctors were called in to HQ to discuss it. And without committing to any changes in policy with them, the direction was clear that some compromises on blood fractions could be potentially justified when one looked at the details of blood fractions and how they were being used to save lives. I haven't talked to Brother Smalley about this, but was told by a Bethel elder who has known him well, that he was willing to change the entire blood policy (for scriptural reasons, not financial) but that this would be seen as a Catholic "Fish on Friday" "No Fish on Friday" -- the flip flop on fish. It would devastate the Witness families who had lost a child, parent, relative or close friend to the blood policy in the past, and for this reason he was happy to go along with the fractions compromise which could at least reduce the number of deaths greatly. I've heard JTR assume this was a move by lawyers to reduce financial exposure. But I know that even Brother Rusk was aware of both financial exposure and that there were several questions about the scripturalness of the policy as he had dealt with those arguments before. (But as soft and gentle and loving as this brother was to my wife and me, and all persons we knew, he was very much a "hard-liner" on the original blood policy and never gave an inch to those arguments. I don't know that he was ever really OK with the fractions compromise. I think I've mentioned before that he was best friends with my wife, and gave the key portion of our wedding talk.) BTW, my iPhone identifies a goodly portion (badly portion) of my calls as "Fraud Risk" and I always glance at it with the thought that I just got a call from "Fred Rusk" although he died a few years ago. Yes, there are probably "14 ways from Sunday" to look at the matter "legitimately", not just two. (The term "legitimate" seems out of place when we are comparing law with conscience.) Some of these ways are fully scriptural; some are based on science; some are a mix. I was in full agreement with JTR strictness in my own personal policy (based on conscience) until a couple of years ago, while participating on this forum. I would neither take blood nor fractions, and I would have been willing to die before knowingly accepting a transfusion of any kind. The only difference I had (conscientiously) with the Society's position, however, is that for the last 10 years at least, I would never impose my conscience about either whole blood or blood fractions on any of my own children before they were baptized or 18, whichever came first. I would try to work with doctors as best I could, but if I were convinced that their survival depended on a blood transfusion, I would not impose my conscience, and would accept any consequences. And of course I would give no recommendations for unbaptized youngsters or babies in the congregation either. I felt the issue was too serious to even accidentally impose my own conscience on another. Fortunately, it has never come up. But when I learned of Brother Smalley's policy-making issues, even though I didn't confirm them with him personally, the brother who told me about it gave me another contact who might confirm. This was another one of Smalley's friends who was close enough to him even recently to know if he had said anything of the sort to him. This contact was reluctant, because I had never contacted him before, but after I told him of my concern based on the information from the Bethel elder whom he knew, he understood how important an issue I thought it was. This new contact gave me some additional information I have already included above. To be fair, I should also mention that I very recently talked to another friend who had worked with Smalley in the Writing Department back in the 70s and 80s, and he sounded incredulous about all of this.

I think I've read that in some older works, maybe Alexander Hislop? Might've been referring to even more ancient practices. Here's a short version at https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/akitu/ that you might find interesting too. It's only officially a 7 day festival in this version, but who knows how long it was for those who had to prepare and travel. True. There were persons in the royal court of the Assyrians who seemlessly meshed right into the Neo-Babylonian courts. Seemed a bit like the way so many European courts "shared" royalty through marriage, or even other reasons, so that for many years around WWI, half a dozen heads of state in different European countries were all cousins. And the queens and princesses were "traded" and "sold" to create a kind of human bond between states that had windows of peace with one another. Please explain this statement. Well, the proposition here is that the 70 years of nations serving Babylon ran from ABOUT 607 to about 537. I don't fret over the exact years because I don't think it matters all that much to the prophecy of the 70 years. There's a good chance it ran from ABOUT 609 to about 539, too. In other words, the Assyrian world power waned, and the Babylonian world power gained. They were granted about 70 years of dominance over the nations around them, before the Medo-Persian empire gained ascendancy. As the Isaiah's Prophecy book states: *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. If you read the resources that Cesar has begun to recommend here, there is no claim among any of these new recommended historians that 607 was the date for the fall of Jerusalem in any of them, but that this date is considered a fairly close date for the beginning of the Babylonian domination that apparently ended around 539. Cesar has stated that he is OK with this "new chronology" even though it dates the fall of Jerusalem (Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587) not 607. This is why I say that the date 607 can be right for the beginning of the 70 years, even without any reference to 1914. This is not correct that it is a letter at the end of the word that indicates the difference. That's why we also see the example in Acts 28:6 where "theon" means "a god." In this case both words are just different cases of the same lexical word theos. It's the context of the whole sentence that let's us know that there are two different types of divine beings or divinity being referenced. And Greek does have the definite article "the" but does not have an indefinite article "a." Since John 1:1 creates a distinction between a use of the definite for "God" we can tell that the distinction must be on purpose so that the second one IMPLIES "a god" or perhaps just the quality of being "divine." A being that has a quality of being divine, but is not "THE" God, might effectively be called "a god." Therefore this is not a bad translation at all. (In spite of a ton of criticism because it spoils a verse that is otherwise quite useful for Trinitarians.) But it's not those endings at the end of the word in this case. It's the fact that one "theos" has a "THE" in front of it and the other doesn't. The argument by Trinitarians and some Greek linguists, is that you don't NEED to always put a "THE" in front of "theos" to mean GOD. And even when you do, it doesn't mean that you always need to translate "THE" God each time. You wouldn't need to say "In the beginning, THE God created the heavens" because it sounds right to just say "In the beginning, God created the heavens."

