JW Insider

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I even think that it is today’s emphasis on “critical thinking” that serves to downplay the above verse—as though obedience has nothing whatsoever to do with it—as though it is all a head matter that we ought to be able to figure out.

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.

7 hours ago, Anna said:

I am thinking the same, but I don't think they see it that way. It seems that specific dates are very important to them....

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.

17 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It is by faith that we accept those events to be true, just like faith gave a person insight to understand the end of the gentile times in 1914 way before the event of WW1 happened.

Russell was an excellent student of the Bible. He knew it well. He wrote about the Bible very capably. He preached it. He clearly had insights into many of its teachings and principles. He could use scripture to explain scripture. He could show excellent rational insight along with spiritual insight. He showed faith and he showed discretion and wisdom. And he was one of the most interesting men of his time, because was very aware of the world around him and used this knowledge to help explain some of these insights, but usually without getting too bogged down in the secular, political or scientific arguments of the day.

But, faith or no faith, he had absolutely no insight or understanding about the end of the gentile times. He made no prediction about a world war. He made absolutely no prediction about 1914 that came true. He made absolutely no prediction about the gentile times that came true.

Russell thought the "end of the gentile times" was the equivalent of the FULL ESTABLISHMENT of a Jewish government in PALESTINE, and the FINAL END of the United States government and economy, the FINAL END of the United Kingdom's government and economy, the FINAL END of the Turkish government and economy, the FINAL END of the Chinese, Japanese, Russian, German, French, Norwegian, and Mexican governments and economies, too. ALL HUMAN GOVERNMENTS would fall in 1914/1915 and it would be the FULL establishment of a divinely backed Jewish government in Jerusalem, with the re-establishment of Israel in Palestine.

We can only pretend that he got something right, because he predicted that the chaos of the complete fall of all these non-Jewish governments, along with the rise of Israel in Palestine, would result in a time of trouble that would END in 1914, and then around 1904, he changed it to BEGIN in 1914, and indicated that this chaos in the vacuum of any human political institutions would end in a matter of months after 1914, most likely ending in 1915.

Which part of his "insight" or "understanding" of this matter came true? Which part was correct?

It's true he started some backpeddling on his understanding in 1904 (mentioned above), then 1910, then 1913. That's because his view included some expectations that he considered unlikely in view of the time left. 

Russell didn't think Jesus' invisible presence would start in 1914. Russell didn't think that Jesus' kingship would start in 1914. Russell didn't think a great battle would be fought between Jesus and Satan in 1914. There's NOTHING that we NOW think happened around 1914, that Russell predicted, and he NEVER thought that any of those things (that we now believe about 1914) had happened even after he saw the events of 1914 for himself.

So where does anyone get the idea that Russell got even one thing right about 1914 prior to 1914?

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

True, but Jesus said: “Notice the fig tree and all the other trees.  When they are budding, you see it for yourselves and know that now the summer is near." 

Thanks for this reminder @Arauna

When I mentioned early in this topic that @Anna had brought up a couple of points/questions that I hadn't really been able to consider fully, this was one of them. It's easy to see what C.T.Russell was thinking when he said that wars, earthquakes and famine and pestilence, etc., were NOT part of the sign, because as he said, Jesus was here just telling us the common experience of mankind for the last 18 centuries.

But it is obvious that the fig tree appears to refer to some kind of sign that people can see is in advance of a season. This appears to counter the idea of Jesus and Paul that the times and seasons are none of our concern, not even the angels, but only the Father.

The current doctrine may have several apparent contradictions with scripture, but I don't want to just jump over to another interpretation that also has contradictions.

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

My guess is that the States that have legalized marijuana have the highest incidents of 18-34 children living with their parents.

I figured it was going to be exactly in line with the cost of living index for each state with extra weighting given to the housing cost variable. I looked at the states with the highest numbers on the list, and there is also a correspondence to the states where the highest number of children are sent to the most expensive universities. 

But I don't see any correspondence to legalized marijuana, especially since these rankings began to be "baked in" before marijuana legalization became a factor after 2008.

https://www.policygenius.com/blog/which-states-have-the-most-young-adults-living-with-their-parents/

I looked at a few sites like the one above, and noticed that Colorado (legalized) has one of the lowest rates of young adults living at home 24.4 percent ranks it at #43. Oregon and Washington score very well, too, though legalized. North Carolina is somewhere near the middle, ranking #28 with 30.4 percent. South Carolina is a little worse: #21 at 32.6 percent. Most of the Southern States are in worse shape than the Carolinas in this respect. But the top five worse states have not legalized marijuana (NY, NJ, CT, FL.) Michigan which has legalized is no different from Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Texas. Nevada which has legalized is right in the middle there with the Carolinas.

The one state that is near the worst (#6) AND has legalized is California. But this is also a state where a high number of children are sent to expensive colleges, and the cost of living is very high, and housing prices are through the roof.

Other than California, there appears to be no correlation, or even a negative correlation (so far). On the other hand how really different is California's 38.3 rate to South Carolina's 32.6 rate? It looks like a national problem to me.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Peter and apostles claimed how they are witnesses of this two things. No one of them saw by own eyes Jesus' resurrection. And two of apostles didn't recognize resurrected Jesus when he appeared to them

Interesting points, in that it made them witnesses of what they saw through the "eyes" of their faith. Faith is assured expectation of things not seen. They saw the resurrected Jesus, but he was in a different state, "materialized." In time, they all had faith that this was not a demon or just any angel materializing as Jesus, but Jesus himself, the one they had previously witnessed in person. (The resurrected Jesus restored as an even more powerful spirit being, but materialized.) Up to 500 persons saw him in this state. And through the outpouring of the holy spirit at Pentecost they realized what they were receiving, in faith, that this was what Jesus had promised after he would sit down at the right hand of the Father's heavenly throne. As a group, however, they witnessed this, too. Stephen had a vision of Jesus standing at God's right hand. (Makes no difference if you are sitting or standing when you are at the right hand of the throne of majesty.)

1 hour ago, the Sower of Seed said:

I was being sarcastic! Is there a symbol for that?

You didn't need one. It was clear to me that I was responding to your sarcasm.

1 hour ago, the Sower of Seed said:

Satan and the demons are LESS powerful than they were before the flood. After the flood, they could go back to Heaven and regain strength.

Interesting idea, but I haven't seen the scriptural evidence for this idea. But I do also see a problem with it.

1 hour ago, the Sower of Seed said:

After 1914 they are confined here. What is it that limits their power?

Curious. You might have great ideas, but they strike me as too far off the scriptural foundation I would expect as an explanation. The following might sound like I'm making fun, but I'm quite serious about the problems I have with this theory.

So woe to the earth and sea because he has great anger but at least he has limited power. I assume you believe that Satan had the power to count, at least. This means that he could have counted from 607 BCE and known that the parousia would begin in 1914? He is not very crafty then, because he would have known he would have all full power in January 1912, started the chaos against Christ's brothers, and been able to recharge in February 1912, come back to start WWI, recharge in March, come back to fight against Christ's brothers again, with all those same powers he had used to get hundreds of thousands killed, just like he did in the second century. So he could have had all the necessary damage done well before Jesus would be enthroned in October 1914. And plenty of time to spare, with which to recharge again. Perhaps he didn't have the power to read Revelation chapter 12, so he didn't know he was to be thrown down after the battle. Perhaps he thought he could win the battle?

1 hour ago, the Sower of Seed said:

(Satan misleads the masses with a a mighty river of false &  misleading information coupled with traditions built on lies)

I have a little trouble with the physics of bad light, kryptonite-like physics on a spiritual being, but I'm OK with seeing Satan as someone whose spirit manipulates the world and misleads masses with a mighty rive of false and misleading information, traditions, lies, etc.

1 hour ago, the Sower of Seed said:

1914 witnessed that fulfillment just as Brother Russell spoke as Christ's Anointed originator of the current congregation under his direction.

Is there a reference to Russell as this Anointed originator there in Revelation? Or is this a guess without a scripture to back it up?

1 hour ago, the Sower of Seed said:

Great Persecution did break out for the witnesses that will never be reported. (in public, at the doors, at work, in the families, etc....)

OK, so you are saying that this persecution broke out in 1914? 1917? 1919? It sounds like you are only talking about the same kind of treatment that all persons of all religious sects go through when they join a religious sect that is not accepted in the mainstream. You have said that it would have been worse in the Bible Belt, and this might generally be true. It would have been worse when the war broke out and persons were being conscripted in Europe, and by 1917, it would have been worse when there was peer pressure to go to war. Or in some cases I assume that peer pressure might be to NOT go to war, when the Watch Tower had already said it would be OK, even if the "witnesses" (Bible Students) had to join a combat battalion.

