JW Insider

It was probably for you. I had no idea what he was talking about and only responded to what I knew.

I recalled a comment from last year where you commented positively on the new way of referring to these days as aeons or epochs, rather than literal days, and then added the following comment:
1975+43=2018 (last year). This old reckoning might seem ridiculous now, especially after the Watchtower once argued that this period could be a matter of weeks or months, but could not go beyond 2 years. But there are still some Witnesses who haven't kept up and believe there must be some validity to the 6,000 year theory. (A partial salvage of the theory, without any reference to 6,000 or 7,000 years, was rewritten in a much better way in a 2011 Watchtower:
*** w11 7/15 p. 24 God’s Rest—What Is It? ***
God’s Rest—What Is It?
During the time that Fred Franz was still alive and still working on his last prophetic book "Revelation -- Its Grand Climax at Hand" an article was written dealing with the Jubilee year and how the 49th year was related to the 50th:
*** w87 1/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. . . . According to Romans 8:20, 21, Jehovah God purposes to liberate believing mankind from this slavery. As a result, true worshipers on earth “will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—See also Romans 6:23. . . . While the small group selected to be taken to heaven have had their sins forgiven from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward and thus already enjoy the Jubilee, the Scriptures show that the liberation for believing mankind will occur during Christ’s Millennial Reign. That will be when he applies to mankind the benefits of his ransom sacrifice. By the end of the Millennium, mankind will have been raised to human perfection, completely free from inherited sin and death. Having thus brought to an end the last enemy (death passed on from Adam), Christ will hand the Kingdom back to his Father at the end of the 49,000-year creative week.—1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
So although the 1969/1971 Aid Book, as you pointed out, had said that we don't know the length of the creative days, this probably came from the idea that a Bible Dictionary should not contain esoteric beliefs that are not actually based on the Bible, but are just a traditional interpretation. R.Franz must have recognized this fact, while preparing the Aid Book, but apparently there was a faction that thought this "reasonable" approach was very dangerous. It admits that we don't know everything. I have personal anecdote that let me know that this is exactly what at least two brothers (Greenlees and Schroeder) thought would, initially, be the way to get R.Franz removed, by exposing the non-dogmatic approach in the Aid Book style that tends to erode dogma. I'll save the anecdote for another time, but I think it is easy to recognize that this kind of approach to the Bible takes a lot of power away from the interpreters. (The anecdote did not concern the length of the creative days.)
Even in the lead-up to 1975, there was a need, probably influenced by the Aid Book, to start using words like "evidently" rather than just speaking dogmatically:
*** w73 2/1 p. 82 Will Your Days Be “Like the Days of a Tree”? ***
Since each of the creative “days” or periods was evidently seven thousand years long, the whole creative “week” takes in 49,000 years.
Compare that with the dogmatism in the previous decades:
*** w51 1/1 pp. 27-28 The Christian’s Sabbath ***
Since the sabbath was a part of the law and the “Law has a shadow of the good things to come”, of what was the sabbath a shadow? Of the grand rest day for all mankind, the 1,000-year reign of Christ, the seventh 1,000 years of God’s rest day. For six thousand years mankind has been toiling and suffering under “the god of this world”, Satan the Devil. In that antitypical sabbath Christ will free men from the bondage of Satan and his demons . . .
*** w63 8/1 p. 460 par. 14 Religion and the Nuclear Age ***
We could continue verse by verse through the entire period of the six creative days, periods of time that other Bible passages show to have been each 7,000 years in length.
Of course, no other Bible passages were shown to indicate this, just a footnote to see the book by F.Franz, Let God Be True, 1943.
Hebrews 3 & 4 does connect Psalm 95:11 to Genesis 2:2, but without any connection to a certain number of years and without any reference to the millennium of Christ's reign.

I recalled a comment from last year where you commented positively on the new way of referring to these days as aeons or epochs, rather than literal days, and then added the following comment:
1975+43=2018 (last year). This old reckoning might seem ridiculous now, especially after the Watchtower once argued that this period could be a matter of weeks or months, but could not go beyond 2 years. But there are still some Witnesses who haven't kept up and believe there must be some validity to the 6,000 year theory. (A partial salvage of the theory, without any reference to 6,000 or 7,000 years, was rewritten in a much better way in a 2011 Watchtower:
*** w11 7/15 p. 24 God’s Rest—What Is It? ***
God’s Rest—What Is It?
During the time that Fred Franz was still alive and still working on his last prophetic book "Revelation -- Its Grand Climax at Hand" an article was written dealing with the Jubilee year and how the 49th year was related to the 50th:
*** w87 1/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. . . . According to Romans 8:20, 21, Jehovah God purposes to liberate believing mankind from this slavery. As a result, true worshipers on earth “will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—See also Romans 6:23. . . . While the small group selected to be taken to heaven have had their sins forgiven from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward and thus already enjoy the Jubilee, the Scriptures show that the liberation for believing mankind will occur during Christ’s Millennial Reign. That will be when he applies to mankind the benefits of his ransom sacrifice. By the end of the Millennium, mankind will have been raised to human perfection, completely free from inherited sin and death. Having thus brought to an end the last enemy (death passed on from Adam), Christ will hand the Kingdom back to his Father at the end of the 49,000-year creative week.—1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
So although the 1969/1971 Aid Book, as you pointed out, had said that we don't know the length of the creative days, this probably came from the idea that a Bible Dictionary should not contain esoteric beliefs that are not actually based on the Bible, but are just a traditional interpretation. R.Franz must have recognized this fact, while preparing the Aid Book, but apparently there was a faction that thought this "reasonable" approach was very dangerous. It admits that we don't know everything. I have personal anecdote that let me know that this is exactly what at least two brothers (Greenlees and Schroeder) thought would, initially, be the way to get R.Franz removed, by exposing the non-dogmatic approach in the Aid Book style that tends to erode dogma. I'll save the anecdote for another time, but I think it is easy to recognize that this kind of approach to the Bible takes a lot of power away from the interpreters. (The anecdote did not concern the length of the creative days.)
Even in the lead-up to 1975, there was a need, probably influenced by the Aid Book, to start using words like "evidently" rather than just speaking dogmatically:
*** w73 2/1 p. 82 Will Your Days Be “Like the Days of a Tree”? ***
Since each of the creative “days” or periods was evidently seven thousand years long, the whole creative “week” takes in 49,000 years.
Compare that with the dogmatism in the previous decades:
*** w51 1/1 pp. 27-28 The Christian’s Sabbath ***
Since the sabbath was a part of the law and the “Law has a shadow of the good things to come”, of what was the sabbath a shadow? Of the grand rest day for all mankind, the 1,000-year reign of Christ, the seventh 1,000 years of God’s rest day. For six thousand years mankind has been toiling and suffering under “the god of this world”, Satan the Devil. In that antitypical sabbath Christ will free men from the bondage of Satan and his demons . . .
*** w63 8/1 p. 460 par. 14 Religion and the Nuclear Age ***
We could continue verse by verse through the entire period of the six creative days, periods of time that other Bible passages show to have been each 7,000 years in length.
Of course, no other Bible passages were shown to indicate this, just a footnote to see the book by F.Franz, Let God Be True, 1943.
Hebrews 3 & 4 does connect Psalm 95:11 to Genesis 2:2, but without any connection to a certain number of years and without any reference to the millennium of Christ's reign.

I have absolutely no obsession with the 6,000 years. Pointing out that F.Franz had an evident obsession with something unscriptural, is not the same as having an obsession myself.
I see that the only support you offered about the 6,000 years was not from the Bible, of course, but from "HA 1423." (For anyone who is not aware, this is from Horae Apocalypticae, an infamous source of several of Nelson Barbour's chronology mistakes, that he passed along to a chronologically naive Charles Taze Russell.)
HA1423
Similarly the pseudo- Barnabas, a very ancient though Apocryphal writer: "Consider, my children, what that signifies, He finished them in six days. The meaning is, that in 6000 years the Lord will bring all things to an end," &c.
The same expectation as to the six days of creation typifying 6000 years, as the term of the present world's duration,
continued, as we have seen, (see p. 230, &c, supra) even among the anti- premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Only they explained the sabbatical seventh day as typical, not of a seventh sabbatical Millennium of rest, but an eternal Sabbath: - - a view generally adopted afterwards.
An apocryphal writer, from the era of apostasy, as @Outta Here has elsewhere pointed out, had an obsession with numerology and gematria. He clearly misinterprets scripture by claiming that the words "he finished them in six days" means that in 6,000 years, the Lord will bring all things to an end. I'm not saying that Barnabas did not get some things right, or that the anti-premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries did not get some things right. But it's never a good idea to depend on a non-Biblical, apocryphal misinterpretation to impose an idea on scripture when absolutely no support for anything like it is found anywhere in the Bible.
It's actually a good thing that you pointed out that this is ultimately where the Watch Tower Society got this unscriptural idea from.