Uh oh! Now look what I've done by bringing this up. Actually TheoN can mean "a god" or "God" and theoS can mean "a god" or "God." Look at the Interlinear for Acts 28:6, for example, which uses "theon" here: (Acts 28:6) . . .After they waited for a long time and saw that nothing bad happened to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god. [theon] Look at the Interlinear for Matthew 22:32, for example, which uses "theos" here: (Matthew 22:32) 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.” [theos x 4] Lexically, it's the same word in both cases, and it's the context and sentence structure that makes a difference. If it's something God has, such as "the Word of God," it will be in the genitive case, or if something is given to god such as "prayer to God" or "you should love your God," it's usually in the accusative case. If it's the topic of the sentence, such as "God is love," then it is in the nominative case, etc. If you speak any German, there are many similarities you might recognize. I don't know any Arabic as you do, but I do know that Hebrew keeps some of these types of variations where the same word is changed depending on how it's used in the sentence.

If you believe that what I posted was nonsense, then I feel much better that I posted the clarification. You are claiming now that you stated both words mean the same in the lexicons. It's good that you see that now. But you said the opposite before, so I'm glad it's straightened out. You said it was unfortunate that the lexicons use the same meaning for both, and this is exactly what the lexicons were supposed to if they are honest and correct. I don't think it's unfortunate when lexicons are honest and correct. What you said was: The distention made in Psalms is the same distention made in Matthew. YHWH is one, the son is another. Unfortunately, some lexicons use the same meaning for both (Kurios). Therefore, there needs to be a separation between κυρίῳ noun dative masculine singular from κύριος. The statement was, and is, completely untrue. We should hope that ALL lexicons use the same meaning for both kurios here, not just some of them. There needs to be no distinction in the lexical meaning of the two cases of the same word. Seriously, this should have been seen as a favor to you. I was hoping that you'd be able to see a problem in starting out a post with statements like the following: The insult seemed unnecessary and all the more ironic when you then went on in the next sentences to show that you thought the two words for "Lord" had different lexical meanings, when they have the same lexical meaning. OK. You should know by now that I don't have the ability to ban anyone and don't even know the people who do have that ability. I hope you stay on without being upset and so defensive about everything. Believe me! From past experience I never expected you to admit a mistake here or anywhere else. I probably sound haughty too to many people, but for a mistake I will gladly change my view wherever there is contrary evidence. None of us needs to research anything just because someone brings a disagreement. But I keep posting that I don't care about the secular dates every year because I don't think these secular issues are relevant to a good understanding of the scriptures. I continue to engage in discussions about them because over time more and more Witnesses are going to be able to access the evidence that will make us look like we don't even care about honesty. Hopefully, the evidence we can go over now, will help us avoid bringing such reproach on our ministry. If I'm wrong about this evidence, I definitely want to know the "what, where, how and why."

I've read things like this too. But it should still be pointed out that it is conjecture to indicate that it was at one of these events that Cyrus must have made the declaration. And although the king was an integral part of each New Year's celebration, a co- or vice-regent could represent him or "do the honors" under their own title.

What sounds to me like haughty bluster is often so far off, that it's hard to know whether to bother responding at all. But this one seems important to correct since you are merely adding to the confusion some people might already have. Two things wrong here: No, the distinction made in Psalms is NOT the same distinction made in Matthew. (Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44) No, it is NOT unfortunate that some lexicons use the same meaning for both "Kurios" here because they are in fact the same word in different cases. This is really the same as "2" above. There does not need to be a separation between κυρίῳ noun dative masculine singular from κύριος, because they are in fact the same word just with different "case" endings because of how they are used in the sentence. Here's why. It's explained pretty well in many commentaries. Also here: https://christswords.com/content/matthew-2244 -lord-said-unto-my-lord Note the meaning of κύριος: Κύριος (noun sg masc nom) "Lord" is kyrios (kurios), which means "having power", "being in authority" and "being in possession of." It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." -- The word translated as "master" is the same word that is often translated as "Lord" or "the Lord" in the NT. It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." It is the specific terms for the master of slaves or servants, but it was a common term of respect both for those in authority and who were honored. It was the term people used to address Christ, even though he had no formal authority. Today, we would say "boss" or "chief". Note the meaning given for κυρίῳ κυρίῳ (noun sg masc dat) "Lord" is kyrios (kurios), which means "having power", "being in authority" and "being in possession of." It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." -- The word translated as "master" is the same word that is often translated as "Lord" or "the Lord" in the NT. It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." It is the specific terms for the master of slaves or servants, but it was a common term of respect both for those in authority and who were honored. It was the term people used to address Christ, even though he had no formal authority. Today, we would say "boss" or "chief". Either form can refer to God. Either form can refer to Christ. Either form can refer to a human master. I mention this one because it is so typical of you to bluster some irrelevant (and sometimes irreverent) information that you apparently think you understood from book searches or Google searches. That part can be fine, but you seem to have a need to often insult the people you are trying to bluster with incorrect or poorly understood information.