The problem with this is that, by all reports, this persecution on the "witnesses" did not result in violence or death. You appear to think that there would be much that was not reported. But the few thousand "witnesses" that this would have affected would be only a minor, tiny number compared to the tens of thousands of persons of other religions with conscientious objectors who were already prepared to go to prison instead of going to war. Their neighbors, workmates, families, etc., might have thought they were mentally diseased, or were concerned that they were apostate, or might have starting shunning them, but surely you don't think that calling someone mentally diseased, or apostate, or shunning them is persecution, do you?

2 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

We look at the sign of the Last Days to know that Revelation 12 has been fulfilled, as it describes Jesus presence as King of God’s Kingdom in Heaven with the apostles and anointed ones to date.

Yes, I think this is right. Although I can't see it happening in 1914. I see where you get the sign of the last days, based on Satan's anger knowing he has a short period of time, but don't see where Rev 12 describes the apostles and anointed ones to date already there in heaven with Jesus.

I think that most of the rest of your post is pretty much in line with a fairly standard Witness reading of Revelation and Matthew 24, Daniel, Genesis 3:15, etc. I'm OK with most of it, but I personally don't see any reason to insert 1914 here as a pivotal date. It doesn't seem necessary, or even possible, when we consider the more likely meaning of Jesus' words in Matthew 24 and match them up to everything else Jesus and Paul and 1 & 2 Peter said. But that's a different topic, and I don't see it as a problem if this is how you resolve these verses. It's the way I had always resolved it too, and the way a few million other Witnesses resolve it. (Also, I see the war and pestilence as pivotal in the era starting in 1914, but none of the other items you mentioned pivoted around 1914. But these concerns would have almost nothing to do with whether the Bible allows us to use 1914 as a pivotal year.)

I'm taking an interest in what you are saying here, because I am currently trying to look at Revelation 12 myself to see whether it is more likely to mean what we have said all along, with a few contradictions to resolve, or whether it fits a reading that has almost no scriptural difficulties to resolve. If I can resolve the Watchtower contradictions, I will give it the benefit of the doubt. If not, I would hope for a chance to discuss a resolution that fits all of the scriptures with no contradictions. I've given a lot of thought to Genesis through Jude, but haven't resolved that much of Revelation yet.

So please forgive me if I sound a bit cantankerous here while trying to evaluate what you are saying.

The current situation with currency is already a blockchain. A bank or credit company tracks the value of your account number. Through encryption it shares the ability for other currency transaction machines to pay all or part of that account value based on a series of encrypted transactions that will also trace back through the chain to update the value of that account number in the original bank or credit company.

The main difference is that the blockchain is very simple and the original bank can limit how much info remains encrypted and how much is shared with other transaction machines. That difference can become very expensive with new cryptocurrency blockchain because the computing power to calculate the value of each account number costs many times the current computing power necessary to handle credit cards, bank accounts, ATM's, and POS (point of sale) card readers.

And, yes, I'm being a bit flippant about the differences. Besides using a ton of computing power to create the non-decryptable account information, the actual huge difference is the borderlessness of it all, and therefore the possibility that it can replace entire currencies that are under national restrictions, and ultimately create a currency system (more likely a wealth storage system) that is 'above the law' and 'international.' Quite a combination.

Possibly the majority of PIMO/POMO etc are left out of the chart. Many ex and non-JWs surely believe that Jehovah exists. Probably the better question is not "Do you believe in Jehovah?" but "Do you believe the Watchtower's Governing Body was appointed as The Faithful and Discreet Slave in 1919?"

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I see no sign of spirituality in it at all.  And, re-using old Watchtower material ?  Just feeding the sheep any old rubbish then.

That doesn't make sense. I repeat what I'm having for dinner at least every month. Doesn't make it rubbish. Just means that it was still useful. Besides, I think he meant that some of it was from his unpublished files, which is why he thought it was curious, but not in a bad way.

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Or, completing a new Watchtower article in less that two hours, scriptures included ? Wow, I'm glad I don't go to the KH anymore.

Look at the old Bible Commentaries and Bible Dictionaries by Gesenius, Strong, Elliott, Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, Vine, Thayer, etc. Now look at how many pages these men must have produced per hour to finish some of these works in their lifetime. Are you saying that anyone who could produce 24 paragraphs in two hours must be doing it wrong? Was it the fact that the supporting scriptures were so well remembered that they got the citations exactly right without having to double-check them? Imagine trying to write a thorough concordance of the Bible in the days before there were any computers or automation to help you out.

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

And i can further see the need for the true Anointed remnant to put in place by God through Christ. 

Who says they weren't true anointed? All of the persons I referred to claimed to be anointed.

I thought of another means by which I think the Watchtower shows that "saving face" is important. When 1914 "failed" Russell evidently made a big splash of facing the day on October 2 with a full-throated announcement to the Bethel family and traveling convention "delegates."  Russell said: THE GENTILE TIMES HAVE ENDED!

No one apparently thought to say anything about this until the 1920's when Rutherford published in the WT that something like this happened on October 1st. Then MacMillan wrote a paper preparing for the book, Faith on the March, claiming it happened on October 4th. Then the book changed it to October 2nd, and this is now the official date.

To me, this is an announcement that, as of now, even though we see that all the expectations did not come true, that they were now going to face this problem head on by claiming that it really was so: that it was not a mistake.

This doesn't quite match the evidence in Watchtower articles of the time that appear to start backpeddling on 1914, with claims that the Gentile Times ended in 1915. And then there was Rutherford's new teaching that the harvest had no longer been 1874 to 1914, but that it was now 1878 to 1918.

In 1918, when this failed again. Rutherford tried something that was very similar to what Russell had evidently done. He created a motto:

"THE WORLD HAS ENDED -- Millions Now Living Will Never Die!"

This again seemed like a way to say, yes the expectations failed, but let's double-down, kick in our heels, and claim, in 1918, that "THE WORLD HAS ENDED."

And the new time period 1878 to 1918 as a kind of "harvest" remained for many years in our publications. This teaching still remained even in the 1960's or beyond. An echo of it is seen even in this 1990 article:

*** w90 3/15 p. 14 par. 19 ‘The Faithful Slave’ and Its Governing Body ***
In its issue of November 1, 1944, The Watchtower stated: “In 1878, forty years before the Lord’s coming to the temple in 1918

[A 12/15/1966 WT article explained this incorrectly as a way to highlight supposed discernment in 1922, but the footnote in that same article proves the main article to be incorrect. Will discuss if any interest.]

But this 1878 date remained as prophetically significant for over 100 years before it was dropped. Why hang onto it for so long?

It's also fairly well-known that until 1943, the official Watchtower date for Christ's presence (parousia) was still 1874. The Watchtower held to this date for nearly 65 years. Long after hints and discussions had changed the emphasis to a possibility that Christ's presence could move to 1914 or 1918. (Rutherford for many years began stating that Christ's "presence" and "coming" was dated to 1918, but did not try to directly contradict Russell's 1874 date for the parousia.)

Similarly, for years the Watchtower taught the general idea that the "last days" had begun in 1799. Echoes of this 1799 teaching were still being mentioned in prophetic fulfillments related to Daniel's prophecies, even as they have been in the lifetimes of some of us here:

One curious explanation that could concern why we should no longer think of 1799 as related to the time of the end or 'last days' used, not the Watchtower's own former view, but a parallel view of others who had seen 1799 as an end time "millennial" date.

*** w67 4/15 p. 234 par. 20 Mankind’s Millennium Under God’s Kingdom—Why Literally So ***
the Holy Roman Empire, to 1799 C.E., when Pope Pius VI, already deposed by Napoleon Bonaparte, was taken as a prisoner from the Vatican on February 20, and deported to Valence, France, where he died on August 29, 1799. The trouble that followed upon the Roman Catholic Church was viewed as marking the “little time” during which Satan the Devil was to be loosed at the millennium’s end. (Rev. 20:1-3, 7, Dy) However, it is now 168 years since the year 1799. That is not a “little time” for the Devil to be loosed; and yet the troubles on the Roman Catholic Papacy are worsening. And now the destruction of Babylon the Great, of which the Papacy is the most powerful member, threatens that religious empire in the near future.

This was repeated again:

*** w89 9/1 p. 12 par. 6 Organizing Now for the Thousand Years to Come ***
Some Roman Catholics have claimed that Jesus Christ’s Thousand Year Reign ended in 1799 when French armies captured Rome and deposed the pope as its ruler, so that he was deported as a prisoner to France, where he died. The Catholic clergy have said that Satan and his demons were then released from “the bottomless pit,” or “the abyss,” to renew their deceptive work for “a little time.” (Revelation 20:1-3, Catholic Douay Version) If that were true, it would mean that the “little time” has already continued for 190 years, with no end in sight.

Notice that the first major defense against this view was that no one could call 168 years a "little time."

How does that square with our explanation of Revelation 12 where we start Satan's "short period of time" in 1914 and claim that this short period of time has already gone on for 106 years?

On 12/27/2019 at 12:52 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

at a time when pharma has succeeded in putting 1 out of every 3 Americans on some form of anti-depressant?