I can't tell for sure who you are talking to here. You addressed the post with the Op-Ed to @TrueTomHarley, but this current post that I'm quoting from directly responds to some points that I made. So if it's all the same to you, I'll try to address some of the points you made with reference to the Op-Ed especially.
It could only add clarity if it were made clear what you had presented.
The July 8 1931 Golden Age referred to in the Op-Ed had already made clear that no Bible Student/JW should be listening to the Frank & Ernest radio program that had previously been on WBBR and which was now being broadcast by Dawn Bible Students in 1931. The president of the Dawn Bible Students was Norman Woodworth, and the editor of the Golden Age was Clayton Woodworth.
This bit of confusion had led some to need more clarity, as the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was not yet so well known, and both groups were still called Bible Students, and both continued to sell Millennial Dawn books, and both had a famous "Brother Woodworth" as an editor. The Dawn Bible Students published a brochure called "Bible Students Radio Echo." Brother Norman Woodworth was its editor, not the Watch Tower's Golden Age editor, Clayton Woodworth.
The July 8 1931 Golden Age (Clayton Woodworth) published a lengthy article about this "Bible Students Radio Echo:"
. . . He will to accomplish His purposes; and we
have full confidence that the Watch Tower Bible
& Tract Society is the one and only instrumentality
which the Lord is using to proclaim the
kingdom of God in the earth at this time.
As respects the dialogues of "Frank and
Ernest", it is a matter of record that these
dialogues were broadcast for several years from
Radio Station WBBR, the WATCHTOWER; and
it is as apparent that during those years "Frank
and Ernest" were greatly used and highly
honored by the Lord . . . But those who are wise toward
God will now have nothing to do with "Frank
and Ernest" or with the "Bible Students Radio
Echo", now that these men have ceased their
association with the instrumentality God is
using in the earth to perform his work at this
time, and this regardless of what they broadcast,
whether it be good, bad or indifferent. We
are publishing this notice so that the feebleminded
(1 Thess. 5: 14) may not be deceived.
So the openness that you point out from Russell's day is contradicted by the Golden Age in 1931. You point out that Russell had said: "and many have come to a knowledge of the Truth and into full relationship with the Lord as a result of these ministries outside of the Society."  [Emphasis yours.] But until recently, even during your own and my own lifetime, we continued to refer to the Dawn Bible Students as the "evil slave" and Witnesses were not trusted to even pick out what parts were good and what were bad or indifferent. The opening paragraph of the Golden Age article of July 8th had compared the "Dawn Bible Students" to the demons, and the article continued putting them in the Haman class, the Korah class, etc.
The response to that article is, of course, the Op-Ed you presented, and it was from Norman Woodworth's "Dawn Bible Students." It was actually from Norman Woodworth himself speaking out against these statements from the Watch Tower Society. It was in a publication called "Witness Bulletin" in its very first issue in October 1931 (released in September, I believe). Clayton Woodworth published a response to it in the October 14, 1931 Golden Age. The very title of the article is indeed an echo of some of the points that Raymond Franz made in the book "In Search of Christian Freedom." C.Woodworth's response complains that the term "Christian liberty" (Christian Freedom) was used so many times that it's obvious that the writer of your Op-Ed preferred Christian liberty over obedience. The Golden Age response was titled "Liberty or Obedience -- Which?"  It's easy to guess which side the Watch Tower publications would favor here. 
(In truth, of course, we should never seek unlimited freedom, which is a point that R.Franz makes, too. Obedience to Jehovah and Jesus are actually a part of our Christian freedom, even though Jesus said "his load was light." It's proper obedience that produces the joy we find in the freedom for which "Christ set us free.")
Only a portion of that Op-Ed was ever reproduced in the WT publications. The response was to clamp down and denigrate, even to literally "demonize" the persons who continued to remain in a "cult" to Russell. Of course, Dawn made many valid points, too. And Rutherford was correctly trying to move "Jehovah's witnesses" away from this "cult" status, at least for those Bible Students who would remain loyal and obedient to the Watch Tower Society.
Quite the opposite. It is a monument to the close-mindedness that had developed, and which was already developing in Russell's time as president of the WT Society. The real differences between Rutherford's and Norman Woodworth's views could have been easily explained. There was no need to just simply demand "obedience" and demand that this "Dawn" group be called "evil." A major problem, too, was that there was a financial issue in the way, and it was causing a division among brothers especially after the "Crash of 1929" and the Great Depression. Rutherford had hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Russell's books in warehouses and he wanted to continue with several months' worth of selling campaigns to recover the money from these. (The WTS had continued to print them by the hundreds of thousands up until 1927, and for a few years, they still sold better than Rutherford's books.) Both groups, "Dawn" and the WTBTS, were competing to sell Russell's books, even though Witnesses were beginning to question this practice, asking why they were selling books that were full of known falsehoods (and exactly the same books being sold by the "evil slave).
Of course, Rutherford demanded obedience. The "Bulletin" would say, in effect: 'If the Lord wants us to sell Russell's books, then that's what we'll do.'  It even added that if one were to be disobedient to Rutherford, it would be the same as being disobedient to the Lord.
The ka book says, simply:
*** ka chap. 17 p. 347 par. 33 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
Later in the year 1927 any remaining stocks of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures by Russell and of The Finished Mystery were disposed of among the public.
What it doesn't mention however, is that it actually entailed many months of campaigns over a period of several years --even past 1933. Here's an example from the Bulletin of December 1931:

 

No more than Isaac Newton taught lies.
Forgive me for saying so, John, but I think you have a basic disconnect with the way that God operates towards humans. Continually we read of Bible characters who propagate things that later turn out to be wrong.

What Bible teach not what men teach many times. Motto? Better to know what Bible teach.

I recalled a comment from last year where you commented positively on the new way of referring to these days as aeons or epochs, rather than literal days, and then added the following comment:
1975+43=2018 (last year). This old reckoning might seem ridiculous now, especially after the Watchtower once argued that this period could be a matter of weeks or months, but could not go beyond 2 years. But there are still some Witnesses who haven't kept up and believe there must be some validity to the 6,000 year theory. (A partial salvage of the theory, without any reference to 6,000 or 7,000 years, was rewritten in a much better way in a 2011 Watchtower:
*** w11 7/15 p. 24 God’s Rest—What Is It? ***
God’s Rest—What Is It?
During the time that Fred Franz was still alive and still working on his last prophetic book "Revelation -- Its Grand Climax at Hand" an article was written dealing with the Jubilee year and how the 49th year was related to the 50th:
*** w87 1/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. . . . According to Romans 8:20, 21, Jehovah God purposes to liberate believing mankind from this slavery. As a result, true worshipers on earth “will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—See also Romans 6:23. . . . While the small group selected to be taken to heaven have had their sins forgiven from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward and thus already enjoy the Jubilee, the Scriptures show that the liberation for believing mankind will occur during Christ’s Millennial Reign. That will be when he applies to mankind the benefits of his ransom sacrifice. By the end of the Millennium, mankind will have been raised to human perfection, completely free from inherited sin and death. Having thus brought to an end the last enemy (death passed on from Adam), Christ will hand the Kingdom back to his Father at the end of the 49,000-year creative week.—1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
So although the 1969/1971 Aid Book, as you pointed out, had said that we don't know the length of the creative days, this probably came from the idea that a Bible Dictionary should not contain esoteric beliefs that are not actually based on the Bible, but are just a traditional interpretation. R.Franz must have recognized this fact, while preparing the Aid Book, but apparently there was a faction that thought this "reasonable" approach was very dangerous. It admits that we don't know everything. I have personal anecdote that let me know that this is exactly what at least two brothers (Greenlees and Schroeder) thought would, initially, be the way to get R.Franz removed, by exposing the non-dogmatic approach in the Aid Book style that tends to erode dogma. I'll save the anecdote for another time, but I think it is easy to recognize that this kind of approach to the Bible takes a lot of power away from the interpreters. (The anecdote did not concern the length of the creative days.)
Even in the lead-up to 1975, there was a need, probably influenced by the Aid Book, to start using words like "evidently" rather than just speaking dogmatically:
*** w73 2/1 p. 82 Will Your Days Be “Like the Days of a Tree”? ***
Since each of the creative “days” or periods was evidently seven thousand years long, the whole creative “week” takes in 49,000 years.
Compare that with the dogmatism in the previous decades:
*** w51 1/1 pp. 27-28 The Christian’s Sabbath ***
Since the sabbath was a part of the law and the “Law has a shadow of the good things to come”, of what was the sabbath a shadow? Of the grand rest day for all mankind, the 1,000-year reign of Christ, the seventh 1,000 years of God’s rest day. For six thousand years mankind has been toiling and suffering under “the god of this world”, Satan the Devil. In that antitypical sabbath Christ will free men from the bondage of Satan and his demons . . .
*** w63 8/1 p. 460 par. 14 Religion and the Nuclear Age ***
We could continue verse by verse through the entire period of the six creative days, periods of time that other Bible passages show to have been each 7,000 years in length.
Of course, no other Bible passages were shown to indicate this, just a footnote to see the book by F.Franz, Let God Be True, 1943.
Hebrews 3 & 4 does connect Psalm 95:11 to Genesis 2:2, but without any connection to a certain number of years and without any reference to the millennium of Christ's reign.