Just go back and look. You'll see that I never did argue against it. I've always said that I'm perfectly fine with the 70 years running from 607 to 537, or 608 to 538, or 609 to 539. I even said I was OK with the idea that the 70 years was a rounded off figure, in the same way that the Watchtower publications treated the 70 years of Babylonian domination over Tyre. I have also said that rounded numbers are not a problem in the same way that the time Jesus spent in the tomb was designated by "THREE days and three nights," when the actual time in the tomb was only ONE full day and night, along with a part of the preceding day and a part of the next day. According to the Bible record it turned out to be only parts of three days, perhaps not much more than 36 hours, or even less, when "three days and three nights" would have meant 72 hours. Never dismissed this either. Go back and check. Nope. I still agree that secular history is referring to October of 539, not necessarily toward the end of the year, if we are counting Nisannu to Nisannu. Of course, I still don't think any of this discussion is necessary. It's all secular. I believe the Bible with or without all this secular reasoning. The only value to knowing it is hopefully to help some of us from making false or dishonest statements that will embarrass the brotherhood unnecessarily. Not only can some of our statements be dishonest which is bad enough, they might also display a haughtiness that gives an impression like: "Ha ha! Look at all this esoteric stuff we know about secular reasoning and archaeology that you don't, and this secular stuff makes our interpretations of the Bible are so much better than yours!"

You are treading on dangerous ground, even if you have already considered that Cesar, is Allen, is . . . . etc. Expect a lot of diversions -- and insults if you don't let the diversions work. Actually you, Arauna, definitely did mention it during that discussion, and the comments you made about it there indicated that you were NOT aware that it doesn't change a thing. (Assuming you go along with the rest of the WTS assumptions about 538/537.) The festival of Akitu was not just celebrated in 538 BCE, but EACH and EVERY year for centuries prior and centuries afterwards. I know you already knew that, but the way you worded it above could have implied to others that this festival took place only in 538. (The WTS evidently believes there was another Akitu/NewYear's celebration in 537 and this would have been just as possible.) Or at least you were implying that there was some special evidence that only allowed for this particular year 538 to be the time when Cyrus declared the Jews to be free to go home. Turns out this is just a guess with no real evidence behind it, if you think it forces the decree to be only possible in 538. But I agree that it's possible (though a little less likely if the WTS is right about 537). You might recall from the other discussion, I didn't care whether your preferred SECULAR date was 539 or 538 or 537 for the declaration/release because any of of those dates is a close enough fit for the Bible record, and any of those dates supports the historical facts surrounding the prophecies of Jeremiah. Any of those dates would be a fair fit for the dominance of Babylon for 70 years. (A dominance and servitude that led to a very greatest level of desolation Israel had ever seen, associated directly with those same 70 years given to Babylon for domination as a "World Empire.") Apparently you also didn't realize that you were using it in a way to push the first regnal "year" of Cyrus to a date that even the Watchtower doesn't necessarily push for. The Watchtower would have loved to move the decree as late as possible after 539 because of the 3 year gap between 539 and the 536 date that Russell had used for Cyrus overtaking Babylon. Changing 606 to 607 back in 1943 had only bought them 1 of those 3 years, but that still left 2 years to account for. Russell/Barbour had not really accounted for communication time, preparation time and travel time back to Judea, so adding a year for this bought the Watchtower 1 more of those 2 years, still unaccounted for. So to get that extra year they also needed to push the decree of Cyrus (freeing the Jews) to a time that was a year or even more than a year after Babylon was overtaken. So, to that end, the Insight book hints that it is possible, and that some commentators have inserted Darius for that first year without Cyrus, but continues to use a date that shows it's more likely they were co-rulers. You are pushing for an idea that would put Cyrus' accession year and first full regnal year (Nisannu to Nisannu) to a point one year later than the Watchtower admits. *** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus *** The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E. In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. But making such a big deal out of the importance of the Akitu (New Year's celebration) did not help your claim in the slightest. The Akitu celebration was indeed at least a week-long celebration that was officially ran from Nisannu 4th through the 11th. With preparation and travel to the two main temples and back, it's probably fine to count it from the 1st to the 14th as you did above. But, as stated, it was not just celebrated in 538 of course. It was celebrated in 540, 539, 538, 537, 536, 535, etc., not just in 538. I do agree that this New Year's celebration was probably considered an appropriate time for a king like Cyrus to make that kind of legal announcement to free the Jews from exile. I'm fine with your date, but it has no real solid evidence, only conjecture, and the declaration might have even been even more likely in 539. Either way it plays no part in 1914. Even if 607 had been correct, it would have nothing to do with 1914, from a scriptural perspective. You are only arguing from a secular perspective.