Hey, just skimming quickly, but I use my anti-perspirant 1 out of 3 three days, too.  

On 12/27/2019 at 12:52 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

hardening your forehead so the lout throwing a punch breaks his fist on it, a la Ezekiel:

This reminds me of something. Last month, I contacted one of the brothers in the Writing Department who was dismissed in 1981 or so, due to his friendship with R.Franz, and his work on the Aid Book. This brother was dismissed, not disfellowshipped, but it was inconvenient to keep him at Bethel when everything that had been near R.Franz was considered tainted. But the most proficient writers had 'cut their teeth' on the Aid Book project, and were the primary ones being assigned anything Biblical. In fact, this brother and one other brother were the only two who were producing the great majority of all Watchtower study articles. He had reached a point where you could just give him a topic and he could produce the entire ready-to-go typewritten article in just a couple of hours, with all the scriptures cited and it would come back with ZERO marks from proofreading. So Brother Swingle had given him a Special Pioneer monthly stipend and asked him to keep working on some Writing Dept projects, even though he had been dismissed from Bethel.

When I was talking to him last month, we talked about the current state of the Writing Department, and how so many of the older respected writers were "out to pasture" as it were, and no longer active as writers, and how the newer department has more researchers, but even less writers. He is still in contact with some of the writers from the old 1980's team. He claims the newer writers are sometimes too cautious to make any comments about scriptures that haven't been made previously. This makes their output very slow, he says. 

And he has also noticed that a lot of his older work is being re-used, verbatim, which is fine with him of course, but he says it makes him worry about the volume of writing that will need to go into some ambitious video projects he has heard about, many of which will need to include Bible commentary.

I told him I thought that video doesn't need as much writing because it's so visual and the speaking pace is usually very slow. And a lot of dialogue, just like the convention dramas, can just be made up as filler, and most of the audience would be able to easily tell what was Biblical and what was dialogue filler.

I had mentioned that the Spanish-speaking churches have done very well with the children in their churches by producing a lot of Bible story video, but I wonder how much of it is "good" as video fodder for children. They can produce cartoon-like battle scenes, or David killing Goliath, etc., but so many of these videos are full of death and destruction. Some of these Bible stories have become cartoons on local Spanish-speaking stations.

At any rate, JTR's and your own comments about Ezekiel, the MMA fighter, make me wonder how some of these anticipated video projects will work out. In other words, how careful will they be to avoid the imagery that JTR just made me consider?

OK, I can't help myself. Before I try to wean myself off the discussion of the "Old Watch Tower Chronology" that included 1799, 1874, 1878, I just wanted to point out a couple of things that might relate to something Anna just said about "saving face."

I don't think of the Organization as "fraudulent" because we all know that each one of us was "handed down" our chronology in a way so that we couldn't help but believe it. Same goes for how it was handed down to the GB, Helpers, and Writing Department. It tied 1914 in with Bible prophecy; it "proved" the Bible right; it "proved" that Witnesses (Bible Students) understood some esoteric prophecies of the Bible in a way that no one else could have "deciphered" without a measure of holy spirit. Even for members of the Writing Department and researchers to go back and look at what had actually been predicted, there was just too much "confirmation bias" to dismiss all of it. So even the old chronology was seen as a kind of preparatory framework that made it possible to accept 1914 as the End of the Gentile Times.

But here's where the heart of wisdom saving of face comes in. At first, 1914 was seen as a failure, and the new date for the End of the Gentile Times became 1915, then fulfillments were moved to 1918. But over time, it was seen that the Watch Tower could keep 1914, if it just changed the definition of the phrase "End of the Gentile Times." Nothing else predicted for 1914 had come true, except "a time of trouble." But the problem with the "time of trouble" prediction was that it had been long predicted that 1914 would be the END of that time of trouble, not the beginning. It's true that for the 10 years leading up to 1914, this idea had changed to a time of trouble STARTING in 1914 with several months of chaos, expected to reach into the year 1915, as all gentile kingdoms, governments and institutions lost their power. And they would then have to realize that the only kingdom to acknowledge was the one to be led, in 1914, by Jews in Palestine. So they couldn't really point to the Watch Tower's own predictions.

A quick definition of the original phrase "end of the gentile times" is seen here (quoting an older Zion's Watch Tower) at wol.jw.org:

*** w52 5/1 p. 260 par. 3 1914 a Marked Year! *** https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1952321
“It has often been shown that this is the basis and key of the Times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24), or the duration of Gentile rule over Jerusalem.

That same article shows what was done in order to save face. They couldn't use the Watchtower's own publications to prove that the WTS had been predicting this date for several decades, so they use a magazine that the 1952 Watchtower called "The New World" magazine. (That was not its name, even though Brother Anthony Morris uses that same name when he holds up the magazine at the 2018 Annual Meeting.) Neither Russell himself nor the Bible Students had made use of this magazine, probably because they were more familiar with the great differences between what this magazine said and what Russell himself and the Watch Tower had said. The magazine was dated August 20, 1914, --still early-- so the things that the magazine quoted correctly would merely make Russell and the "Millennial Dawners" look like false prophets. "Russell's prophecy" was quoted so incorrectly that even though they made it sound as if it was coming true, any Bible Student would know differently.

But I wanted to point out just how Brother Morris used the article in a way that showed his own "subtext" was about saving face.

It's very long and I'll try to end the post with it, chopping out some pieces to try to shorten it, but since it's so long I wanted to put a shorter idea of saving face in front of it. It's from the Watch Tower publications in 1924: (g24 2/13)

It is not at all true that our expectations concerning this date [1914] failed of realization. Others now admit for that date all that we ever claimed for it.

Of course, there were no citations for those others, but the one that gets the most repetition in the WT publications is the one that Morris held up at the Annual Meeting. Notice how he will turn this into a point about how only the Organization will actually be able to point out when something "IS IT!":

I think that all of you would agree how much we enjoyed the museum video and hearing Brother Fred Franz —his voice— talking about after the assassination of the archduke that the brothers said, ‘Aha! There it is! There it is! What we’ve been waiting for.’

Well, that’s very stirring, and then we would have critics saying, ‘Yeah, but you people had other expectations that were not realized,’ and etcetera, you know. But it’s amazing that even the world recognized that this was unique—1914. In fact, I’ve had this for many years. I want to show it to you. It’s The New World Magazine. And it was widely read at the time, and I guess about 1931 they went out of business. But here, “End of All Kingdoms in 1914 — ‘Millennial Dawners’ 25 Year Prophecy,” widely read; other newspapers covered it. They made comments here about:

“The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students,’ best known as ‘Millennial Dawners,’ have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the hundreds of traveling evangelists.”

And I appreciate very much how the Yearbook in 1975 considering our modern-day history made this beautiful quote:

“Disappointments about going to heaven in 1914 really were very minor, compared with the great expectations realized in connection with that year.”

And it’s amazing. During the first six months of 1914, nothing happened. They were being ridiculed. And then the archduke is assassinated. This one was particularly released on August 30, 1914. Millions dying in World War I.

So it’s Brother Franz’s statement that really gave the idea for the theme here: “This Is It!”

The question arises, Will we have one or more times—in the future or even now—when we can say, “This is it” and have that same exciting fervor because of Bible prophecy?

Well, let’s begin with this one here. Find Daniel chapter 11. And we’re going to read here verse 40, or half of it:

“In the time of the end the king of the south (here at Daniel 11:40) will engage with him in a pushing.”

So the Governing Body has been prayerfully considering recent events. And we know that in 1991, the Soviet Union came to an end. So who is “the king of the north”?

Well, after prayerfully considering it and the matter of the pushing, we’re assuring you that what we see, after prayerfully considering it, is that it’s Russia and its allies—the king of the north. . . .

So this is it! At this point, we’re confident to share with you that Russia and its allies are the king of the north, and they’re engaged in this pushing. In fact, last month, they had the largest war games—Russia did—since the Soviet Union was in existence way back in the ’80’s. And they had their allies with them in the war game. So we’re confident this is it. This is the king of the north, and that’s what’s involved at this time with the pushing—locking horns with each other.

So is there going to be another time related to Bible prophecy where the faithful slave will be able to say to you, “This is it”? Well, one that we’re all very familiar with—. . . Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them,. . .

So here’s the question, and it’s understood that it would be asked, will the faithful slave be able to at a certain time say to the brotherhood: “This is it! “This is what we’ve been waiting for. This is the ‘peace and security’ prophecy”? . . .. But just consider (especially those of you here, many of you are aged, and you’ll remember, many of you who were in the truth at the time) what about the year 1986?

The United Nations was proclaiming prior to January of 1986 that, you know, ‘Get ready.’ They wanted the governments to put their arms down for at least a year, the International Year of Peace. Whoa!

See if you were in the truth back then, you were like, “OK.” . . .  Well, how did the faithful slave handle all that? So this honors Jehovah’s faithful slave serving at that time.