I have absolutely no obsession with the 6,000 years. Pointing out that F.Franz had an evident obsession with something unscriptural, is not the same as having an obsession myself.
I see that the only support you offered about the 6,000 years was not from the Bible, of course, but from "HA 1423." (For anyone who is not aware, this is from Horae Apocalypticae, an infamous source of several of Nelson Barbour's chronology mistakes, that he passed along to a chronologically naive Charles Taze Russell.)
HA1423
Similarly the pseudo- Barnabas, a very ancient though Apocryphal writer: "Consider, my children, what that signifies, He finished them in six days. The meaning is, that in 6000 years the Lord will bring all things to an end," &c.
The same expectation as to the six days of creation typifying 6000 years, as the term of the present world's duration,
continued, as we have seen, (see p. 230, &c, supra) even among the anti- premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Only they explained the sabbatical seventh day as typical, not of a seventh sabbatical Millennium of rest, but an eternal Sabbath: - - a view generally adopted afterwards.
An apocryphal writer, from the era of apostasy, as @Outta Here has elsewhere pointed out, had an obsession with numerology and gematria. He clearly misinterprets scripture by claiming that the words "he finished them in six days" means that in 6,000 years, the Lord will bring all things to an end. I'm not saying that Barnabas did not get some things right, or that the anti-premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries did not get some things right. But it's never a good idea to depend on a non-Biblical, apocryphal misinterpretation to impose an idea on scripture when absolutely no support for anything like it is found anywhere in the Bible.
It's actually a good thing that you pointed out that this is ultimately where the Watch Tower Society got this unscriptural idea from.

So it appears that you don't have any evidence to give for your claim that the book was "challenged" by Fred Franz or others who knew him.
You didn't even say what claims about the organization that you reject. You should at least be able to point to one inaccuracy. Or someone should.

I should mention that these comments I had made were never made to defend R.Franz. In fact, as I recall, these comments were made under a different topic, and someone apparently moved them here because I happened to mention R.Franz in my response.
But back to your question that starts out with the words, "So if Raymond was a proven liar." I'm not sure what you are referring to. I've never heard anyone claim that R.Franz was a proven liar. If anyone ever said that, I'd be very interested in what they were referring to. It might be very useful to point to something inaccurate* in his book. I'm sure the average Witness who never knew him could easily get the idea he was "liar," but I have never heard anyone who knew him at Bethel ever say that anything in his book was inaccurate. Quite the opposite in fact.
[I found a couple inaccuracies, by the way, such as when in CoC, he mentioned that the Pope and bishops can speak as if they are "infallible" in the minds of Catholics. He should not have said "and bishops" unless he was referring only to previous "bishops of Rome," which are the popes.]
And by the way, R.Franz was an apostate. So if there was even one inaccuracy in any of his books, don't you think the Watchtower Society, or someone at least, should have pointed it out? What he exposed caused a lot of controversy. Pointing out even one inaccuracy would have helped quell the controversy and defend the Society.
But the problem, as best as I can see it, was not that he said anything untrue, but that his motive was to expose the human side of the organization and its decisions. It was to show how the Governing Body worked together at that time, and examples of how decisions and changes were made. And it showed its very human side, with its faults, mistakes, and interactions of personality. If you worked inside Bethel at that time and worked closely with several of the people he speaks about, you'd already know that his descriptions made perfect sense as they matched everything you could know about these persons. What none of us could know about, however, was what it was like inside any of those meetings of the Governing Body. And it turns out that it, if he is correct in his descriptions, then this is exactly what we would have expected anyway, knowing the personalities of these brothers as we saw and heard them acting and speaking on a daily basis. He speaks very kindly and respectfully of many of them. You can tell they were friends, just as you already knew if you were at Bethel at this time. But it becomes easy to understand how key decisions could be delayed or swayed by more outspoken and stronger personalities on the GB.
I don't know what you might mean here. No accounts were ever challenged, as far as I know. At least not by anyone who knew him. Especially not by Fred Franz, who knew him very well. If you have evidence to the contrary you should share it, especially because, as Witnesses, we don't want to be known for making false accusations.
Not at all. I just share what I know and what I think. And you can share what you know and what you think. That's how we learn. That's how forums such as this work. I would never want someone to trust my words and my words only.

All the "evidently"s, "reasoning"s, "understanding"s etc that are postulated with regard to a 49000 year creative week theory remain firmly in the realms of imagination in the light of the 1971 statement  "The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods ."
I don't have a problem with the idea of Jehovah' having a rest day into which we can figuratively "enter" as Paul describes. No problem either with the notion that this rest "day" commenced after the creation of Eve. And also no problem with the idea that this period will of necessity include the 1000 year millenial reign of Christ. This reign, among other things, will oversee successfully the populating of planet earth and the bringing of it into a condition that Jehovah can judge as "very good" when the seventh creative epoch ends.
All the rest of the chronological surgery that goes on regarding the "time of the end" is quite simply "playing doctors" with time. Our Leader, Jesus, helped us to appreciate that when he stated clearly that "“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Matt.24:36.
It seems that individuals get very "precious" about their own sepeculations about when this day or hour will be, or not be. The emotional ranting around this I do not really understand. For me it is interesting, even fascinating, to consider the many views on this matter, including the 49000 year idea, but to be honest, none of them do I loose any sleep over. In fact, since I have had it confirmed from the Holy Scriptures (or the Bible depending on your language) that we are in "the last days" and that there is something that we can do to work along with Jehovah and Jesus at this time, I have enjoyed my sleep infinitely better than ever before, knowing that my future is safely in the hands of the one who says: 
From the beginning I foretell the outcome, and from long ago the things that have not yet been done. I say, ‘My decision will stand, and I will do whatever I please.’  Is.46:10

I recalled a comment from last year where you commented positively on the new way of referring to these days as aeons or epochs, rather than literal days, and then added the following comment:
1975+43=2018 (last year). This old reckoning might seem ridiculous now, especially after the Watchtower once argued that this period could be a matter of weeks or months, but could not go beyond 2 years. But there are still some Witnesses who haven't kept up and believe there must be some validity to the 6,000 year theory. (A partial salvage of the theory, without any reference to 6,000 or 7,000 years, was rewritten in a much better way in a 2011 Watchtower:
*** w11 7/15 p. 24 God’s Rest—What Is It? ***
God’s Rest—What Is It?
During the time that Fred Franz was still alive and still working on his last prophetic book "Revelation -- Its Grand Climax at Hand" an article was written dealing with the Jubilee year and how the 49th year was related to the 50th:
*** w87 1/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. . . . According to Romans 8:20, 21, Jehovah God purposes to liberate believing mankind from this slavery. As a result, true worshipers on earth “will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—See also Romans 6:23. . . . While the small group selected to be taken to heaven have had their sins forgiven from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward and thus already enjoy the Jubilee, the Scriptures show that the liberation for believing mankind will occur during Christ’s Millennial Reign. That will be when he applies to mankind the benefits of his ransom sacrifice. By the end of the Millennium, mankind will have been raised to human perfection, completely free from inherited sin and death. Having thus brought to an end the last enemy (death passed on from Adam), Christ will hand the Kingdom back to his Father at the end of the 49,000-year creative week.—1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
So although the 1969/1971 Aid Book, as you pointed out, had said that we don't know the length of the creative days, this probably came from the idea that a Bible Dictionary should not contain esoteric beliefs that are not actually based on the Bible, but are just a traditional interpretation. R.Franz must have recognized this fact, while preparing the Aid Book, but apparently there was a faction that thought this "reasonable" approach was very dangerous. It admits that we don't know everything. I have personal anecdote that let me know that this is exactly what at least two brothers (Greenlees and Schroeder) thought would, initially, be the way to get R.Franz removed, by exposing the non-dogmatic approach in the Aid Book style that tends to erode dogma. I'll save the anecdote for another time, but I think it is easy to recognize that this kind of approach to the Bible takes a lot of power away from the interpreters. (The anecdote did not concern the length of the creative days.)
Even in the lead-up to 1975, there was a need, probably influenced by the Aid Book, to start using words like "evidently" rather than just speaking dogmatically:
*** w73 2/1 p. 82 Will Your Days Be “Like the Days of a Tree”? ***
Since each of the creative “days” or periods was evidently seven thousand years long, the whole creative “week” takes in 49,000 years.
Compare that with the dogmatism in the previous decades:
*** w51 1/1 pp. 27-28 The Christian’s Sabbath ***
Since the sabbath was a part of the law and the “Law has a shadow of the good things to come”, of what was the sabbath a shadow? Of the grand rest day for all mankind, the 1,000-year reign of Christ, the seventh 1,000 years of God’s rest day. For six thousand years mankind has been toiling and suffering under “the god of this world”, Satan the Devil. In that antitypical sabbath Christ will free men from the bondage of Satan and his demons . . .
*** w63 8/1 p. 460 par. 14 Religion and the Nuclear Age ***
We could continue verse by verse through the entire period of the six creative days, periods of time that other Bible passages show to have been each 7,000 years in length.
Of course, no other Bible passages were shown to indicate this, just a footnote to see the book by F.Franz, Let God Be True, 1943.
Hebrews 3 & 4 does connect Psalm 95:11 to Genesis 2:2, but without any connection to a certain number of years and without any reference to the millennium of Christ's reign.