You are probably wrong on this point, especially since Reagan's time. But "rules are meant to be broken." The real problem is not who murdered hundreds of whose brothers and countrymen first, as there can always be a claim made in both directions. (And sometimes we are talking about much more than two directions.) If this was the full justification you might be admitting that you think it would be fine if Iranians tried to assassinate any high level US citizen in return based on Iranians killed by the US and our proxies in Syria. Some persons actually are OK with this --even desirous of this-- in the assured expectation that such an attempt will fail and provide further justification for escalation of forces. This is a fairly common tactic in the United States: trying to provoke a war so that the USA has an excuse to escalate. But these are often foolish and hot-headed moves that are calculated to shore up the loyalty of a political base. The calculations don't always work, however. In this case there are many vulnerable Americans inside Iran and Iraq. And if there is no stomach for such a difficult war, even to pay for those early lives lost, or there is a stomach but the US finds that to win it must resort again to atrocities, then neither of those scenarios will seem like justice to Americans or the world. And "parity" payback might even make the President himself more vulnerable because he will be more exposed during his campaigns in the next few months. The president may be hoping for a few more deaths inside Iraq to help build impetus for expanded aggression. But the president can only hope for failed attempts on that second scenario, as failed attempts increase popularity. Again, persons who really think this "authority" is just, must, in the interests of justice, also accept then that any other sovereign president or leader also has the same authority to incinerate half the planet entirely at his discretion. I submit that most Americans who believe your statement, are too prejudiced to accept that this is the same as admitting that in every other country, even Iraq's president, has the authority to incinerate half the planet at his discretion.

It would be the same thing as if a U.S. "General Mattis" had been assassinated by Iraq, except that Soleimani was tremendously more popular, not just in Iraq, but with people from several Mid-East countries believing he deserved some kind of Nobel Peace prize for recent strategic negotiations.

It might seem plain to you. But I am not one of the anointed. At this point, this is a proposition to discuss amongst ourselves in this forum. Arauna has just as much right to her beliefs as I do. I'm sure the GB have seen these arguments before, and they have their reasons for continuing to read things differently.

Your whole idea of another 10 years is irrelevant. Jesus was telling them that in the time period between the question and the fulfillment (turned out to be about 34 to 37 years) that it would be too late to try to prepare based on a sign. They should not start getting all excited about a war here, or a war there, an earthquake here or there, or a famine here or there, and to think that these might be signs of the END. So many of these things, even GREAT earthquakes, for example, might scare them half to death, might even kill some of them. But, stiil, they should not get all excited or alarmed into thinking it's a sign of the END, because there will be no sign of the end. At least not until it's too late to prepare, when the "strikingly visible" sign is already obvious in the skies -- and it's immediately after that point when the end of the age (synteleia of the aion) is upon them. The application for the end of that age was pretty obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. And the application for the end of this age should be just as obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. No one should get excited even by a publication from an apostle or an angel, that the end is near due to some sign someone thinks they are seeing. Because it could come at any time as a surprise. It needs no signs. There are certain things expected to happen that we shouldn't get too excited about, and wars, earthquakes are included. Even a letter from an apostle saying the end is upon us, should not get us too excited or alarmed that the end is upon us. There have already been many times in history when Christians were killed by earthquakes, wars, and persecutions, and it was not a time to go off into the mountains to start waiting. Remember what Paul said: (1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-2:3) But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you. 11 To that very end we always pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling and with his power perform completely all the good that he pleases and every work of faith. 12 This is so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you and you in union with him, according to the undeserved kindness of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. (2 Peter 3:10-12) 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat! Translating 2 Peter 3 and 2 Thess 2:2 as "day of Jehovah" instead of "day of the Lord" has resulted in a conflict that produces some confusion to explain away. Note: *** w94 2/15 p. 21 par. 24 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” *** That day of Jehovah, when he executes vengeance, will come as a grand finale to the conclusion of the system of things that has marked the day of the Lord Jesus from 1914 onward. We now have TWO different "days of the Lord." (There was no evidence that the word "Lord" in 2 Peter 3:12 should have been changed to "Jehovah." This is especially true of 2 Thess 2:2 where the context identified that day of the Lord, as the "the revelation of the Lord Jesus." ) Worse than that, it gives us TWO different "parousias." One "parousia" starts in 1914, and the "parousia of the day of Jehovah" in 2 Peter 3:12 hasn't started yet. Notice that the day of the Lord, his presence, is the time when the heavens are destroyed and the elements will melt. In other words, it's a time of unmistakable destruction of the age. It's also the time when the living holy ones are taken up and the time when those holy ones who had died are taken up. Also, these writings indicate that the apostles took Jesus words to mean that the end of the entire world system (age) would come as a thief just like the end of the Jewish age. But no one should be able to excite us with the idea that the day of the Lord is already here. (Yet, we have claimed that the day of the Lord already started, in 1914.) If it were already here it would be too late to prepare. Thus Christians are always prepared so they are not overtaken. We should never try to prepare based on a sign someone claims is already upon us. Jesus knew that this produces a kind of false Christianity and even the temptation to "lord it over" one another because we can imagine that we live in a time when "the Master is delaying" and we think that we should be something MORE than just a servant who continues to do things the way we did when the Master was here with us. This is why the idea of a Governing Body believing they are the embodiment of the Faithful Slave can be so dangerous. It can be the same as falling into the temptation to say "my master is delaying" and try to become a "leader" or "rabbi" who can claim they know things that Jesus never claimed. If it was never OK to try to set oneself up as a leader or rabbi when Jesus was on earth, then why would it be OK to do that when he is "delaying." Should also note that the Watchtower publications teach us that Kingdom was BORN in 1914, so all these birth pangs should have been in the years leading up to 1914. (Revelation 12:1, 2) 12 Then a great sign was seen in heaven: A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, 2 and she was pregnant. And she was crying out in her pains and in her agony to give birth. That's supposed to be 1914. So we have the birth pangs starting after the child is born.