Here’s what was published in the ’85 Watchtower, October 1, page 18. Now, this is some months before that all started in 1986. Here’s what was stated:

“Christians cannot say in advance exactly when the great tribulation will strike. Period. Jehovah has not revealed ‘that day or the hour.’ Thus when, for example, the United Nations “declares the year 1986 an ‘International Year of Peace,’ Christians watch the event with interest. But they cannot say in advance whether this will prove to be the fulfillment of Paul’s words.”

Nonetheless, we kept on the watch, but God’s spirit was guiding his people, particularly the faithful slave. They were not only faithful, they were discreet. And they did not say: “This is it! “This is the fulfillment of 1 Thessalonians chapter 5.” No. But if you are still there, go back to 1 Thessalonians chapter 5—just something to keep in mind here—sometimes we’ll read verses 2 and 3 and leave out verse 4. He writes:

“But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that the day should overtake you as it would thieves.”

So thieves are doing their thievery when it’s dark, but we’re sons of light. So that’s not going to catch us, the faithful ones worshipping the true God, obedient to this earthly part of his organization. So the question comes up—If you go back to that quote from the 2004 Watchtower—‘Prophecies are only fully understood only after they are fulfilled.’ But we also said: ‘or are in the process of fulfillment.’

So will the faithful slave be able to say in the process of the fulfillment of this prophecy from 1 Thessalonians: “This is it! That’s what we’ve been waiting for”? We’ll have to wait and see.

So there’s a word of caution here we want to pass on to you because we’re all human. We must keep on the watch, but please, just don’t be gullible. You hear a world leader say something about peace. And then you start e-mailing or something else with a social network. “This is it!” Leave the channel to handle such matters. If the faithful slave is moved by God’s spirit to say that to the brotherhood, and that’s His will, fine. But please don’t be gullible. Stick with the way Jehovah wants this to operate, and he’ll bless your obedience.

Reading his words carefully it is clear that the Governing Body believe that they NEED to be able to say things in advance as a kind of proof that "the faithful slave is moved by God's spirit." They should be the ones to say it before any of the regular Witnesses might start emailing or using a social network.

The main point here is that the 1914 predictions, even though they turned out to be completely false, must still be "spun" as proof of Jehovah's spirit on the faithful and discreet slave. Even if we have to turn to a sensationalist, racist, secular magazine of the time that was more like "The National Enquirer," and even though it got most of it wrong, this can still be used as evidence of God's spirit:

*** w71 8/1 p. 468 pars. 6-7 Making Known God’s Prophetic Truths ***
But Jehovah’s witnesses did expect such things, and others acknowledged that they did. On August 30, 1914, the New York World said: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the . . . evangelists.”
7 How could Jehovah’s witnesses have known so far in advance what world leaders themselves did not know? Only by God’s holy spirit making such prophetic truths known to them.

*** w73 7/1 p. 402 par. 5 Praise Jehovah with His People ***
This 2,520-year period began with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Babylonians in the late seventh century B.C.E. For example, Zion’s Watch Tower of March 1880 had declared: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.” Only God by his holy spirit could have revealed this to those early Bible students so far in advance.

15 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

I get desperate and tired of talking about a date, how contrary to the spirit of the Bible and the warnings of Jesus!
While I prepare what I would like to say (remember that it is very difficult for me to express myself in English), I attach this link that although somewhat old, I think it is relevant.

True, you said everything important in just that one post. We could even use those same points again, I hope. I know I get a little carried away with discussing the specific chronology systems we have followed in the past, and I hope to keep that to a minimum.

For myself, enough has been said about the old Babylonian chronology recently. So perhaps we leave out any arguments here (for or against) the supposed 2,520 years from the fall of Jerusalem to 1914. Although, if anyone wants to participate in such a defense or discussion, I'm happy to join.

Enough has been said about the Watch Tower's old chronology system that brought us supposed prophetic fulfillments for 1799, 1844, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, along with 1914/1915, too. And I don't think this should be a date-bashing exercise where we simply try to show up the potential embarrassment we might feel about predictions for 1918, 1925, or the mid-1970's.

Perhaps enough has been said about the two overlapping groups within the the generation that would see all these things occur.

Naturally, people can talk about anything they want, but for myself I had hoped to limit this to a general discussion of the Biblical counsel about chronology, and what Matthew 24 might mean, if not the generation from WWI.  Or even whether Revelation chapter 6 or chapter 12 can make any sense if it doesn't mean something related to 1914 or the final generation that would see the end.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I've already forgotten what those holes were

I'll make sure they come up.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I can see that 1914 is decisive to our faith not so much because of it being the last days, but because the appointment of the FDS hinges on it

That comes across as too cynical. If there is an appointment of a special class to "feed his little sheep" why could it not just "pop up" inspirationally at any time or place that the need is great enough. (Times and places where the harvest is great but the workers are few.) Why can't all persons in history who would volunteer for such a ministry be considered as candidates in all Christian-like religions, and then the one group of teaching volunteers that appears to have the most truth be the one that lovers of truth associate with? Pre-2011, this was basically our doctrine. That wheat and weeds grew alongside each other through all the centuries from the first on down until today. Various teachers who taught a larger than usual measure of truth like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Waldenses, Arius, etc., were considered to be 'faithful and wise servants' who helped to coalesce a "wheat" class and keep it distinguished from a "weed" class. We should expect that there would have been many candidates vying to teach truth, and from the perspective of those who would be seeking out truth, they would grow as wheat.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

The frustrating thing is that only time will tell, and if 1914 is wrong, then most of us will not even know this side of the system. Somehow, the more I get involved in reading this topic on here, the more at peace I am.

Another perspective is that it is always correct to say it is just around the corner, because it is. It is always as close as our own lifespan. We are, in effect "harvested" as wheat or weeds at the end of our life, or at the 'harvest of the world' which happens at Christ's parousia. 1914 could be dead wrong, and the end could come tonight. But our entire life is an opportunity to continually keep our motivations in check, so that we are moved to do good for our brothers and sisters and neighbors and enemies, out of a love for God and fellow man. If we find ourselves motivated by following a group of men, or peer pressure, or to be seen by men, then we are not motivated out of a pure heart.

(1 Timothy 1:5) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.

But there is a difference in being motivated by a date, and being motivated by the fact that we think the end is so close because, for example, we know that the "generation" might be up in the very near future. There is nothing wrong with being motivated in part because we believe the end of all things is upon us. That would make us want to be ready at any time, every day. This is not the same thing as being (wrongly) motivated because we believe the "end," for example, going to occur within a few months of 2034, or within weeks of a declaration of "Peace and Security" or a "Hailstone message" or when we see that they finally have to put a member of the great crowd in the GB. These latter motivations are the same thing as saying "my master is delaying" and that is dangerous because it becomes a partial motivation for our actions. We will have the feeling that we need not "shape up" 100 percent, until we can see those future expectations begin to occur more clearly.

I think the proper motivation that can come out of a belief that the end can occur at any time, and that it might be very close, is probably what TTH is referring to with the carrot and stick proposition. Not that it is just meant as a tease to get more work out of us.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I am not stressing about how near is "just around the corner" or how close is the "last of the last days". I feel like I am above all that now. I know it will come. I know as Christians we do our best in preaching and teaching, we do our best in being "no part of the world"

I believe that you have described what Jesus must have meant when he spoke of the truth as not being burdensome.

(Matthew 11:28-30) 28 Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for yourselves. 30 For my yoke is kindly, and my load is light.”

A constant "carrot and stick" with specific goal posts that are moved over and over again becomes a burden. We can never do enough, and we are then serving for specific measurable works.

The old days (1940's-1960's) had a "Circuit Servant" setting quotas for the congregation and then chiding the congregation for not meeting them. This was a sad state of affairs (that seems to have been directly copied from sales meetings for door-to-door merchandise peddlers and other types of salesmen). My uncle who was a Circuit Servant/Overseer was trained by the District Servant to find things the congregation can meet and find things the congregagion probably can't meet, with the overall goal of having the congregation "pushed" to help reach the national quotas found in the "Informant"/"Kingdom Ministry." This way there would be some items to commend, but there would always be the need to work harder. There wasn't that much of a carrot, except in the idea that the works were considered proof of righteousness. I think it was about once a month that the Congregation Servant pulled the huge number chart out from behind the curtain at the Service Meeting to go over how well we were meeting our quotas.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Did you forget to take your JWI pills today?  

😉 There's a reason that I have no problem preaching that we are in the last days, and that so many people see the world with fear. We live in a time of excessive troubles and people see no way out. It is our privilege to offer comfort to those sighing and groaning over the situation in this system of things.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

You seem to switch from inside the congregation, to outside the congregation.

To be clear, this is an opening position for a discussion that might answer a few of the questions in a more complete way than just the initial explanations here. But it's good to start with a position of agreement, and a position that acknowledges that the current view is not "crazy" or anti-Bible.