I recalled a comment from last year where you commented positively on the new way of referring to these days as aeons or epochs, rather than literal days, and then added the following comment:
1975+43=2018 (last year). This old reckoning might seem ridiculous now, especially after the Watchtower once argued that this period could be a matter of weeks or months, but could not go beyond 2 years. But there are still some Witnesses who haven't kept up and believe there must be some validity to the 6,000 year theory. (A partial salvage of the theory, without any reference to 6,000 or 7,000 years, was rewritten in a much better way in a 2011 Watchtower:
*** w11 7/15 p. 24 God’s Rest—What Is It? ***
God’s Rest—What Is It?
During the time that Fred Franz was still alive and still working on his last prophetic book "Revelation -- Its Grand Climax at Hand" an article was written dealing with the Jubilee year and how the 49th year was related to the 50th:
*** w87 1/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. . . . According to Romans 8:20, 21, Jehovah God purposes to liberate believing mankind from this slavery. As a result, true worshipers on earth “will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—See also Romans 6:23. . . . While the small group selected to be taken to heaven have had their sins forgiven from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward and thus already enjoy the Jubilee, the Scriptures show that the liberation for believing mankind will occur during Christ’s Millennial Reign. That will be when he applies to mankind the benefits of his ransom sacrifice. By the end of the Millennium, mankind will have been raised to human perfection, completely free from inherited sin and death. Having thus brought to an end the last enemy (death passed on from Adam), Christ will hand the Kingdom back to his Father at the end of the 49,000-year creative week.—1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
So although the 1969/1971 Aid Book, as you pointed out, had said that we don't know the length of the creative days, this probably came from the idea that a Bible Dictionary should not contain esoteric beliefs that are not actually based on the Bible, but are just a traditional interpretation. R.Franz must have recognized this fact, while preparing the Aid Book, but apparently there was a faction that thought this "reasonable" approach was very dangerous. It admits that we don't know everything. I have personal anecdote that let me know that this is exactly what at least two brothers (Greenlees and Schroeder) thought would, initially, be the way to get R.Franz removed, by exposing the non-dogmatic approach in the Aid Book style that tends to erode dogma. I'll save the anecdote for another time, but I think it is easy to recognize that this kind of approach to the Bible takes a lot of power away from the interpreters. (The anecdote did not concern the length of the creative days.)
Even in the lead-up to 1975, there was a need, probably influenced by the Aid Book, to start using words like "evidently" rather than just speaking dogmatically:
*** w73 2/1 p. 82 Will Your Days Be “Like the Days of a Tree”? ***
Since each of the creative “days” or periods was evidently seven thousand years long, the whole creative “week” takes in 49,000 years.
Compare that with the dogmatism in the previous decades:
*** w51 1/1 pp. 27-28 The Christian’s Sabbath ***
Since the sabbath was a part of the law and the “Law has a shadow of the good things to come”, of what was the sabbath a shadow? Of the grand rest day for all mankind, the 1,000-year reign of Christ, the seventh 1,000 years of God’s rest day. For six thousand years mankind has been toiling and suffering under “the god of this world”, Satan the Devil. In that antitypical sabbath Christ will free men from the bondage of Satan and his demons . . .
*** w63 8/1 p. 460 par. 14 Religion and the Nuclear Age ***
We could continue verse by verse through the entire period of the six creative days, periods of time that other Bible passages show to have been each 7,000 years in length.
Of course, no other Bible passages were shown to indicate this, just a footnote to see the book by F.Franz, Let God Be True, 1943.
Hebrews 3 & 4 does connect Psalm 95:11 to Genesis 2:2, but without any connection to a certain number of years and without any reference to the millennium of Christ's reign.

I recalled a comment from last year where you commented positively on the new way of referring to these days as aeons or epochs, rather than literal days, and then added the following comment:
1975+43=2018 (last year). This old reckoning might seem ridiculous now, especially after the Watchtower once argued that this period could be a matter of weeks or months, but could not go beyond 2 years. But there are still some Witnesses who haven't kept up and believe there must be some validity to the 6,000 year theory. (A partial salvage of the theory, without any reference to 6,000 or 7,000 years, was rewritten in a much better way in a 2011 Watchtower:
*** w11 7/15 p. 24 God’s Rest—What Is It? ***
God’s Rest—What Is It?
During the time that Fred Franz was still alive and still working on his last prophetic book "Revelation -- Its Grand Climax at Hand" an article was written dealing with the Jubilee year and how the 49th year was related to the 50th:
*** w87 1/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. . . . According to Romans 8:20, 21, Jehovah God purposes to liberate believing mankind from this slavery. As a result, true worshipers on earth “will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—See also Romans 6:23. . . . While the small group selected to be taken to heaven have had their sins forgiven from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward and thus already enjoy the Jubilee, the Scriptures show that the liberation for believing mankind will occur during Christ’s Millennial Reign. That will be when he applies to mankind the benefits of his ransom sacrifice. By the end of the Millennium, mankind will have been raised to human perfection, completely free from inherited sin and death. Having thus brought to an end the last enemy (death passed on from Adam), Christ will hand the Kingdom back to his Father at the end of the 49,000-year creative week.—1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
So although the 1969/1971 Aid Book, as you pointed out, had said that we don't know the length of the creative days, this probably came from the idea that a Bible Dictionary should not contain esoteric beliefs that are not actually based on the Bible, but are just a traditional interpretation. R.Franz must have recognized this fact, while preparing the Aid Book, but apparently there was a faction that thought this "reasonable" approach was very dangerous. It admits that we don't know everything. I have personal anecdote that let me know that this is exactly what at least two brothers (Greenlees and Schroeder) thought would, initially, be the way to get R.Franz removed, by exposing the non-dogmatic approach in the Aid Book style that tends to erode dogma. I'll save the anecdote for another time, but I think it is easy to recognize that this kind of approach to the Bible takes a lot of power away from the interpreters. (The anecdote did not concern the length of the creative days.)
Even in the lead-up to 1975, there was a need, probably influenced by the Aid Book, to start using words like "evidently" rather than just speaking dogmatically:
*** w73 2/1 p. 82 Will Your Days Be “Like the Days of a Tree”? ***
Since each of the creative “days” or periods was evidently seven thousand years long, the whole creative “week” takes in 49,000 years.
Compare that with the dogmatism in the previous decades:
*** w51 1/1 pp. 27-28 The Christian’s Sabbath ***
Since the sabbath was a part of the law and the “Law has a shadow of the good things to come”, of what was the sabbath a shadow? Of the grand rest day for all mankind, the 1,000-year reign of Christ, the seventh 1,000 years of God’s rest day. For six thousand years mankind has been toiling and suffering under “the god of this world”, Satan the Devil. In that antitypical sabbath Christ will free men from the bondage of Satan and his demons . . .
*** w63 8/1 p. 460 par. 14 Religion and the Nuclear Age ***
We could continue verse by verse through the entire period of the six creative days, periods of time that other Bible passages show to have been each 7,000 years in length.
Of course, no other Bible passages were shown to indicate this, just a footnote to see the book by F.Franz, Let God Be True, 1943.
Hebrews 3 & 4 does connect Psalm 95:11 to Genesis 2:2, but without any connection to a certain number of years and without any reference to the millennium of Christ's reign.