Yes. That's the proposition here. It's found in many commentaries of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 and it fits the idea that Jesus always warned about when he said not to look for any advance signs. A lot of people don't realize it was also C.T.Russell's take on those verses. But we need to be careful, too, about thinking it has no significance for a larger event than the one on Jerusalem. We know that Jesus was answering their question about the Parousia/Synteleia of the Aion for Jerusalem and the Temple especially. (The word Parousia here refers to a Royal Visitation, not an invisible presence. The word Synteleia refers to a Destructive Judgment Event, an "End of Things Together" not a conclusion leading up to the actual conclusion.) Jesus invisible presence was not part of the question, and that invisible presence never ended from the time he said "Look! I am with you all the days until the Synteleia of the Age. Yes, the disciples sincerely wanted to know if they could get a sign to warn them in advance of the Temple Judgment Jesus had just described to them. This is natural. Surely, if Jesus told you in 1970 that the World Trade Center in New York City was going to be turned into a pile of rubble someday, you would definitely want to know if you could get an advance sign to warn others in time. Now imagine that you asked for such a sign and the first words out of Jesus' mouth were "DO NOT BE MISLED. Many will try to convince you that they have special knowledge about the time this will happen, but DO NOT BE MISLED. You are going to hear of wars, reports of wars, earthquakes, and pestilences and famines between now and then. But these do NOT mean the END. If anything, these things will just be a BEGINNING, as things might get worse and worse between now and then. But in the end, people will be surprised, as if there had been no warning at all. It will come like a thief in the night. There will be no time to respond. The only SIGN will be the one you see in the SKY as these things are happening. That's a very common reading of the verses, and it's the one that almost all Witnesses believe and make use of. It can make sense that way, too, but it makes more sense with the rest of the Bible if we look carefully at EACH word Jesus used here.