To that point, as I've stated before, I have no problem with the idea that we are in the "last days," and in some sense I would agree that we are also in the "last generation." And since I believe that Jesus began to rule as King invisibly in 33 C.E. and has been present with his followers ever since, then I also have no problem with preaching that Jesus is now enthroned as King, and is invisibly present. I also believe the times we live in are significant in that they are fulfilling all the statements about the "parousia" throughout the entire Christian Greek Scriptures. And, in any case, the answer is the same no matter when we believe that Christ's enthronement and presence began. It's the outworking of Jehovah's eternal purpose through his Kingdom as ruled by Christ Jesus, throughout the millennium and into the final perfection of the new heavens and new earth.

I would even say that, as far as Matthew 24 is concerned, Jehovah intended for us to look at this prophecy, ostensibly about Jerusalem only, and see in it a wider fulfillment that would guide us through future days as we look to the end of the entire worldly system of things -- not just the end of the Jewish system in 70 CE. 2 Tim 3:16 tells us that many scriptures can provide this value to us.

But, unless someone has some scriptural evidence that will correct and override the evidence I've seen so far, I will very likely continue to present the evidence much as I have in the past. However, I see an opportunity to get some more constructive criticism on these views from persons who have participated on this topic in the past, and perhaps some additional thoughts will be convincing. For example, a person like @TrueTomHarley has often surprised me with a take on some scriptures that provides a refreshing perspective. @b4ucuhear has clearly given a lot of thought to the chronology problem, and I hope to get him to share more of what he has learned. He has also asked questions that I have not responded to yet. @Anna has apparently tried to see things from the perspective I have presented, and she is not afraid to question when something doesn't quite appear correct. (Her questions have also pointed out 'holes in the theory' that I am still not 100 percent clear on myself.) @ComfortMyPeople seems to follow a lot of what I've posted on this topic, but rarely says much about it. I'm hoping for a bit more sometime soon. @Outta Here probably got tired of my reaction to my own "JWI pills," but he often said a lot more with fewer words than anyone else who responded to me. (He was the one who suggested that WWI never ended.) @Srecko Sostar and @Witness , although quite different, have also provided very thought-provoking perspectives of their own, and I rarely give their ideas the amount of time I ought to in my responses. And of course, there are others who, in their own way, might help me settle some of these questions and opinions in my own mind.

There is no doubt that In the last 106 years since 1914 the Christian congregation has had to deal with an entire world era of much more critical times than previous historical eras that have come upon the Christian congregation. Yet, when Paul said that in the last days the Christian congregation would see critical times hard to deal with, Paul was preparing Timothy for the fact that Timothy should expect to see these "critical times" in the 1^st century congregations he was working with.

Currently, the Watchtower ties 1914 to the beginning of an era, or generation, that has seen greater wars than were ever seen previously in the history of the world. It is also supposed to be the beginning of a generation that has seen greater pestilence, famine, and earthquakes than any other previous generation in the history of the world.

Surely, there is nothing wrong with seeing this year as a time of great change in the world. If we ever needed proof that the world was lying in the power of the wicked one, then events that began in this particular year offered unassailable proof. Also, especially looking back, it seemed to be a sudden change to many people. European powers had exploited the wealth of many nations through violence to keep them as their own colonies. And the number of squabbles over who could exploit which nations had reached a boiling point. The Great European War starting in 1914 was supposed to be the final fight over how the exploitation of colonies around the world would be defined going forward. Lines would be drawn in the sand, and the "jungles". Who gets to exploit whom, would finally be defined and it would therefore be the war to end all wars.

But instead it just thrust upon mankind even more wars for greed, power, ego, persecution, murder, and theft. As one person on this forum commented, maybe WWI never ended.

So what could possibly be wrong with a doctrine that teaches that the final generation of mankind in this system of things should start in 1914?

Does the Bible say this is impossible? Does it go against any Biblical principles. Doesn't it fulfill prophecy?

What about Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, Revelation 12?

Doesn't common sense tell us that the end is getting closer all the time, and that a final generation must appear at some point? With all the global problems, terrors, and fears, isn't now the most likely time to see ourselves in that final generation?

2 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

I'm sorry Satan has not lived up to your expectations. I appreciate your complaining of his weakness.

You'll notice that I spoke, not of his weakness, but of the strength of Satan to cause persecutions that resulted in millions of deaths through the centuries. Satan and the spirit of the world that he embodies, has been at the heart of centuries of wars and persecutions. You will never see me complaining of his weakness.

2 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

He was able to bring pressure to some of them,even in his weakness. I can imagine the terror of you men who carried a Bible, day after day to his neighbors, speaking of a peaceful paradise, now being pressured by family and peers to join the war.

I won't get into any of the nit-picky anachronisms here, but yes, there was the pressure for young men to join the war. There is the same pressure today in many lands, but pressure to join in doing something wrong is not normally considered persecution. Some might feel pressure to avoid a lot of things the world would want us to join. But this is not the kind of "persecution" I was speaking about.

Rutherford himself gave into the "pressure" to speak of the League of Nations as if it were some kind of awesome political expression on earth of what God's kingdom offers from the heavens. Does this mean that Rutherford could claim he was persecuted to do this, and that's what pressured him to say pretty much the same thing that the World Council of Churches was saying?

The point I was trying to make is that, from 1914 to 1917, we are still talking about Russell's version of what preaching meant, not Rutherford's later versions. Rutherford, even up until 1919, had added only a couple of new elements to the Bible Students by that point in time: a much (better) stronger view against participation in war, stronger involvement in wordly politics, and a book called the "Finished Mystery" which was literally full of ludicrous "apostate" explanations of prophecy and false predictions which we would be embarrassed to read today. Probably the best pages in the whole book were the pages that Rutherford offered to rip out of every copy in 1918 so that the book could still be sold.

2 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

We can also minimize the persecution from church members as witnesses went to their doors doing the expressed will of God as commanded at Mtt.28:19,20

It was already minimal from 1914 to 1934, but even if we maximized it, it still pales in comparison to the Biblical imagery of Revelation 12. Give it a quick look again as a reminder:

(Revelation 12:3-17) Another sign was seen in heaven. Look! A great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and on its heads seven diadems; and its tail drags a third of the stars of heaven, and it hurled them down to the earth. And the dragon kept standing before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she did give birth, it might devour her child. . . .  And the woman fled into the wilderness, . . . And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. ⁹ So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. . . .  the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! ¹¹ And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. . . . Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.”  Now when the dragon saw that it had been hurled down to the earth, it persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. . . . ¹⁵ And the serpent spewed out water like a river from its mouth after the woman, to cause her to be drowned by the river. ¹⁶ But the earth came to the woman’s help, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon spewed out from its mouth. ¹⁷ So the dragon became enraged at the woman and went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her offspring, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness concerning Jesus.

Now, I'm sure that a lot of religious groups have seen this as being fulfilled upon themselves through the centuries. No harm done. That's just the way we egocentric humans have always been. And many of them had situations where they actually faced literal death. But in our case we say it was some legal maneuverings that resulted in the 9-month removal of 7 or 8 replaceable men of a specific organization that had already spent all its money on the Photo-Drama with the expectation that, after October 1914, no money would be needed for further preaching by any of them in 1915. The false expectations for 1914 had already resulted in the loss of many adherents. The autocratic nature of Rutherford, and the worldly, political infighting within the Society (over how it should be controlled in the wake of Russell's death) resulted in the loss of many more. The book, "Finished Mystery" caused a further controversy that resulted in the loss of even more Bible Students. The core adherents to the Watch Tower Society were fewer and fewer, even before the war had much impact. Rutherford began touting false expectations for 1918 and then 1925, and by the end of that decade, he had dropped pyramidology, the explanation for the End of the Gentile Times, and most of the the Russell/Barbour chronology.

Rutherford's actions from 1914 to 1931 resulted in the loss of MOST of the Bible Students. (For mostly good reasons, however.) Satan's actions during the same period were nothing like what Revelation 12 would have led Bible Students to expect. And yet we know that Satan is not weak. Look at WWII, and the holocaust, for example. Where was this "war with the remaining ones of her offspring"? Where was this rage against the woman between 1914 and 1934? You have already guessed that maybe Satan diverted his attention to the overall long-term terrible effects of the war for a few years. That's possible. But reading Revelation 12 doesn't fit the idea of making excuses for Satan.

2 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

We can minimize the war itself and the "end of the gentile times".

Nothing to minimize about the war itself. It really was terrible and really was a change to an era. Of course, we already have minimized the "end of the gentile times." Rutherford completely changed its meaning by about 1931. It no longer meant the complete dissolving of all non-Jewish institutions over a course of a few months starting in October 1914, while natural, physical Jews in Jerusalem (Palestine) simultaneously proved themselves (starting in 1914) to be the only government that had Jehovah's backing and blessing.

2 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

Satan has been weakened from his original powerful condition, where he could be empowered by the light.Now he can only influence the powerful, the intelligent and the unwary with inspiration. He was powerful when Nero ruled, can he still kill?