I have absolutely no obsession with the 6,000 years. Pointing out that F.Franz had an evident obsession with something unscriptural, is not the same as having an obsession myself.
I see that the only support you offered about the 6,000 years was not from the Bible, of course, but from "HA 1423." (For anyone who is not aware, this is from Horae Apocalypticae, an infamous source of several of Nelson Barbour's chronology mistakes, that he passed along to a chronologically naive Charles Taze Russell.)
HA1423
Similarly the pseudo- Barnabas, a very ancient though Apocryphal writer: "Consider, my children, what that signifies, He finished them in six days. The meaning is, that in 6000 years the Lord will bring all things to an end," &c.
The same expectation as to the six days of creation typifying 6000 years, as the term of the present world's duration,
continued, as we have seen, (see p. 230, &c, supra) even among the anti- premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Only they explained the sabbatical seventh day as typical, not of a seventh sabbatical Millennium of rest, but an eternal Sabbath: - - a view generally adopted afterwards.
An apocryphal writer, from the era of apostasy, as @Outta Here has elsewhere pointed out, had an obsession with numerology and gematria. He clearly misinterprets scripture by claiming that the words "he finished them in six days" means that in 6,000 years, the Lord will bring all things to an end. I'm not saying that Barnabas did not get some things right, or that the anti-premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries did not get some things right. But it's never a good idea to depend on a non-Biblical, apocryphal misinterpretation to impose an idea on scripture when absolutely no support for anything like it is found anywhere in the Bible.
It's actually a good thing that you pointed out that this is ultimately where the Watch Tower Society got this unscriptural idea from.

I have absolutely no obsession with the 6,000 years. Pointing out that F.Franz had an evident obsession with something unscriptural, is not the same as having an obsession myself.
I see that the only support you offered about the 6,000 years was not from the Bible, of course, but from "HA 1423." (For anyone who is not aware, this is from Horae Apocalypticae, an infamous source of several of Nelson Barbour's chronology mistakes, that he passed along to a chronologically naive Charles Taze Russell.)
HA1423
Similarly the pseudo- Barnabas, a very ancient though Apocryphal writer: "Consider, my children, what that signifies, He finished them in six days. The meaning is, that in 6000 years the Lord will bring all things to an end," &c.
The same expectation as to the six days of creation typifying 6000 years, as the term of the present world's duration,
continued, as we have seen, (see p. 230, &c, supra) even among the anti- premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Only they explained the sabbatical seventh day as typical, not of a seventh sabbatical Millennium of rest, but an eternal Sabbath: - - a view generally adopted afterwards.
An apocryphal writer, from the era of apostasy, as @Outta Here has elsewhere pointed out, had an obsession with numerology and gematria. He clearly misinterprets scripture by claiming that the words "he finished them in six days" means that in 6,000 years, the Lord will bring all things to an end. I'm not saying that Barnabas did not get some things right, or that the anti-premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries did not get some things right. But it's never a good idea to depend on a non-Biblical, apocryphal misinterpretation to impose an idea on scripture when absolutely no support for anything like it is found anywhere in the Bible.
It's actually a good thing that you pointed out that this is ultimately where the Watch Tower Society got this unscriptural idea from.

I can't tell for sure who you are talking to here. You addressed the post with the Op-Ed to @TrueTomHarley, but this current post that I'm quoting from directly responds to some points that I made. So if it's all the same to you, I'll try to address some of the points you made with reference to the Op-Ed especially.
It could only add clarity if it were made clear what you had presented.
The July 8 1931 Golden Age referred to in the Op-Ed had already made clear that no Bible Student/JW should be listening to the Frank & Ernest radio program that had previously been on WBBR and which was now being broadcast by Dawn Bible Students in 1931. The president of the Dawn Bible Students was Norman Woodworth, and the editor of the Golden Age was Clayton Woodworth.
This bit of confusion had led some to need more clarity, as the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was not yet so well known, and both groups were still called Bible Students, and both continued to sell Millennial Dawn books, and both had a famous "Brother Woodworth" as an editor. The Dawn Bible Students published a brochure called "Bible Students Radio Echo." Brother Norman Woodworth was its editor, not the Watch Tower's Golden Age editor, Clayton Woodworth.
The July 8 1931 Golden Age (Clayton Woodworth) published a lengthy article about this "Bible Students Radio Echo:"
. . . He will to accomplish His purposes; and we
have full confidence that the Watch Tower Bible
& Tract Society is the one and only instrumentality
which the Lord is using to proclaim the
kingdom of God in the earth at this time.
As respects the dialogues of "Frank and
Ernest", it is a matter of record that these
dialogues were broadcast for several years from
Radio Station WBBR, the WATCHTOWER; and
it is as apparent that during those years "Frank
and Ernest" were greatly used and highly
honored by the Lord . . . But those who are wise toward
God will now have nothing to do with "Frank
and Ernest" or with the "Bible Students Radio
Echo", now that these men have ceased their
association with the instrumentality God is
using in the earth to perform his work at this
time, and this regardless of what they broadcast,
whether it be good, bad or indifferent. We
are publishing this notice so that the feebleminded
(1 Thess. 5: 14) may not be deceived.
So the openness that you point out from Russell's day is contradicted by the Golden Age in 1931. You point out that Russell had said: "and many have come to a knowledge of the Truth and into full relationship with the Lord as a result of these ministries outside of the Society."  [Emphasis yours.] But until recently, even during your own and my own lifetime, we continued to refer to the Dawn Bible Students as the "evil slave" and Witnesses were not trusted to even pick out what parts were good and what were bad or indifferent. The opening paragraph of the Golden Age article of July 8th had compared the "Dawn Bible Students" to the demons, and the article continued putting them in the Haman class, the Korah class, etc.
The response to that article is, of course, the Op-Ed you presented, and it was from Norman Woodworth's "Dawn Bible Students." It was actually from Norman Woodworth himself speaking out against these statements from the Watch Tower Society. It was in a publication called "Witness Bulletin" in its very first issue in October 1931 (released in September, I believe). Clayton Woodworth published a response to it in the October 14, 1931 Golden Age. The very title of the article is indeed an echo of some of the points that Raymond Franz made in the book "In Search of Christian Freedom." C.Woodworth's response complains that the term "Christian liberty" (Christian Freedom) was used so many times that it's obvious that the writer of your Op-Ed preferred Christian liberty over obedience. The Golden Age response was titled "Liberty or Obedience -- Which?"  It's easy to guess which side the Watch Tower publications would favor here. 
(In truth, of course, we should never seek unlimited freedom, which is a point that R.Franz makes, too. Obedience to Jehovah and Jesus are actually a part of our Christian freedom, even though Jesus said "his load was light." It's proper obedience that produces the joy we find in the freedom for which "Christ set us free.")
Only a portion of that Op-Ed was ever reproduced in the WT publications. The response was to clamp down and denigrate, even to literally "demonize" the persons who continued to remain in a "cult" to Russell. Of course, Dawn made many valid points, too. And Rutherford was correctly trying to move "Jehovah's witnesses" away from this "cult" status, at least for those Bible Students who would remain loyal and obedient to the Watch Tower Society.
Quite the opposite. It is a monument to the close-mindedness that had developed, and which was already developing in Russell's time as president of the WT Society. The real differences between Rutherford's and Norman Woodworth's views could have been easily explained. There was no need to just simply demand "obedience" and demand that this "Dawn" group be called "evil." A major problem, too, was that there was a financial issue in the way, and it was causing a division among brothers especially after the "Crash of 1929" and the Great Depression. Rutherford had hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Russell's books in warehouses and he wanted to continue with several months' worth of selling campaigns to recover the money from these. (The WTS had continued to print them by the hundreds of thousands up until 1927, and for a few years, they still sold better than Rutherford's books.) Both groups, "Dawn" and the WTBTS, were competing to sell Russell's books, even though Witnesses were beginning to question this practice, asking why they were selling books that were full of known falsehoods (and exactly the same books being sold by the "evil slave).
Of course, Rutherford demanded obedience. The "Bulletin" would say, in effect: 'If the Lord wants us to sell Russell's books, then that's what we'll do.'  It even added that if one were to be disobedient to Rutherford, it would be the same as being disobedient to the Lord.
The ka book says, simply:
*** ka chap. 17 p. 347 par. 33 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
Later in the year 1927 any remaining stocks of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures by Russell and of The Finished Mystery were disposed of among the public.
What it doesn't mention however, is that it actually entailed many months of campaigns over a period of several years --even past 1933. Here's an example from the Bulletin of December 1931:

 

I hope they'll let me eat some of the cake.

It’s not so much that you should be. It’s that he shouldn’t have been. It is anything goes here. That’s just the way it is.
The one-sided action favors the perception that The Librarian, that old hen, is in bed with apostates. ( Yeccchhhh)

I think it was personal with Allen. I afterwards had some private communication with him and found that I liked him a great deal. He got under the Librarian’s skin, I think. It is very hard for me to justify why he was thrown overboard and the equally bombastic Rook and shrill Butler were not. I don’t try. I just explain what I think happened.
The Librarian is one of those Witnesses who thinks truth emerges from vigorous debate. When you shine the bright light of TRUTH around, cockroaches disappear. (I think they just go elsewhere.) It is even possible that she is disfellowshipped. It is impossible to know with anyone. My practice is to update the words of Paul, “Every man is a liar,” to “Everyone online is a liar.” It is impossible to know, which is why the slave repeatedly advises young ones (and probably everyone else) to friend only those whom you know personally, counsel everyone here has chosen to ignore.
On Facebook there is a originator of Witness memes, commonly copied by the friends, that is supposedly run by someone disfellowshipped. It is a huge page. His work is excellent and loyal, shared widely by those who don’t know his status. Who can say what his motive is? but it doesn’t appear to be bad. Someone who knows he is disfellowshipped because she personally knows involved parties created a major ruckess trying to get everyone to unfriend him. (I never had in the first place; his kind of material is not what interests me) It looks absolutely ridiculous to outsiders, and to even most of us, when you try to enforce congregation standards on the Internet. Talk about a bad witness!
The one serious beef I have with The Librarian, besides her being an old hen, is that she drags people in through social media (I came in through Twitter) purporting to be a fine gathering site for Witnesses. I blew a gasket when I found that it was not, and one of the ones I came after was JWI, though to a MUCH lesser degree than I went after ones like Rook. I wrestled for some time whether it was right for me to stay here at all. In the end, I decided to and that move has facilitated two books, both loyal, and both absolutely one-of-kind, that I would not have been able to write otherwise. I hope that brothers enjoy it, but the brothers are not my main targeted audience in either case.
I have gotten comfortable here now. I’ve even struck up some sort of semi-camaraderie with Rook, the old pork chop, who I sometimes think of as ‘my’ apostate. A good number of opposers here I don’t think are mentally sound. They probably (inaccurately- or is it?) think the same of me. Several I can’t stand, though in some cases I have caught a glimpse or two of what makes them tick. I have gotten to prefer the word ‘opposer’ or ‘detractor’ over apostate, partly because the latter makes for a ridiculous spectacle to ones like @adminand partly because, in my case, it pays to know that they, too, are people. They chose a wrong course, imo, but they are still people, and I benefit by putting myself in their shoes sometimes.
There you are, Felix. As honest as I know how to be. Though it is very objectionable in many ways, I have reaped benefits by being here, and to the extent that my books are any good, Kingdom interests have also. There are so many sites 100% devoted to opposition, that this site cannot rate too highly on the JW HQ annoyance list. However, maybe because it is in some respects disingenuous, it is at the top of the list.

Glad you're here. Your points made are very good. And, fwiw, I agreed with every single word you said above, except for one sentence. And even in that one sentence I would only change one word. I would change the word "must" to "would likely." And to be consistent, then, I would also insert two more instances of "likely" further on in that same paragraph.
It's because everything you say about spiritual Israel is true. And you make an excellent Biblical argument to tie that spiritual/symbolic meaning to Revelation 7 & 14. But everything you are saying need not reflect the specific literalness of the number, although I'm not personally arguing that you're wrong. It very well could be literal. I'm just saying that we can't say it MUST be literal. And there are several good Biblical reasons why we should avoid saying "must' here.
This particular explanation of the passage in Revelation has stood the test of time among Witnesses for 80-some years. Still, there are many parts of it that are difficult to defend as "absolutes" in their specific Biblical context. And there have been a few arguments in favor of our interpretation that have made use of false reasoning. Whenever that happens, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but false reasoning should always perk up our senses to 'make sure of all things.' We need to know that it does not depend on false reasoning.
I'm sure you are personally aware of the points I refer to. But I'll be happy to play "The Bible's Advocate" here and point out some of the scriptural difficulties and false reasoning employed in support of the teaching.
Revelation is very symbolic, and therefore it seems that we definitely ought to consider whether any reference to Israel could refer to "symbolic" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. Of course, if Israel is symbolic, this might be an argument for considering all the numbers in this context to be symbolic: 12, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, and 144,000. Of the dozens of numbers referenced in Revelation, we already consider about 90 percent of them to be symbolic. We consider:
24 elders to be symbolic, (and 24 harps, and 24 incense bowls), the 3 and 1/2 days to be symbolic, the 7,000 persons killed to be symbolic, the 1,600 stadia to be symbolic, the number 666 to be symbolic, the 7 mountains to be symbolic, the 7 horns of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 7 eyes of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 2 witnesses to be symbolic, the 12 stars to be symbolic, the 1/10th of the city to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the stars hurled to earth to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the people killed to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the ships, 1/3rd of the sun, 1/3rd of the moon, 1/3rd of the earth, etc., the 12 gates made of 12 pearls with 12 angels at the gates to be symbolic, the 12,000 stadia to be symbolic, the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, the 12 foundation stones to be partially symbolic (of the 12 apostles), the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, and the 144 cubits to be symbolic. I've never made a chart of all of the numbers, but there are dozens of them in the book of Revelation, but we take only a very few of them to be literal.
The basic point from Revelation 7, and its context, without any attempt to interpret for the moment is this:
John sees 4 angels holding back the 4 destructive winds from the 4 corners of the earth. Then he sees an angel come out of the East with a God's "seal" and that angel tells the 4 angels to keep the destructive winds back until [all] God's slaves are sealed. John heard that the number of those who were sealed was 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. He hears that there are 12,000 out of each tribe, so that the number 12,000 is repeated here 12 times. (A list where the tribe of Levi replaces the tribe of Dan, and the tribe of Ephraim is called by his father's name.) Then John sees a great crowd that no man could number out of every nation/tribe/people/tongue. These ones, unlike what is said about the 144,000, are: standing before God's throne standing before the Lamb dressed in white robes waving palm branches, shouting: "Salvation we owe to our God, seated on the throne, and to the Lamb." John also sees, not just the great crowd, but also all the angels around God's throne, along with the [24] elders, and 4 living creatures, and they also shout in praise, not because they owe their salvation to God, but to offer God a prayer of thanks, praise and honor for his glory, wisdom, power, and strength. John is asked by one of the [24] elders who and from where are these ones that are "dressed in white robes." The elder does not say "Where is this 'great crowd' from?" The important distinguishing feature is that they are "dressed in white robes." John defers to the elder who gives John more information about them: they come out of the great tribulation they have washed their robes, made white in the blood of the Lamb, which is why they can stand before God's throne they render God sacred service day and night in his Temple (Greek, "naos," often referring to the most sacred and holy part of the temple, where only the priests could render sacred service.) God will spread his tent over them so that they will neither hunger, thirst, nor be scorched by heat, because the Lamb in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and guide them to springs of waters of life, and God will wipe every tear from their eyes. ==================
So immediately, we see that the Watch Tower's version has a couple of problems that must be overcome through interpretation so that the uninterpreted verses don't continue to give the impression that it's the "great crowd" and not the 144,000 who are standing before the heavenly throne. Somehow we need to put the 144,000 up there in heaven, too. And then we need to re-interpret this heavenly scene where John is viewing things in heaven, and talking to one of the 24 elders in heaven. We need to keep the "great crowd" on earth. We also need to diminish the meaning of the "white robes" because this is how the 24 elders are dressed, and also is the mark of those dead awaiting under the altar "crying out" for those still alive on earth until their full number was filled:
(Revelation 6:11) . . .And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been.
(Revelation 19:14) . . .Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen.
The white robes are mindful of the requirements for priestly garments, but it seems to refer to the clean standing required of heavenly beings so that they can stand before God and his throne, and perform sacred service in his heavenly temple. The 144,000 are not shown to be in these heavenly garments. The 144,000 are not said to be performing sacred service in the Temple. The NAOS, which often refers only to the inner chambers of the temple, as opposed to the outer courtyards, or courtyard of the gentiles, for example, is only mentioned with reference to the "great crowd."
Both these "issues" are resolved by two basic interpretations unique to the Watch Tower publications:
The Watchtower makes the 24 elders refer to the 144,000 The Watchtower teaches that the NAOS can refer to the outer courtyards of the temple There's more, of course. But this post needs to be broken up.

Glad you're here. Your points made are very good. And, fwiw, I agreed with every single word you said above, except for one sentence. And even in that one sentence I would only change one word. I would change the word "must" to "would likely." And to be consistent, then, I would also insert two more instances of "likely" further on in that same paragraph.
It's because everything you say about spiritual Israel is true. And you make an excellent Biblical argument to tie that spiritual/symbolic meaning to Revelation 7 & 14. But everything you are saying need not reflect the specific literalness of the number, although I'm not personally arguing that you're wrong. It very well could be literal. I'm just saying that we can't say it MUST be literal. And there are several good Biblical reasons why we should avoid saying "must' here.
This particular explanation of the passage in Revelation has stood the test of time among Witnesses for 80-some years. Still, there are many parts of it that are difficult to defend as "absolutes" in their specific Biblical context. And there have been a few arguments in favor of our interpretation that have made use of false reasoning. Whenever that happens, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but false reasoning should always perk up our senses to 'make sure of all things.' We need to know that it does not depend on false reasoning.
I'm sure you are personally aware of the points I refer to. But I'll be happy to play "The Bible's Advocate" here and point out some of the scriptural difficulties and false reasoning employed in support of the teaching.
Revelation is very symbolic, and therefore it seems that we definitely ought to consider whether any reference to Israel could refer to "symbolic" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. Of course, if Israel is symbolic, this might be an argument for considering all the numbers in this context to be symbolic: 12, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, and 144,000. Of the dozens of numbers referenced in Revelation, we already consider about 90 percent of them to be symbolic. We consider:
24 elders to be symbolic, (and 24 harps, and 24 incense bowls), the 3 and 1/2 days to be symbolic, the 7,000 persons killed to be symbolic, the 1,600 stadia to be symbolic, the number 666 to be symbolic, the 7 mountains to be symbolic, the 7 horns of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 7 eyes of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 2 witnesses to be symbolic, the 12 stars to be symbolic, the 1/10th of the city to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the stars hurled to earth to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the people killed to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the ships, 1/3rd of the sun, 1/3rd of the moon, 1/3rd of the earth, etc., the 12 gates made of 12 pearls with 12 angels at the gates to be symbolic, the 12,000 stadia to be symbolic, the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, the 12 foundation stones to be partially symbolic (of the 12 apostles), the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, and the 144 cubits to be symbolic. I've never made a chart of all of the numbers, but there are dozens of them in the book of Revelation, but we take only a very few of them to be literal.
The basic point from Revelation 7, and its context, without any attempt to interpret for the moment is this:
John sees 4 angels holding back the 4 destructive winds from the 4 corners of the earth. Then he sees an angel come out of the East with a God's "seal" and that angel tells the 4 angels to keep the destructive winds back until [all] God's slaves are sealed. John heard that the number of those who were sealed was 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. He hears that there are 12,000 out of each tribe, so that the number 12,000 is repeated here 12 times. (A list where the tribe of Levi replaces the tribe of Dan, and the tribe of Ephraim is called by his father's name.) Then John sees a great crowd that no man could number out of every nation/tribe/people/tongue. These ones, unlike what is said about the 144,000, are: standing before God's throne standing before the Lamb dressed in white robes waving palm branches, shouting: "Salvation we owe to our God, seated on the throne, and to the Lamb." John also sees, not just the great crowd, but also all the angels around God's throne, along with the [24] elders, and 4 living creatures, and they also shout in praise, not because they owe their salvation to God, but to offer God a prayer of thanks, praise and honor for his glory, wisdom, power, and strength. John is asked by one of the [24] elders who and from where are these ones that are "dressed in white robes." The elder does not say "Where is this 'great crowd' from?" The important distinguishing feature is that they are "dressed in white robes." John defers to the elder who gives John more information about them: they come out of the great tribulation they have washed their robes, made white in the blood of the Lamb, which is why they can stand before God's throne they render God sacred service day and night in his Temple (Greek, "naos," often referring to the most sacred and holy part of the temple, where only the priests could render sacred service.) God will spread his tent over them so that they will neither hunger, thirst, nor be scorched by heat, because the Lamb in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and guide them to springs of waters of life, and God will wipe every tear from their eyes. ==================
So immediately, we see that the Watch Tower's version has a couple of problems that must be overcome through interpretation so that the uninterpreted verses don't continue to give the impression that it's the "great crowd" and not the 144,000 who are standing before the heavenly throne. Somehow we need to put the 144,000 up there in heaven, too. And then we need to re-interpret this heavenly scene where John is viewing things in heaven, and talking to one of the 24 elders in heaven. We need to keep the "great crowd" on earth. We also need to diminish the meaning of the "white robes" because this is how the 24 elders are dressed, and also is the mark of those dead awaiting under the altar "crying out" for those still alive on earth until their full number was filled:
(Revelation 6:11) . . .And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been.
(Revelation 19:14) . . .Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen.
The white robes are mindful of the requirements for priestly garments, but it seems to refer to the clean standing required of heavenly beings so that they can stand before God and his throne, and perform sacred service in his heavenly temple. The 144,000 are not shown to be in these heavenly garments. The 144,000 are not said to be performing sacred service in the Temple. The NAOS, which often refers only to the inner chambers of the temple, as opposed to the outer courtyards, or courtyard of the gentiles, for example, is only mentioned with reference to the "great crowd."
Both these "issues" are resolved by two basic interpretations unique to the Watch Tower publications:
The Watchtower makes the 24 elders refer to the 144,000 The Watchtower teaches that the NAOS can refer to the outer courtyards of the temple There's more, of course. But this post needs to be broken up.

Glad you're here. Your points made are very good. And, fwiw, I agreed with every single word you said above, except for one sentence. And even in that one sentence I would only change one word. I would change the word "must" to "would likely." And to be consistent, then, I would also insert two more instances of "likely" further on in that same paragraph.
It's because everything you say about spiritual Israel is true. And you make an excellent Biblical argument to tie that spiritual/symbolic meaning to Revelation 7 & 14. But everything you are saying need not reflect the specific literalness of the number, although I'm not personally arguing that you're wrong. It very well could be literal. I'm just saying that we can't say it MUST be literal. And there are several good Biblical reasons why we should avoid saying "must' here.
This particular explanation of the passage in Revelation has stood the test of time among Witnesses for 80-some years. Still, there are many parts of it that are difficult to defend as "absolutes" in their specific Biblical context. And there have been a few arguments in favor of our interpretation that have made use of false reasoning. Whenever that happens, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but false reasoning should always perk up our senses to 'make sure of all things.' We need to know that it does not depend on false reasoning.
I'm sure you are personally aware of the points I refer to. But I'll be happy to play "The Bible's Advocate" here and point out some of the scriptural difficulties and false reasoning employed in support of the teaching.
Revelation is very symbolic, and therefore it seems that we definitely ought to consider whether any reference to Israel could refer to "symbolic" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. Of course, if Israel is symbolic, this might be an argument for considering all the numbers in this context to be symbolic: 12, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, and 144,000. Of the dozens of numbers referenced in Revelation, we already consider about 90 percent of them to be symbolic. We consider:
24 elders to be symbolic, (and 24 harps, and 24 incense bowls), the 3 and 1/2 days to be symbolic, the 7,000 persons killed to be symbolic, the 1,600 stadia to be symbolic, the number 666 to be symbolic, the 7 mountains to be symbolic, the 7 horns of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 7 eyes of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 2 witnesses to be symbolic, the 12 stars to be symbolic, the 1/10th of the city to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the stars hurled to earth to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the people killed to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the ships, 1/3rd of the sun, 1/3rd of the moon, 1/3rd of the earth, etc., the 12 gates made of 12 pearls with 12 angels at the gates to be symbolic, the 12,000 stadia to be symbolic, the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, the 12 foundation stones to be partially symbolic (of the 12 apostles), the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, and the 144 cubits to be symbolic. I've never made a chart of all of the numbers, but there are dozens of them in the book of Revelation, but we take only a very few of them to be literal.
The basic point from Revelation 7, and its context, without any attempt to interpret for the moment is this:
John sees 4 angels holding back the 4 destructive winds from the 4 corners of the earth. Then he sees an angel come out of the East with a God's "seal" and that angel tells the 4 angels to keep the destructive winds back until [all] God's slaves are sealed. John heard that the number of those who were sealed was 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. He hears that there are 12,000 out of each tribe, so that the number 12,000 is repeated here 12 times. (A list where the tribe of Levi replaces the tribe of Dan, and the tribe of Ephraim is called by his father's name.) Then John sees a great crowd that no man could number out of every nation/tribe/people/tongue. These ones, unlike what is said about the 144,000, are: standing before God's throne standing before the Lamb dressed in white robes waving palm branches, shouting: "Salvation we owe to our God, seated on the throne, and to the Lamb." John also sees, not just the great crowd, but also all the angels around God's throne, along with the [24] elders, and 4 living creatures, and they also shout in praise, not because they owe their salvation to God, but to offer God a prayer of thanks, praise and honor for his glory, wisdom, power, and strength. John is asked by one of the [24] elders who and from where are these ones that are "dressed in white robes." The elder does not say "Where is this 'great crowd' from?" The important distinguishing feature is that they are "dressed in white robes." John defers to the elder who gives John more information about them: they come out of the great tribulation they have washed their robes, made white in the blood of the Lamb, which is why they can stand before God's throne they render God sacred service day and night in his Temple (Greek, "naos," often referring to the most sacred and holy part of the temple, where only the priests could render sacred service.) God will spread his tent over them so that they will neither hunger, thirst, nor be scorched by heat, because the Lamb in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and guide them to springs of waters of life, and God will wipe every tear from their eyes. ==================
So immediately, we see that the Watch Tower's version has a couple of problems that must be overcome through interpretation so that the uninterpreted verses don't continue to give the impression that it's the "great crowd" and not the 144,000 who are standing before the heavenly throne. Somehow we need to put the 144,000 up there in heaven, too. And then we need to re-interpret this heavenly scene where John is viewing things in heaven, and talking to one of the 24 elders in heaven. We need to keep the "great crowd" on earth. We also need to diminish the meaning of the "white robes" because this is how the 24 elders are dressed, and also is the mark of those dead awaiting under the altar "crying out" for those still alive on earth until their full number was filled:
(Revelation 6:11) . . .And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been.
(Revelation 19:14) . . .Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen.
The white robes are mindful of the requirements for priestly garments, but it seems to refer to the clean standing required of heavenly beings so that they can stand before God and his throne, and perform sacred service in his heavenly temple. The 144,000 are not shown to be in these heavenly garments. The 144,000 are not said to be performing sacred service in the Temple. The NAOS, which often refers only to the inner chambers of the temple, as opposed to the outer courtyards, or courtyard of the gentiles, for example, is only mentioned with reference to the "great crowd."
Both these "issues" are resolved by two basic interpretations unique to the Watch Tower publications:
The Watchtower makes the 24 elders refer to the 144,000 The Watchtower teaches that the NAOS can refer to the outer courtyards of the temple There's more, of course. But this post needs to be broken up.

Glad you're here. Your points made are very good. And, fwiw, I agreed with every single word you said above, except for one sentence. And even in that one sentence I would only change one word. I would change the word "must" to "would likely." And to be consistent, then, I would also insert two more instances of "likely" further on in that same paragraph.
It's because everything you say about spiritual Israel is true. And you make an excellent Biblical argument to tie that spiritual/symbolic meaning to Revelation 7 & 14. But everything you are saying need not reflect the specific literalness of the number, although I'm not personally arguing that you're wrong. It very well could be literal. I'm just saying that we can't say it MUST be literal. And there are several good Biblical reasons why we should avoid saying "must' here.
This particular explanation of the passage in Revelation has stood the test of time among Witnesses for 80-some years. Still, there are many parts of it that are difficult to defend as "absolutes" in their specific Biblical context. And there have been a few arguments in favor of our interpretation that have made use of false reasoning. Whenever that happens, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but false reasoning should always perk up our senses to 'make sure of all things.' We need to know that it does not depend on false reasoning.
I'm sure you are personally aware of the points I refer to. But I'll be happy to play "The Bible's Advocate" here and point out some of the scriptural difficulties and false reasoning employed in support of the teaching.
Revelation is very symbolic, and therefore it seems that we definitely ought to consider whether any reference to Israel could refer to "symbolic" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. Of course, if Israel is symbolic, this might be an argument for considering all the numbers in this context to be symbolic: 12, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, and 144,000. Of the dozens of numbers referenced in Revelation, we already consider about 90 percent of them to be symbolic. We consider:
24 elders to be symbolic, (and 24 harps, and 24 incense bowls), the 3 and 1/2 days to be symbolic, the 7,000 persons killed to be symbolic, the 1,600 stadia to be symbolic, the number 666 to be symbolic, the 7 mountains to be symbolic, the 7 horns of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 7 eyes of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 2 witnesses to be symbolic, the 12 stars to be symbolic, the 1/10th of the city to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the stars hurled to earth to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the people killed to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the ships, 1/3rd of the sun, 1/3rd of the moon, 1/3rd of the earth, etc., the 12 gates made of 12 pearls with 12 angels at the gates to be symbolic, the 12,000 stadia to be symbolic, the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, the 12 foundation stones to be partially symbolic (of the 12 apostles), the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, and the 144 cubits to be symbolic. I've never made a chart of all of the numbers, but there are dozens of them in the book of Revelation, but we take only a very few of them to be literal.
The basic point from Revelation 7, and its context, without any attempt to interpret for the moment is this:
John sees 4 angels holding back the 4 destructive winds from the 4 corners of the earth. Then he sees an angel come out of the East with a God's "seal" and that angel tells the 4 angels to keep the destructive winds back until [all] God's slaves are sealed. John heard that the number of those who were sealed was 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. He hears that there are 12,000 out of each tribe, so that the number 12,000 is repeated here 12 times. (A list where the tribe of Levi replaces the tribe of Dan, and the tribe of Ephraim is called by his father's name.) Then John sees a great crowd that no man could number out of every nation/tribe/people/tongue. These ones, unlike what is said about the 144,000, are: standing before God's throne standing before the Lamb dressed in white robes waving palm branches, shouting: "Salvation we owe to our God, seated on the throne, and to the Lamb." John also sees, not just the great crowd, but also all the angels around God's throne, along with the [24] elders, and 4 living creatures, and they also shout in praise, not because they owe their salvation to God, but to offer God a prayer of thanks, praise and honor for his glory, wisdom, power, and strength. John is asked by one of the [24] elders who and from where are these ones that are "dressed in white robes." The elder does not say "Where is this 'great crowd' from?" The important distinguishing feature is that they are "dressed in white robes." John defers to the elder who gives John more information about them: they come out of the great tribulation they have washed their robes, made white in the blood of the Lamb, which is why they can stand before God's throne they render God sacred service day and night in his Temple (Greek, "naos," often referring to the most sacred and holy part of the temple, where only the priests could render sacred service.) God will spread his tent over them so that they will neither hunger, thirst, nor be scorched by heat, because the Lamb in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and guide them to springs of waters of life, and God will wipe every tear from their eyes. ==================
So immediately, we see that the Watch Tower's version has a couple of problems that must be overcome through interpretation so that the uninterpreted verses don't continue to give the impression that it's the "great crowd" and not the 144,000 who are standing before the heavenly throne. Somehow we need to put the 144,000 up there in heaven, too. And then we need to re-interpret this heavenly scene where John is viewing things in heaven, and talking to one of the 24 elders in heaven. We need to keep the "great crowd" on earth. We also need to diminish the meaning of the "white robes" because this is how the 24 elders are dressed, and also is the mark of those dead awaiting under the altar "crying out" for those still alive on earth until their full number was filled:
(Revelation 6:11) . . .And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been.
(Revelation 19:14) . . .Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen.
The white robes are mindful of the requirements for priestly garments, but it seems to refer to the clean standing required of heavenly beings so that they can stand before God and his throne, and perform sacred service in his heavenly temple. The 144,000 are not shown to be in these heavenly garments. The 144,000 are not said to be performing sacred service in the Temple. The NAOS, which often refers only to the inner chambers of the temple, as opposed to the outer courtyards, or courtyard of the gentiles, for example, is only mentioned with reference to the "great crowd."
Both these "issues" are resolved by two basic interpretations unique to the Watch Tower publications:
The Watchtower makes the 24 elders refer to the 144,000 The Watchtower teaches that the NAOS can refer to the outer courtyards of the temple There's more, of course. But this post needs to be broken up.