I think it's pretty obvious the world "changed" because of WWI around 1914 to 1918. Many things changed for the better and many things changed for the worse. Historians always look for, and try to explain certain historical turning points to mark off which eras of history their specific chapters will cover, and sometimes the eras that their entire books will cover. A book on US history, for example, will nearly always cover the colonial period up to 1776 (the War), then from that war up to 1861 (the War), then from that war up until 1914-1918 (the War), then from that war up until WWII, then from that war up until the Vietnam War, Iraq, etc. Therefore it should not be hard to find as many quotes about 1914 as there are books about historical periods that touch on WWI. And all of them should defend how this era marked a change. When writers talk about the "Civil War" in the US, they often discuss how it was the first war where technology (aircraft/balloons, submarines, iron battleships, Gattling guns) REALLY began to replace hand-to-hand combat (although arrows, canons, firearms and dynamite) had similar effects on war for many years before. Still, you can't argue against the fact that these technologies had their first major effects around the world until around WWI, just as historians will argue the first major effects of nuclear technology around WWII. It is no surprise then that --when looking for a sign-- that people are going to do exactly what Jesus said they would do. In Matthew 24, Jesus said that people would be looking at war and earthquakes and famines and pestilence and MISTAKING these things for signs. In fact, C.T.Russell appeared to be exactly correct when he indicated that such things would NOT be signs, but would be the kinds of things that people have suffered for these past 18 centuries (now nearly 20 centuries) since Jesus told us not to be FOOLED into thinking such things are signs. Jesus' warning about the kinds of things we should not get fooled by, seems ever more apt now that technology has brought war and rumors of war to nearly every continent on earth. But we should also note how, in trying to prove 1914, we are so "happy" that there was a great war in that year, that we have been very sloppy about how we read Matthew 24, and we give not a thought to the idea that Russell and many other Bible commentaries indicated. Also, we have to admit, what would be happening right now if the Watchtower had KEPT the dates 1915, 1918, or 1925 as the replacement dates for events once predicted in 1914 that failed to come true. Only after all those other dates also failed for the events expected for 1914, the Watchtower turned back all its emphasis on 1914 again, emphasizing the "war" part of the sign. But if it hadn't gone back to that date for the "sign" it's easy to realize that we would right now be arguing for why things actually changed in the world in 1918, for example, and we (Witnesses) would be arguing against 1914. We might even be talking about how all those secular historians were wrong and blinded by their constant quotes about 1914, when persons with eyes of faith realized that the Bible had pointed to 1918 all along. (We might even make fun of them for how they had truly missed the sign in Matthew that was so obvious when it was 1918 that saw both WAR, and FAMINE, and PESTILENCE (Spanish Influenza) and an 8.3 EARTHQUAKE in the Philippines, just months after an 8.5 in Samoa and just months before an 8.1 in Tonga.) And if the false chronology we depended on for 1914 had been seen in advance to give us 1934 or 1944 or 1954, you can be sure that we would be now be arguing for those years instead. But of course a focus on 1918 (or 1954) would be just another way to ignore Jesus' warning about being misled. It is because 1914 was a really truly pivotal date in modern history that we have been so easily misled. It's the very reason we have usually ignored Jesus' warning not to be misled when we see wars, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, etc. We forget that Jesus' disciples asked him for a sign so they would know WHEN the impending judgment day on Jerusalem's temple would be ABOUT to occur. (Not as a sign to know when something had invisibly occurred in the past.) Jesus' answer indicated that impostors and false prophets would be going around declaring that a sign had already occurred and he indicated that people might mistakenly point to wars, earthquakes, and famines as their evidence. People might say they know it happened even though it was invisible to the people they were trying to convince, claiming Jesus had returned to an inner room somewhere, or it was over here, or over there. But Jesus said that it would be easy to know that these people were wrong because the parousia/synteleia (judgment day) would be as unmistakable as a lightning strike that instantly crosses from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth. There would be no advance warning signs, because it had to come as a thief in the night. Thieves don't give advance warning signs. Only after it was too late to prepare, THEN THE SIGN WOULD APPEAR IN THE HEAVENS.

I'm sure marijuana can be dangerous, I would never defend it. Alcohol, the OTHER big legalized drug, has been much worse at causing millions of deaths and injuries and family break-ups. But that doesn't mean you don't pay a price for legalizing any drug for recreational use. I'm guessing that part of it is greed. Marijuana has become part of the culture because "millennials" (for example) have found that the high they get from marijuana is more relaxing than beer and even easier to get and easier on their diets and their "system." Since it's already there, and a lot of persons of color are making a lot of money on it, illegally, the states and pharma would like a bigger piece of this "action" spread all around to their friends. Some of the biggest profiteers off marijuana so far have been the private prison systems and some lawyers and courts, but that's not nearly as much as the state (and many others) could make by turning it into both a pharmaceutical and a legalized version of "alcohol." In Manhattan, just last week, I asked a 50-some-year-old policeman at a coffee shop at 34th and Park if he was getting ready for the big night of drunken revelries. He said that drunks are less and less of a problem in NYC around New Year's Eve. More of the drinking is in homes, indoor parties, and bars, and more of the people who come out these days THINK that marijuana is legal. But these persons who are high, are much less of a problem in terms of sickness, accidents, violence, loud disturbance. I asked him if he thought there would be a lot of drug arrests, then. He said he'd rather have a crowd of marijuana smokers than a bunch of "alcohol mayhem."

It's easy to understand why you wouldn't care. In the overall stream of things I do not care either. I know you might not have been directing your comments at me, but in defense of the person who brought it up here, he seemed to think it was important, and I respect his reason for making the point. Believe it or not, this is NOT a teaching from our past. The Watchtower considers it relevant to our CURRENT teachings, and it has been repeated several times in the last few years. The importance of this point to the CURRENT Watchtower teachings is the reason I wanted to make sure we knew whether this current teaching is based on facts. Note this very recent Watchtower, where the teaching about what Russell discerned in 1914 was important enough to repeat here and in many other places in our publications: *** w17 February p. 25 par. 8 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? *** To help them disseminate Bible truth in various languages, Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was legally incorporated in 1884, with Brother Russell as president. . . . He discerned that Christ would return invisibly and that “the appointed times of the nations” would end in 1914. Also note how this is current teaching from another perspective: *** w14 1/15 p. 31 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? *** In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. *** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report *** How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts! You do not think it is important, and I agree. I was only dealing with the fact that the Watch Tower publications indicate that the GB believes it is something we should currently care about. Also, when Cesar Chavez brought this up, it was likely primarily in the context of defending this current teaching. And we know that the Watchtower CURRENTLY teaches that this idea refers especially to Russell and his associates. (See the books "God's Kingdom Rules" and "Pure Worship.") Of course, Cesar may also have had in mind a parallel discussion here about whether it is still "FAITH" when it leads us into a false teaching, a false doctrine. *** sl chap. 16 p. 287 par. 12 Awaiting the “New Heavens and a New Earth” *** Russell calculated that Christ’s “presence” had begun in the year 1874 C.E., unseen to human eyes and seen only by the eye of faith. The implication from the above article is that it is OK to have FAITH in a false teaching, or false doctrine. As long as the false teaching also contains some important element of truth. This topic might not interest you, and that's OK. But I just wanted to explain why he seemed to have brought it up and why I responded for any who might be taking the topic seriously. For me, as I've said, there is also a matter of "making sure of ALL things" and the need to pay attention to ourselves and to our teaching. This is because we all need to HONEST teachers with nothing to be ashamed of. And I agree with you, that this "shame" should have nothing to do with past teachings, but is about our CURRENT teachings. Here's where the issue of honesty comes in. Almost every one of these statements about what was discerned "decades in advance" is almost always written ambiguously in such a way that it could give us, or our Bible students, the impression that Russell had actually had faith and insight, sometime before 1914 that Jesus would return invisibly in 1914. In fact, we know that Russell didn't even have faith or discernment that Jesus would EVER return invisibly at any date in the near future, because when Russell accepted this teaching, it included the "fact" that Jesus had ALREADY returned invisibly in the PAST, not that he would return invisibly in the future. If we were not aware of the way almost all these statements are made ambiguously, then how easy it would be to give our Bible students the impression that something like the following was true. *** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” *** By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. This is very obviously a false statement, since they did NOT believe Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. Christ had already received Kingdom power in 1878, and 1914 was the time for the Jews to receive Kingdom power in Jerusalem, and the time for a resurrection, not of any Christians, but beginning with Jewish, faithful men of old. Most statements have been more careful to provide just enough ambiguity to imply what that quote states without making a false statement. But several false statements have still slipped through. Use the Watchtower Library and look up the term "decades in advance" or "decades before 1914" (adding the quotation marks) and you should see several examples of this. *** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America *** Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king. Notice how the same false implication is there, but it was worded ambiguously so that it only implies that Russell correctly calculated the birth of God's kingdom in heaven. *** w13 2/15 p. 18 par. 4 Stay in Jehovah’s Valley of Protection *** Decades before 1914, Jehovah’s worshippers declared to the nations that the end of “the appointed times of the nations” would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble. Here's another recent teaching which states that decades before 1914, we taught that the world would enter into an unequaled time of trouble. What would you do if you had a Bible study who believed this statement. Would you correct him or her? Should you? In truth, decades before 1914, Jehovah's worshippers declared that the world would finally enter an unequaled period of peace, because the time of trouble would END in October 1914: Decades in advance, Russell said in Studies in the Scriptures, V.5, p.604: ". . . the time of trouble, or “day of wrath” which began October 1874 and will end October 1914."

You exaggerate a bit, in implying that the rest of the anointed might get nothing. But this is really the perfect question that shows what's wrong with this theory. Even if you think the Jerusalem Council was a governing body, you can't square this particular outcome of events with the Bible. There are several principles that it goes against. (James 2:1-4) . . .My brothers, you are not holding to the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ while showing favoritism, are you? . . . 4 If so, do you not have class distinctions among yourselves, and have you not become judges rendering wicked decisions? (Galatians 2:6) . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, . . . (Matthew 23:6-10) . . .They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.

Me too! Sounds like fun. Come to think of it, I'd play anyone. (hint hint) But I'm not implying I'd win. Besides, everyone gets to cheat. Maybe even find a website that will provide the best possible plays. So it might actually seem like two computers playing each other. In that case, the skill would be trying to keep limiting the other player defensively by strategically using up the letters and board space. As an experiment I'd be happy to set up a manual game like this somewhere on the forum, to see if the idea can work.

I love Scrabble, and haven't played in literally about 5 years. And most of those were games on my iPhone/iPad. I splurged $5 for the app, but haven't even loaded it up again on my last couple of updated phones. I'm usually bored by board games, although my mother finds ones that she likes and sends them to my wife and me, and we feel obligated to play. When I was at Bethel I played a few long-distance games by mail with a pioneer sister in another state who was obsessed with it. I came up with a post card version of the game by which cheating is required. Because otherwise the game takes too long. The rules require that you keep track of the same number of letters in the inventory, same 50 point bonus for 7, etc., but it's as if all the letters to choose are face up and the person who goes chooses whatever letters they like. So the person going first will always pick a word like QUETZAL, QUARTZY, SQUEEZY, etc. The one going second will try to use the K, J, X like JUKEBOX. Or some clever reuse of the existing word. After that it's a good game of skill. You shouldn't even have to handicap the person who goes first. Anyone want to play? We don't need post cards any more!!!! because we could play the game on the forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, there's also an implication throughout the context of Acts, that God does not give that holy spirit to those who obey men. That's one of the reasons for this very topic of 1914, as uncomfortable as it might seem to even question it. Of course, obeying God as ruler and not men, doesn't preclude us from "obeying" our congregation elders (Heb 13:17). But there is no contradiction here, because the word used for the word obey here has a range of meaning. And that range of meaning is pinned down in the very context of Hebrews 13 and elsewhere. In fact, we might as well deal with it because there will be some who think it is "disobedient" to even consider the questions about 1914. It's the same as questioning God's arrangement, some say. Just like questioning 1925, or the hourly quotas for publishers and pioneers, would have been the same as 'questioning the Lord himself' in Rutherford's day. When Hebrews 13 says "Be obedient to those taking the lead among you" it's obvious that the term "among you" referred to congregation overseers/elders. We extend this to mean the elders who preside in a "headquarters" arrangement from the various Branches, especially the Governing Body residing in the United States Branch. But the word here does not mean "obey" in the sense of "you must obey God as ruler." In Acts 5:29 that term includes the idea of submission to a ruler or magistrate (i.e., God). The definition of "obey" in the context of Hebrews 13:17 is perfectly summed up in this verse that doesn't even use the word obey: (Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. The root meaning of the term is actually "persuade." Hebrews 13 uses the verb "peitho" here, and Peitho was the goddess of persuasion. That's actually the first meaning in Thayer's Greek Lexicon: 1. Peitho, proper name of a goddess, literally, Persuasion; Latin Suada or Suadela. 2. persuasive power, persuasion: 1 Corinthians 2:4 ἐν πειθοι — accusative to certain inferior authorities. Strong's NT Definition is: πείθω peíthō, pi'-tho; a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):—agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. Note that "obey" hardly makes the list. Even the NWT doesn't say in Hebrews 6:9 that "in your case we are obedient to bettr things." Instead it says: (Hebrews 6:9) 9 But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things. . . In the very verse after Hebrews 13:17, the word "trust" is used, in these of being "persuaded" or "convinced" that we have a good conscience. (Hebrews 13:18) . . .Carry on prayer for us, for we trust we have an honest conscience, as we wish to conduct ourselves honestly in all things. I know you didn't say that this type of obedience contradicts our Christian duty to question and therefore to make sure of all things. But Hebrews 13 often comes up by some as a reason to deflect from that Christian duty.

You are saying that they (GB) hang on to 1914 because if they get rid of it, they relinquish a Biblical base of authority. It's "nice" to have a Bible passage that talks about you and it's even "nicer" when that particular passage mentions a measure of authority and trust in advance of even greater authority and trust. I'm just saying that the reason they see the passage as speaking about themselves is because of 1914 first. Based on the importance given to that date, they expect to see certain actions that Jesus must have taken, or that it would seem reasonable for him to take. So it's kind of backwards to imply that they hang on to the date because of the authority. They hang onto the authority because of the date. But I'm also saying that this authority would be there anyway. Sure, they lose a little if they give "FDS" back to all the anointed, or even if they spread that authority around to include all the elders, or all Witnesses who support [feed] other Witnesses in any way, materially or spiritually or emotionally. (Recall that the verse once meant the anointed feeding the anointed, because the domestics were the anointed, too.) Common sense tells us that the purpose of elders in a congregation is to provide teaching and examples to follow and good judgment when it comes to dealing with difficult matters that might arise. We follow their lead. We listen. We copy their example. They persuade us to follow with good teaching and good examples. How much more would we think that the ones we consider qualified as elders over the global congregation would be worthy of even more respect. And we would be just as willing or more to follow their lead, listen, copy their example, etc. This is why it really came as no surprise to many Witnesses that the GB took upon themselves the entire role they interpreted to be the role of the FDS. To most Witnesses, the FDS always meant the GB anyway. The GB already represented the rest of the anointed in general, who had no say anyway. It was the GB, as head of the departments for Writing, Teaching, Service, Correspondence, etc., who were already considered the top of the "Bethel" headquarters hierarchy. It didn't matter if a certain thing was written by a member of the "other sheep," it was still considered to be under their direction. I actually asked a pioneer sister at the time if she had heard about the new GB=FDS doctrine right after that point from the Annual Meeting was announced on the website. She honestly thought that this was nothing new. In other words, something like this same respect for their teaching and example would have happened naturally as a matter of course. It has probably happened in every religion known to man. There have even been other religions that speak of their leadership councils as governing bodies. The level of agreement by the "rank-and-file" Witnesses (as Anthony Morriss III calls us) is just like other religions: a function of the emphasis given on the importance of this level of agreement.