Again, we are forced to guess why he acted less like the Biblical Satan at the very time he was supposedly more angry, and had dragged a third of the stars of heaven down with him. Perhaps you are saying that Satan is less powerful after 1915 than he was in 1913? Or did this change in his power happen sometime closer to the time of Nero? (37 CE to 68 CE.)

2 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

Now, as I view the world of religion, WHO DO I VIEW AS DOING THE EXPRESSED WILL OF GOD AT MTT.24:14 and MARK 13:10

I would say that Jehovah's Witnesses are doing this. Sounds like you might agree.

2 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

THERE IS ONLY ONE, JESUS TAUGHT THEM THEN AND NOW, TO GO 2 BY 2,  DOOR AFTER DOOR UNTIL HE SMASHES SATAN.

Just to be a little more careful here, when Jesus taught them to go 2 by 2, he clearly told them NOT to go "door after door."

(Luke 10:1-7) . . .After these things the Lord designated 70 others and sent them out by twos ahead of him into every city and place where he himself was to go.. . .  Do not keep transferring from house to house.

The method was announcing themselves in public and then only going to persons' houses where they were invited.

But our current method of going from house to house has worked well, too. I have nothing against it, and have used it to excellent advantage in starting studies and making disciples.

2 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

WHO WILL DELIVER A HAILSTONE MESSAGE?

WHO HAS THE COURAGE TO DELIVER SUCH A MESSAGE? 

Just one person's opinion here, but If we were to be given a hailstone message to warn others with before the actual end is upon as (as a surprise) then Jesus must have been lying when he said it would come upon ALL of us as a surprise. Jesus said the parousia would be like a flash of lightning that suddenly flashes from one end of the horizon over to the other end. Hardly even a split second should remain to start a hailstone message. Of course, there will always be people who think they know better than Jesus.

14 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

However "no persecution", This seems to be a little to broad of a statement. Did not many brothers join in the war?

Yes, true. I was referring to the fact that there was no wave of persecution, as one might expect if Satan had just been hurled down, having great anger, knowing he had a short period of time. In the days of the apostles and especially by the time of Nero, there were reports of literally thousands of Christians persecuted, even with torture and death. In the next two centuries there were reports of hundreds of thousands of Christians put to death. So I'm comparing what Satan was capable of doing when Christianity was just a "babe" compared to the relatively peaceful opposition to the Watchtower that was reported from 1914 to about 1934. It was as if Satan was not even angry during that time period, or that he did not know he had a short period of time.

Recall that the Society still had only a few thousand members worldwide, and except for some colporteurs and speakers, most Bible Students were relatively inactive when it came to preaching. Most of the Bible Students who were regular readers of the Watchtower understood that Russell suggested never speaking out against the draft/conscription in any country, but that Bible Students could allow themselves to be drafted, and if they couldn't get non-combat alternatives, that they should just shoot over the heads of the enemy (per Watch Tower recommendations given by Russell himself).

14 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

Who were persecuted? the Catholic? the Baptist? ? No, Jehovah's Witnesses were denied the same civil rights afforded other citizens.

This is false. There were many more Catholics and Baptists arrested than the Bible Students. I know of at least one case of a Baptist preacher who was investigated and arrested for exact same stated reasons that the Bible Students were.

The United States did not get into the war until April 1917. The Espionage (Sedition Act) was not passed until June 1917. It was used against HUNDREDS of persons in the United States, and many of those convicted remained in jail for up to 5 years. The dozen or so Bible Students (including the 7 directors) were a very small part of the total. Almost all of the HUNDREDS of OTHER activists, socialists, suspected immigrants, and religious publishers were released within 3 or 4 years on appeal, or on commuted sentences. When the war hysteria was over, almost everyone else got released with treatment very similar to the Watch Tower directors.

Several brothers joined the war, but this did not result in any wave of persecution. There were a few imprisoned brothers in the US, Canada, the UK and a couple of other European countries at the time, but reports of beatings and violence were very relatively rare. Also a few reports of brothers who could not avoid conscription tried to get alternative work, such as hospital work, and were still told to choose either combat or the brig. So this resulted in a couple more short imprisonments at army camps, especially training camps.

(For the United States, the war lasted only about 18 months, from April 1917 to November 1918.)

14 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

If I push a point, it is that persecution against the Jehovah's Witnesses raged in Canada and the US for many years after WW1, not all at once, but in one locality after another, into the 60's where some were bused to neighboring state lines because of neutrality.

The first rage of persecution against us started in the 1930's, in Germany. In the 1940's that war hysteria hit the United States. There were very close to ZERO reported deaths of Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States, and hundreds in Germany, with thousands incarcerated in the 1940's, many in the worst possible situations, even in concentration camps. Since then, there have been several hot spots off and on where persecution of Witnesses has resulted in violence and death. (Overall, the numbers of deaths have been very small when compared with persecution of other religious groups in this century.)

14 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

The delay before turning to the leadership could be that Satan and his cronies were satisfied with the terror the war was bringing to people everywhere.

Interesting possibility. But you would think there would be much more evidence than just interesting possibilities for why Satan delayed turning to the leadership of the Watch Tower, if Revelation 12 really refers to the time immediately after 1914.

16 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

1914 harmonizes with the persecution that began shortly after that. Why did persecution break out?

No persecution broke out against anyone associated with the Watchtower in 1914, or 1915, or 1916. Does this mean that it took Jesus a very long time to battle with Satan before he could finally throw him out of heaven? I don't think that was the issue at all!

Brother Russell died just two months shy of 1917, and so there was only a very short time before the next election. As the Watch Tower's and Brother Russell's attorney since 1907, Brother Rutherford had made himself the most prominent, and he was the most active in trying to make sure that the Watchtower didn't end up in the hands of the persons that Russell had picked. This was probably a good thing, because those persons whom Russell had picked were not immediately active in trying to pick up the reins of the Watchtower, because it made more sense that "the Lord" was about to act on their behalf, and that they should just go on doing things the way Russell had wanted by following his "last will and testament" and expecting things to just work out for the best. Especially because it appeared that the expected "END" was now more than 24 months overdue. They expected that Russell, whom they saw as a "SAINT" was still actively running the Society from heaven. 

But Rutherford was quite different, and he had just completed a work in 1915 that showed that, as Russell's attorney, he knew all the potential scandals that Russell had been associated with. He would not have had the attitude that things will just work out because "SAINT" Russell was still running things from the other side of the veil. He was many times more practical, and used the opportunity to gain control of the Watchtower. It looked like the Watchtower would have completely flailed into oblivion without Rutherford at the head. He brought things to a head by the middle of 1917 with the release of "The Finished Mystery" in July, at the same time that Russell dismissed a majority of the 7 directors.

It was this point that brought some measure of persecution to the doors of the Watchtower. The majority of the directors felt that Rutherford was persecuting the Watch Tower Society, by becoming autocratic and not following Russell's "last will," and by going against the articles of incorporation of the Watch Tower Society. But again, this majority "turned the other cheek" instead of standing up for themselves, probably with the same idea that the Lord would provide, and that Russell, although he had died, had been immediately resurrected and would actively run things from the other side of the veil.

Of course, Rutherford, and the two directors that stayed with him, felt that it was the four ousted directors who were persecuting them, and when Rutherford replaced those four with persons loyal to him, this became the only way to look at it. Their persecution failed to touch Rutherford though, and Rutherford had won. So except for some legal maneuvering, there was really no persecution on anyone even in 1916 and most of 1917.

But the book that Fisher and Woodworth had written, the Finished Mystery, had gone much further than Russell ever did in speaking out against war and speaking out against the religions that supported war. This got them in trouble in Canada first where religious leaders felt especially "persecuted" by the book, so they got behind some legal maneuvering to get the book banned. With war hysteria high, it was the perfect time to get some action that might not have otherwise been taken against the Bible Students there.

By 1918 the United States Justice Dept with it's Bureau of Investigation was already arresting people and preachers and activists who were speaking out against the draft, and therefore the people behind the Finished Mystery were already in the sights of the government. The book was banned and several brothers all around the United States were arrested and some served jail terms. When the Society itself was investigated, the Society was found to have also been peripherally involved in helping persons try to avoid the draft, but in a way that was careful enough to probably not have resulted in a win against the Society after appeal. But they were arrested for trial and lost the first trial which dealt mostly with the Finished Mystery, but they were not allowed bail during the appeal process so that the directors had to spend several months in Federal Prison while waiting for the appeal.

This was pretty much the entire persecution! It was a very low level of persecution when we consider what kind of religious persecution had been going on in various countries between Catholics and Protestants, "Christians" and Jews, "Christians" and Native Americans, "Christians" and colonial non-Christians, a few other relgiously motivated persecutions around the world.

It also seemed like an extremely low level of persecution when we consider what Satan has been able to accomplish since then among other peoples, where religious differences have provoked war and persecution that ended up killing literally millions.

What it did do that seemed significant was nearly put the Bible Students and the Watchtower Society out of business. But the Watchtower continued to be published during this period. Also after the President of the WTS got out of prison in May 1919, the trial was discontinued because the US prosecution was pretty sure it could not win such a trial outside of wartime. Rutherford immediately started up the campaign for the predictions due in 1925. This campaign was called "Millions Now Living Will Never Die." That campaign kept the Watch Tower Society alive and motivated, although its failure, along with the removal of the unique doctrines of Russell resulted in the decimation of the numbers of Bible Students from 1926 through the end of that decade.

54 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

( I hope JWI jumps in on this one and does the "heavy lifting", to get it straightened out ....)

A perfect topic for another day. This is a topic I might not be ready for. But I've seen enough to know you are making some good points and asking some good and thoughtful questions. I'm surprised that the topic gets completely ignored for the most part among Witnesses and every other religious group I've wondered about. 

It finally appears that we are winding down and I like that @b4ucuhear has already tried to reduce this conversation to only the most important points. However, there is still a chance that someone will read what @César Chávez said, and begin to believe that there are now some new scholars that agree with the Watchtower chronology, which Cesar claims 'has been correct all along.'

On 12/23/2019 at 5:37 PM, César Chávez said:

. . .  to give you a comprehensive new look into chronology.   Jonathan Stökl, Caroline Waerzeggers book was from 2015, while Knoppers, Gary N.; Ackroyd, Peter R.; Grabbe, Lester L.; Fulton, Deirdre N is from 2009. Nothing old about their new understanding.     What continues to be your sources, COJ, Wiseman, Grayson. Update your sources and try not to be dismissive just because scholars don’t agree with tainted or outdated, material.

Let's just make this simple in case others might look at what was written here and get confused. You are pretending that the Watchtower has been "correct all along" and your evidence is supposed to be found among these six "new" sources. From what I have found so far, the folowing is more accurate:

Of course, now you are telling me that I am putting too much emphasis on the word destruction, as if the Watchtower doctrine doesn't emphasize the destruction of Jerusalem.

On 12/23/2019 at 5:37 PM, César Chávez said:

The sad thing, you’re fixated on the word “destruction”. Look at other words like “restoration and exile revisited” to give you a comprehensive new look into chronology.

But here are just a few of the Watchtower references, using only articles from the last 10 years, and some samples from just a few of the books. Who is it, you think, who is fixated on this word destruction?

*** w18 February p. 3 par. 2 Imitate the Faith and Obedience of Noah, Daniel, and Job ***
Apostate Jerusalem was nearing its foretold destruction, which occurred in 607 B.C.E.

*** w16 June p. 16 Questions From Readers ***
apostate Jerusalem prior to its destruction in 607 B.C.E.

*** ws14 7/15 p. 18 par. 9 “You Are My Witnesses” ***
After that, Jehovah continued warning his people until the year 607 before Christ, when Jerusalem was destroyed.

*** w14 7/15 p. 25 par. 9 “You Are My Witnesses” ***
That was 125 years before Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.

*** w11 3/15 p. 31 par. 14 Keep Awake, as Jeremiah Did ***
Some Jews as well as non-Israelites survived Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.

*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.?

*** w11 10/1 p. 29 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
But if the evidence from the inspired Scriptures clearly points to 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction, why do many authorities hold to the date 587 B.C.E.?

*** w11 10/1 p. 31 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
Counting back from that year would place Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E

*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
then his 18th year would be 607 B.C.E.—the very year indicated by the Bible’s chronology for the destruction of Jerusalem!

*** w11 11/1 p. 27 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
This, therefore, supports the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction—just as the Bible indicates.

*** w11 11/1 p. 27 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
Those statements strongly indicate that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. As the above evidence shows, that conclusion has some secular support.

*** w09 3/15 p. 14 par. 14 Keep Your Eyes on the Prize ***
In time, the entire nation turned apostate, resulting in its destruction in 607 B.C.E.

*** g 1/11 p. 11 A Book You Can Trust—Part 3 ***
In 607 B.C.E., Babylonian armies destroyed Jerusalem and took the survivors off to Babylon, where they were treated cruelly.

*** g 5/09 p. 11 A Receipt That Corroborates the Bible Record ***
Nebo-sarsechim was one of King Nebuchadnezzar’s commanders at the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.,

*** rr chap. 6 p. 67 par. 13 “The End Is Now Upon You” ***
Thus, both time periods would end in 607 B.C.E., the exact year in which Jerusalem fell and was destroyed, just as Jehovah had foretold.

*** rr chap. 7 p. 74 par. 8 The Nations “Will Have to Know That I Am Jehovah” ***
from the time of the Exodus to the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.

*** rr chap. 8 p. 89 par. 14 “I Will Raise Up One Shepherd” ***
In 607 B.C.E., with the destruction of Jerusalem, the “high” kingdom of Judah centered in Jerusalem was brought low

*** rr chap. 11 p. 126 par. 17 “I Have Appointed You as a Watchman” ***
who spoke to God’s people in the period surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.

*** rr chap. 16 p. 175 par. 9 “Put a Mark on the Foreheads” ***
Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonian army destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.

*** rr chap. 16 p. 178 par. 17 “Put a Mark on the Foreheads” ***
As we saw earlier, those who survived Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.

*** dp chap. 4 p. 50 par. 8 The Rise and Fall of an Immense Image ***
These words applied to Nebuchadnezzar after Jehovah had used him to destroy Jerusalem, in 607 B.C.E.

*** cl chap. 8 p. 78 par. 5 Restorative Power—Jehovah Is “Making All Things New” ***
Just imagine how faithful Jews felt in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was destroyed.

*** dp chap. 6 p. 96 par. 27 Unraveling the Mystery of the Great Tree ***
If we were to count 2,520 literal days from Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.,

*** po chap. 2 p. 20 par. 27 The Immortal Possessor of the “Eternal Purpose” ***
God’s protection through the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the armies of Babylon in the year 607 B.C.E.

*** po chap. 14 p. 173 par. 11 Triumph for the “Eternal Purpose” ***
Before the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.

*** jr chap. 15 p. 188 par. 13 “I Cannot Keep Silent” ***
True worshippers were affected by the appalling conditions that prevailed before Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E

So you seem to be conflicted over this fixation the Watchtower has with the word "destruction." But you know you can't admit a conflict with the Watchtower itself, and therefore you "project" that conflictedness onto me. I'm willing to do what I can to help you work through this. I've seen it before with others on unrelated topics. What you might need to do as a start, is to spell out exactly what you think the right solution is. You might not be ready to be definitive, and that's OK, but you should start with what you think is probably correct, and how you think the Watchtower should change their wording so that they don't appear to be "fixated" on this word "destruction." How do you think they should have worded it instead?

If you try to answer that question, I'll know you are serious about researching this issue. If you won't even try, then I'll have to consider the next most likely assumption about your motives. 

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

For instance, the Good Samaritan;

Maybe Jesus just wanted to give a lesson about shunning.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I’ll leave those word games to you,

More "projection." I enjoy puns, but you are the one playing word games to dodge questions, repeat false claims, use innuendo, avoid explanations, etc.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

But since you have nothing better to offer than your bluster

Actually I offered several items of evidence, which you have ignored and distracted from, so far. Calling that my bluster is "Projection 101."

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

since you enjoy misapplying my evidence

Evidence of what? You didn't say, except for that one diversion (out of the blue) about Nebuchadnezzar surviving some rough travel itineraries with the help of Nebo/Nabu.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

People see through your deceptions. . . .Especially when it comes to tongue twisting of words.

Are you going to point out where I have done this, or should I just expect more bluster?

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I have proven by scholarly works that many scholars understand the time of Nebuchadnezzar better than COJ and his puppet 2 professionals he duped by manipulating the Watchtower articles in order to receive a disingenuous response.

I had a feeling you might go with bluster!

I see that defensive "echolalia" again, whenever I apparently touch a nerve. I said "sockpuppet" so you worked the word "puppet" into an attempted insult to some COJ-duped professionals. Sounds like you are all upset that actual professionals sided with COJ. Yet again, why are you so obsessed with him? COJ is completely unnecessary to this entire charade of yours.

Feel free to point out anything you wish about COJ, I really don't care. He is (or was?) just one man out of thousands who have access to the same evidence that ends up embarrassing the Watchtower Society on this topic.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Here's another view that you can project as me somehow showing the Watchtower is incorrect when the Watchtower has been correct all along.

No doubt, if history is prologue, you will now show me some "evidence" from a writer/scholar who will somehow show us that the Watchtower is incorrect about the dates the WT gives for the exiles and the destruction of Jerusalem in 607. You will no doubt try to imply that this evidence against the Watchtower is actually evidence that the Watchtower has been correct all along. (And "correct all along" is a very odd choice of words considering the number of times the Watchtower has changed the endpoints and milestones of the chronology.)

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In Israel under Babylon and Persia, he reflects on the artificiality of the designation since only a portion of the population was exiled, and he called for scholars to carefully reassess the role played by those who stayed behind. He (1970:1) also noted that hardly one date could be assigned to the beginning of the exile (597,587,581 BCE, etc.) let alone a time for the return, which only began in538–537 BCE.

Thanks for providing the reference.

As usual, you found another reference that hurts the Watchtower's tradition about 607 and 1914.

First of all, Eric Meyers, the author, of this chapter (10) is expressing appreciation for the findings and work of Peter Ackroyd who wrote "Exile and Restoration" and then later wrote a followup: "Israel under Babylon and Persia." I don't believe you read what he said, or else you must have completely misunderstood it, and only copied it here because he used the familiar range "607 to 537" for the 70 year period mentioned in Jeremiah/Daniel.

Second, when Meyers says that Ackroyd was "prescient" for reflecting on the artificiality of the term exile and restoration, he is asking us to agree with them both in their view that the Bible is wrong. The Bible you might recall says that the land was totally desolate and uninhabited. Ackroyd claimed this was artificial language because "only a portion of the population was exiled." On page 167, the very paragraph following your quote says: ". . .his strong textual sensitivity allowed him to see . . . that  perhaps the text in 2 Kings was in error."

Third, the Watchtower says the exiles were primarily in the two groups taken in 617 and 607. Note that these are the only two Judean exile events mentioned in the Insight book under the article on "EXILE:"

*** it-1 p. 775 Exile ***
Judah. In 617 B.C.E., King Nebuchadnezzar took the royal court and the foremost men of Judah into exile at Babylon. (2Ki 24:11-16) About ten years later, in 607 B.C.E., at the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the Babylonian bodyguard, took most of the remaining ones and deserters of the Jews with him to Babylon, from which exile only a mere remnant returned 70 years later.—2Ki 25:11; Jer 39:9; Isa 10:21, 22; see CAPTIVITY.

A third exile would have been put in 602/601 since Jeremiah indicates it was about 5 years later (23-18=5):

(Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. ²⁹ In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. ³⁰ In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.

So if this source of yours thinks the Watchtower is right, they will include those two exiles in those years: 617 & 607.

If this source thinks that COJ and all current Neo-Babylonian scholars are right, then we'd expect to see: 597 & 587.

Your source, says that there was no simple exile and return, because the exile happened in several pieces (and using the numbers in the Bible, only amounted to a small number of exiles each time). But what are the dates of those various exiles?

He (1970:1) also noted that hardly one date could be assigned to the beginning of the exile (597,587,581 BCE, etc.) let alone a time for the return, which only began in 538–537 BCE.

So, you found a resource that agrees with COJ's dates for the destruction of Jerusalem, and the associated series of exiles. It disagrees with the Watchtower's dates for those events. As usual. In fact the primary difference between COJ and your source is that one of COJ's objectives was to show that the Bible is correct and your source preferred to see the Bible as incorrect in some of the claims about the totality of the exile.

These authors are also telling us that there was no single year that we could point to as the "Return"/"Restoration." They will say it only just started in 538/537, but plenty of evidence shows that it was a trickling of Jews coming back home to Judea over many years, and of course, this also matches some Biblical evidence that shows that many didn't want to leave Babylon at all. We already knew from many Jewish writings that were written in Babylon that healthy Jewish communities lasted for several centuries thereafter.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

My first proof was that of the time period where Nabopolassar reign and the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. 607BC, now we go to the other-side with Lester Gabbe 538/537BC.

Your "proof" of the time period merely proves that the Watchtower's chronology is completely wrong. Since you have correctly admitted that 607 was in Nabopolassar's reign, it then follows that Nebuchadnezzar had not even begun his full first year until 604 BCE. So Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year could not be the same as Nabopolassars 18th year. How could he be in the 18th or 19th year of his kingship if he had NOT even started his first year of kingship?

As for the fact that the chapter mentions the familiar range of 70 years, I thought you might go here, which is why I already had mentioned this before your post:

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

All scholars agree that things happened in 607, and all of them would agree that 607 is 70 years prior to 537, among other things.

As you probably remember, I have never had any problem with this same range for the 70 years of Jeremiah/Daniel. At most it's only a couple years off, and I've often said on this forum that it may even be correct. After all Jeremiah says that Babylon would be given 70 years of domination as a power over the surrounding nations, and this is a pretty good estimate of the timing of that power. Basically the idea is that the Babylonian world power could be identified as the 70 years between the Assyrian world power and the Medo-Persian world power. I can still admit that the 70 years can be identified with those same years. And if you are admitting the same, then you are also claiming that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon about 587/586 BCE.

As I've already said, I was pretty sure you actually agreed already with COJ and thousands of other scholars for the date of Jerusalem's destruction.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, the only deception that you keep bringing up is yours.

I think you've now passed Projection 101, 201, 202, 203, and 301. We can now project that you will graduate with this as your major.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Since you brought up the COJ book as your source

Projection again. You were the one who wanted to claim the COJ book as my source. Since I know it is not, I would have never brought it up as if it was.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

However, if there is a little Joe that thinks your falsehoods are not acceptable, then let little Joe know, . . .

I'm not too concerned because I'm pretty sure he already knew that they were NOT falsehoods. I mentioned it mostly to do you the favor of reminding you that it's a lot easier to identify a "sockpuppet" account than you evidently think it is.

Also, it's a common habit seen on forums and other social media where people often know deep down that something is true, but they need to show their disapproval because they WISH it weren't true. Therefore they know that they don't really have a valid or relevant response. So what's left is to create chaos with meaningless repetitive but empty claims, create diversions, create confusion with irrelevant sources, trying to create work for the person they oppose, attack the messenger, etc. It's partly because they don't want others to see the strength of the evidence against the position they have represented. It's probably even more because they have invested themselves in representing the wrong position and their ego kicks in so that they need to "appear" right even when they know they are not. Most people won't do this if it's just a small item, but if they think it reflects on a larger ideology, then they can rationalize that they were wrong, but there is no need to admit it because they are still on the right side overall.

(Examples may include women who have been caught defending Bill Clinton's promiscuity, but denouncing Trump's. They think it's OK even though deep down they know it's wrong, because they feel they are still on the right side of the larger ideology. They seem to rationalize that admitting they are wrong would reflect poorly on an otherwise correct "democratic" ideology.)

This is actually one of the reasons I continue to bring up the 1914 problems. (The Biblical ones more often than the secular ones.) People evidently tend to think it's one of those issues about which it's OK to be deceptive, because otherwise it would reflect poorly, they think, on the entire Witness ideology. This is like one of the issues that drove coverups and deception in the world of CSA, and it ended up getting exposed at the ARC, for example. But the exposure drove the WTS to make more definitive CSA processing changes. What's more, it has now been made clear that a CSA predator does NOT bring reproach on the CCJW, WTS, or congregation (or even the victim) -- he brings reproach on himself. Using the same principle, it will be easier for the WTS to finally change the 1914 doctrine, and we can blame the doctrine, not the overall Witness ideology, the Bible, the congregation, or ourselves. It's not nearly the same thing, of course, but from the perspective of reasonableness and paying close attention to our teaching, the 1914 doctrine really does bring reproach, but not on all the other doctrines.

And, yes, I'm saying that I believe you have already given a lot of evidence that you know the details of the Watchtower chronology for 1914 must be incorrect. You have many times offered evidence that 607 was not the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. You have implied that it might be some other "Nebuchadnezzar-related" event around 607 that might still salvage the overall doctrine. But this is still an admission that the Watchtower position is weak, if not altogether wrong.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Another disingenuous observation that there is no scholar to agree with 607BC

I never observed that there is no scholar to agree with 607. All scholars agree that things happened in 607, and all of them would agree that 607 is 70 years prior to 537, among other things. What I observed is that all these persons you have quoted from that you say are "established scholars and historians" would agree that 607 is a false date for the destruction of Jerusalem.

But I definitely implied it, I admit, when I said that every single scholar of Neo-Babylonian chronology, with no exceptions, is a source of evidence that hurts the Watchtower's 1914 tradition. (Since that tradition includes the idea that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607.) And of course, I am referring to living scholars, not those who were forced to make guesses in the 1800's when a lot of this information was just then coming out for the first time, Akkadian was not well understood, and misinformation was still rampant.

If you still think it's disingenuous, try to find one. And please don't try to pretend that Rolf Furuli was a Neo-Babylonian scholar. At least he admits that he is not one.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You would like to pretend that it's just one person's claims. Turns out it is every single scholar of Neo-Babylonian chronology. No exceptions! And it's clear that you don't want people to see that your OWN sources hurt the Watchtower's theories and traditions.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

All of these established scholars and historians of yours agree that 607 is a false date for the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. All of them would put that year in either 587 or 586. There is no question about this any more because just as your own source "Exile and Return" says: