JW Insider

Sure. From 1919 to 1927 the Governing Body promoted the doctrine that the Great Pyramid was as Russell called it: "Jehovah's witness" and "the Bible in stone." The books stating this doctrine were promoted until about 1933. After Rutherford changed the doctrine, he even called the Great Pyramid, "Satan's Bible." (1928)  So if you believe that what was taught from 1919 to 1927 was "God's doctrine" then the Governing Body under Rutherford changed it.
Of course, in 1925 Rutherford also used the term "Satan" to refer to the larger part of the Governing Body at that time and he finally got rid of the entire Editorial Committee, which he had previously referred to as "Satan," in 1931.
The Watchtower also claims that Rutherford changed Russell's "correct view" of Romans 13 to an incorrect view, and says that it stayed that way in the 1930's until the 1960's. If you believe the current doctrine is "God's doctrine" and that the Watchtower is correct when it says that this doctrine was "correct" under Russell, then you should accept the Watchtower's view that Rutherford changed what you now call "God's doctrine."

Yes. Of course. It's our obligation and our responsibility. See the list of scriptures that are currently in the very first post under this topic/thread. And there are at least a dozen more such scriptures that I didn't include. We should always pick and choose right from wrong. It's the very reason for having and training our conscience.
Otherwise, you could be led astray by various doctrines. Imagine if no one had questioned it when Russell said that the Great Pyramid was, "Jehovah's witness" as he called it, or "the Bible in stone." How long would Rutherford have gone on bragging about how when he changed the correct belief about Romans 13 to the incorrect belief that this was direct proof that prophecy was being fulfilled through the Watchtower Society?
Yes, indeed. You need to say more. How about including the very next sentence in the context. AllenSmith had just said he "KNOWS" that this claim makes me believe this particular lie. So I answered:
I know that @Anna wanted me to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you weren't actually scouring my words to find some way to dishonestly twist them. I wonder what she or other readers of your words think now? And I'm back to wondering if you really have no concern to represent Jehovah's Witnesses as honest and studious. You could end up giving the impression that . . . well, I'm sure you already know what impression this gives. But I would ask you to remember that Jesus said "By their fruits you will recognize them."
(Matthew 7:20) 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.

You know I'll always respond to a direct question. So the answer is YES, I can absolutely say you were wrong. What you did is make note of the fact that I had pointed out something where the current evidence differs from what the GB is saying about a specific subject, and then you said that I must believe that I had (in your words) "the 'power' and 'authority' to question the dispensation of spiritual food by GOD?" So yes you are absolutely wrong about that.
Why? The apostles didn't have the right to want to change his doctrine and neither do the GB have that right, and neither do you or I. Unless you are arguing that the GB do have that right, and I don't believe that's what you are arguing. Therefore, I believe you agree with me.
You should be ashamed of yourself Allen! The added words that you are complaining about were not added by me. They were added by the Governing Body. That scriptural quote is the pre-2013 NWT taken directly from the 2016 Watchtower Library! I think the fact that you didn't recognize this shows just how much one can be blinded by their own emotions. I'm not sure if that is what happened to you here, but I have seen examples before where it seemed like anger was the probable emotion involved. At any rate, you are inadvertently claiming that the Governing Body was "dispensing their own thought, NOT God's."
Again, you have asked me a direct question, otherwise I would just let most of your snide comments and insults slide. So, "NO," this is not the very essence of wordplay. I am guessing that it was November 2013 when I joined jwarchive, and probably later in 2014 when I first posted anything doctrinal. In truth, since you asked, I have heard you mention this so-called problem of "wordplay" for years, but I have always noticed that it was you  engaging in the "wordplay" -- especially if by "wordplay" you meant some kind of twisting of words to make them mean something negative or sinister when I clearly meant something more positive. Take, even this supposed example where you just made the accusation that this is the very "essence" of wordplay. Of course, you might be referring back to the same point where you were trying to make this accusation about me, but were inadvertently attacking the Governing Body for the words they added to the New World Translation. (And the only reason this was taken from the pre-2013 NWT, was because I had just looked up a verse in that version so it was already open in front of me. I actually prefer the 2013 version in this case anyway, but only within the full context of course.)
You got it! That's exactly what I believe, and exactly why I used the verse. So what was that question about the freedom to undermine God's intended words all about? Are you still concerned with the way you thought the pre-2013 version of the NWT undermined God's words? Let it go.
Jesus and Jehovah, and even elders and the GB, to the extent these elders are taking the lead in matters of faith and love and teaching and good works and other instructive conduct, we should follow their lead, too. Hebrews 13:16-18 itself is also about our local congregation elders, too. In fact, the following article shows that, even though Hebrews 13:17 is especially for the congregation elders, some of the principles here are not merely about elders, but can have application to the entire congregation.
*** w10 10/15 p. 18 Do You Take the Lead in Honoring Fellow Believers? *** A Specific Assignment for All    Who should take the lead in showing honor? In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul describes Christian elders as “those who are taking the lead among you.” (Heb. 13:17) True, elders take the lead in numerous activities. Still, as shepherds of the flock, they surely need to take the lead in honoring fellow believers—including fellow elders. For instance, when elders meet to consider the spiritual needs of the congregation, they honor one another by carefully listening to the comments made by any of their fellow elders. Further, they show honor by taking into consideration the views and expressions of all the elders when making a decision. (Acts 15:6-15) We should remember, though, that Paul’s letter to the Romans was directed not only to the elders but to the entire congregation. (Rom. 1:7) Thus, by extension, the admonition to take the lead in showing honor applies to all of us today. Obviously, it's true that there are ways in which each encourage one another to follow in faith and fine works. If you see a good example, and are encouraged by it, then by all means follow that example. Personally, I believe that the primary application is to elders, however. So I have no problem at all applying this to elders in the congregation and the elders on the Governing Body.
(Hebrews 10:23-25) 23 Let us hold firmly the public declaration of our hope without wavering, for the one who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near. (Hebrews 13:7) 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.

Uh Oh! Does that mean it will be weeks before we hear from you again?

Uh Oh! Does that mean it will be weeks before we hear from you again?

Sheol? I know that, although you call yourself a Virginian, you live near the Canadian border in Rochester, but Sheol is in Alberta, Canada not far from the Pope and the Devil, and a lake that I think is a shortened form of Lake Lucifer.

Are you sure you weren't in Hell, Michigan?

On an even more important note, I just noticed that Google says the Area Code for Hell is 734.

Don't know if that fact will ever come in handy, but I know it's going to be easy to remember because if you type in "734" on a calculator and turn it upside down, it spells"HEL" although "7734" is better:

Oh the things we will learn, the places we will go!  Might want to pass this bit of trivia on to Vic if you see him.
The Librarian will probably take away my new privileges for this, but what the .... what the ... hay.

Might be for the best. Sometimes we get wrapped up in the idea that 1 Peter 3:15 means that we must use logic and reasoning to make a defense:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. But sometimes the best defense is a good offense. (I forgot the scripture citation.) And by that I mean that it's our proactive life of "living the good news" and "living the hope" as it were, which shows up in our conduct. In fact the very next idea in context is:
(1 Peter 3:16, 17) 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ. 17 For it is better to suffer because you are doing good,. . . The best way to defend our hope and faith is through our good conduct.

During the "Middle Ages" these types of discussions consumed people for HUNDREDS of years ... and the synopsis was the phrase "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
I try to keep my life simple, and since no one can prove that invisible things that SUPPOSEDLY happened a hundred or so years ago, using "evidence" that can be interpreted a hundred different ways ... and all with internal reasoning that makes sense to the proponents, and, I ...having ALSO been consumed with such things earlier in my life ... have come to the conclusion that it is ALL a complete and utter waste of my time,.
Soon enough ... too soon, perhaps ... we will ALL KNOW !!!
AND ... since there is absolutely NOTHING I can do to change reality ... whatever it is ... to quote Rhett Butler ...
 "Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn!"
I have a long list of REAL concerns, I CAN do something about.
..based on HARD EVIDENCE.
Remember EVIDENCE?
 

This question is better left to others who will discuss it at greater length and with at least as much success.
Not everyone has to weigh in on everything. What - I should spend a few hours online and assume equal weight with the GB?

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.
All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.
Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)
But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.
The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.
However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

Although I agree with everything that you expressed above the point I just re-quoted, I thought that this point had more to do with the topic, so I will comment on it:
How are we in the harvest time right now if the wheat and the weeds are still growing UNTIL the harvest? You just said that harvest time is when the bundles are bundled up, some tossed into the fire, and some bundled for a better purpose. Do you not believe that the wheat is still growing? Isn't the good news still being preached?
As you might have noticed, this is all part of the same 100% consistency among all the scriptures on the subject that point to a Parousia as a judgment event, the Synteleia as a final end involving the judgment event, and the "Harvest" also involving the judgment event AFTER the wheat and weeds are no longer allowed to grow.

Clever wordplay. I see how you worked in the words "intellectual dishonesty" without having to give an example, or mention any evidence.
For a few hours, this thread had one of your comments at the top of it, and I thought it wasn't fair to you because you didn't request that such a topic be "started" by you. And it would also have given the impression that you had created the topic title. (Or maybe it was J.R.Ewing, although it was a silicon copy of your sentiments.) But once the first post is there at the top, I can't move that post back again, or anywhere else. (just the nature of the software) After trying several things that didn't work, I noticed that the solution was easier than I thought. Just find an earlier post on the topic and it sorts to the top. When the new older post pushes the original post down out of the top position then I can move it back to the original thread or move it to another topic altogether.
I say all that because I finally figured it out, and if you have a suggestion for another post to be at the top of this thread, I can make it happen. If you want one of your own at the top, that would be great, I could always put the one I quoted from in the new top position.
Thanks. I'm glad you see that was written is in harmony with scripture.
You obviously don't know what my experience at Bethel makes me believe. Because it definitely does NOT make me believe that I have "power" and "authority" to question the dispensation of spiritual food by God. If you "knew" of course, your guess could not have been so wrong.
On the use of a straightforward style that obviously angers so many people, I can only say that it sometimes feels a bit hypocritical to appear less assured if I really am assured that the evidence is on the side of the argument that I agree with. And another thing is that, during the years when I hadn't looked into enough of the evidence, I would not have felt that it was right to try to present so much of it on a public forum. I don't think it does much good to present evidence about such a longstanding and widespread doctrine (as 1914) if I still had all the doubts I had about it a few years ago. I knew it would be best to wait until I had prayerfully considered it, compared all the scriptures I could find on the subject, and study the history of the doctrine throughout all the publications to see if I had missed something. It was only after I was convinced personally that the Bible evidence was consistent, that I decided to look into whether the secular evidence supported the Bible evidence. It would not have made a difference at that point, because the secular evidence is not as important as the Bible evidence. But it turned out that the Bible is supported quite well from the secular evidence. The two recent threads that I started on 1914 however, were never about the secular evidence. They were about the wording of the scriptures. Someone else asked about the 70 years and 539 and it became the big talking point. There is also a verse that may or may not apply about the confidence we should have in what we are proposing with respect to presenting evidence for a teaching from the Bible: 
(1 Peter 4:11) 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. The glory and the might are his forever and ever. . . . There could be any number of ways to misinterpret this scripture, and I'm not saying it applies to me in any way more than it applies to you or anyone else here. And perhaps it applies to none of us. But there is still a principle buried in the verse about confidence through strength that God supplies.
(Ephesians 3:11, 12) . . .Christ, Jesus our Lord, 12 by means of whom we have this freeness of speech and free access with confidence through our faith in him. So I can apologize that I likely sound too sure of myself. I can start changing that right now. Of course, looking at enough evidence to make oneself feel sure and confident does not make me right, anyway. But my conscience still tells me that I should share it, and not mince words about why I am sharing it, in spite of the insults and name-calling and whatever else. For me, it's a matter of following Christ wherever he goes. For me, it's a matter of paying more than the usual attention to what Jesus actually consistently said in Matthew 24, not changing a few definitions that make it seem like Jesus said something contradictory.
Thanks for adding it then. I thought that verse 17 had already been included here in this thread at least twice, even before you repeated it 3 more times under the "AllenSmith" moniker. But I also see that some have apparently interpreted it to mean that the Governing Body are the equivalent of God. That would be a form of idolatry, of course, so I'm surprised that some would claim that we should practice our religion as if idolatry were nothing to be ashamed of.

While we read of some prophets in the first century (how many were there?) they have no role in the circumcision ruling of Acts 15 - which was conveyed to all congregations as a decree. Past prophets were considered (Amos and Isaiah), witnesses were heard (most notably Peter, Paul and Barnabas) but there is no mention of contemporary prophets.
Possibly those who bellyached and refused to heed the decision did so on that account - that the then-prophets were ignored! and what right did the elders and apostles have to ignore the prophets?!! Surely those who scream bloody murder at GB decisions today would have screamed bloody murder back then.
Telling to me is the identification of who was acting as restraint to apostasy back then. It was the apostles themselves. The minute they died, it was as if the chorus rang out among the malcontents: "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead." The 'elders' of the Acts 15 "apostles and elders" were not enough to hold back the rebels. What those rebels didn't dare do when the apostles were around, they did with impunity with their successors.
If apostasy could spin out of control the instant the apostles died, what possible chance does it have to not likewise overwhelm today. Plainly ones are pushing for that outcome with all their might. The only thing to thwart them - that they will not be able to prevail against no matter how hard they try - is the fact we are in harvest time now. 'Let the weeds grow along with the wheat until the harvest,' the Master told his workers. 'Come harvest time we'll bundle them up and toss them in the fire.'

I'm assuming that the question is "Would you consider the entire State of New York destroyed if only the Watchtower buildings were destroyed along with all the elite houses in New York? (Either New York City or New York State, not sure it matters to your point.) By analogy would we consider the entire city of Jerusalem destroyed if only the Temple and the elite houses were destroyed?
This is a question that gets asked fairly often by those who would propose that the "destruction" and "desolation" was upon the land-owning elite of Judea, and it was less important whether every poor person of the land was literally taken or fled. The numbers of the exiles in Jeremiah 52 and 2 Kings 25 has also led people to conclude this. Some would even claim that this emphasis on the desolation of the rich elites was a kind of propaganda to make it easier to reclaim their old lands after the return from Babylon, rather than giving it up permanently to squatters and carpet-baggers and immigrants who took advantage of the "porous borders" over those years from when the desolations first began. I have my doubts that anyone could figure this out through archaeology, and this specific history is not in the Bible, so I take no sides on it except to give the Bible the credit for giving us all the important parts of the history that we need to know. If other things happened, they are not of much concern to the prophecies or lessons we are expected to derive from their experience during this period.
But, for me, and for the same reasons, I treat that question as rather moot. That's because I have no particular stake in the specific chronology or politics of this period other than to recognize that the Bible places about 4 important events in the same short span of less than two years, and to note that the Bible again proves to be an accurate book of history and can even be supported by the evidence from archaeology during this period. There are four new fast days, evidently related to the the siege, the breaching of the wall, the burning of the Temple, and the death of the Governor (who was their "last hope of independent rule"). These events are all placed in the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, give or take a few months. 
So the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is still the primary key for the important events based on the Biblical account.
Did you have another idea or proposal? 
One thing that might be important is to note that "Jerusalem" is destroyed in the sense of being the seat of God's Messianic kingdom. It's a judgment event of paramount importance because of what it represented and why it had been protected for so long in spite of wicked kings and corrupt religious practices. Even without the elite, the institutions fail, the economy fails; it is no longer a functioning nation without a capital. This is similar to why Tyre is forgotten for the entire 70 years of Babylonian power. It's a trading center that must plan imports and exports and prices. All that goes out the window if all the nations all around are threatened at any moment. Even if Tyre wasn't out of commission for 20% of that time period, it could no longer rise and function as a nation.

Thanks for making it so clear. I love it when someone can say in just a couple paragraphs what it takes me 15 pages to say.

You should still be able to find at least one quotation that indicates this. You shouldn't say "done already" if it wasn't done. And as I explained above, I do already know that it isn't true. Russell did not predict any kind of war resembling WWI in 1914. This must be one of the reasons that Russell (after 1914 came and went) began using the year 1915 as the date for the end of the Gentile Times.
That doesn't say a lot for whether there were any anointed in 1914 who were truly able to discern the sign in 1914, does it? Yet, that's how we define the beginning of the "two-group generation." In fact, the Watch Tower continued saying that Jesus' Parousia had begun in 1874 all the way up until the formal change in 1943/4, nearly 100 years after Barbour first started promoting 1874 as the date for Jesus' Parousia. It might even be why it wasn't until the 1920's that the Watch Tower ran the story of Russell announcing the End of the Gentile Times in early October 1914 (Can't give the exact day when that announcement happened, because it's also changed 3 different times.)
As I said, I don't receive "special interpretation." I was referring to the way YOU defended a "special interpretation" by claiming that it was OK to use the least likely definitions of someone's words. The analogy I used was probably confusing. Sorry.
By the way, these topics that reverted back to 1914-related subjects will probably go back to their respective topics where they started from.

Then why did the Watchtower ever change anything if everything was directly from scripture? Obviously you are saying that this might not have been true last year, because some things have already changed since then, but it must be true this year. But if it's true this year, then you are claiming that any changes made for next year are no longer directly from Scripture, unless of course you are arguing that the Scriptures contradict themselves. You are using cult-speak even though the Watchtower is not a cult.
Obviously we need to question ourselves first, but to answer your first question, it's our Christian obligation to question the anointed ones. You've seen a dozen scriptures to this effect, and you evidently do not believe in them. By whose power and authority do you decide it's OK to go against the Bible, and not to question the anointed ones?
(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . .
(Philippians 1:8-10) . . .. 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things,. . .
(1 Thessalonians 5:21) 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.
(2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . .
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.
(Romans 12:2) . . .be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings . . .
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .
(James 1:6) 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about.
 

Thanks for making it so clear. I love it when someone can say in just a couple paragraphs what it takes me 15 pages to say.

You should still be able to find at least one quotation that indicates this. You shouldn't say "done already" if it wasn't done. And as I explained above, I do already know that it isn't true. Russell did not predict any kind of war resembling WWI in 1914. This must be one of the reasons that Russell (after 1914 came and went) began using the year 1915 as the date for the end of the Gentile Times.
That doesn't say a lot for whether there were any anointed in 1914 who were truly able to discern the sign in 1914, does it? Yet, that's how we define the beginning of the "two-group generation." In fact, the Watch Tower continued saying that Jesus' Parousia had begun in 1874 all the way up until the formal change in 1943/4, nearly 100 years after Barbour first started promoting 1874 as the date for Jesus' Parousia. It might even be why it wasn't until the 1920's that the Watch Tower ran the story of Russell announcing the End of the Gentile Times in early October 1914 (Can't give the exact day when that announcement happened, because it's also changed 3 different times.)
As I said, I don't receive "special interpretation." I was referring to the way YOU defended a "special interpretation" by claiming that it was OK to use the least likely definitions of someone's words. The analogy I used was probably confusing. Sorry.
By the way, these topics that reverted back to 1914-related subjects will probably go back to their respective topics where they started from.

OK. This line of discussion has been left unfinished ...
... so it's probably time to wrap it up.
@Arauna had expressed her belief that the date 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon was "truly verified." However, she indicated mistrust of Babylonian sources because "their dates are all over the place - not reliable," the reigns are "impossible to correlate," and that the "Persian and Greek sources gets (sic) us to the truth." She cited the battle of Opis as an example of how the date 539 BCE is verified, apparently unaware that the battle was primarily recorded in a Babylonian source. So I was curious to know if she knew how the relative chronologies of the ancient near eastern world were fixed to BCE dating.
The only answer she could provide were reiterations of what scholarship had already concluded (that Babylon fell in 539 BCE), that Cyrus reigned 9 years and she cited the Olympiad counting system used in some Greek sources. But how do we nail down this data onto a BCE calendar time-line? I asked.
Maybe Arauna doesn't know, or doesn't care, or knows and won't say. So this is the point I've been leading to:
We nail down 'floating chronologies' like Babylonian kings' regnal years and Olympiads to the BCE/CE calendar by means of numerous dated Babylonian astronomical observations. The sky is the 'universal clock' I was hinting at. Babylonians were excellent sky-watchers and wanted to understand the motions of celestial objects, so they observed and measured distances and times, and they recorded what they saw. It was vital that they noted down the date for the observations otherwise their records would be useless for researching and calculating periodicities and so on. The year date would be their king's regnal year. Therefore, these dated astronomical tablets are snapshots of time, with celestial configurations often unique to that time period. So, when we combine the data from known kings regnal years with dated astronomical records from the same era, we can derive the BCE years the kings reigned.
This is the method by which it was deduced that 539 BCE was Nabonidus' 17th year, when the battle of Opis happened, and when Babylon fell to the Persians.
The same method and same Babylonian astronomical sources yield,
605 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar II's accession 597 BCE as the siege of Jerusalem and Jehoiachin's surrender and exile 587 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and Jerusalem's destruction We cannot accept 539 BCE as being verified for certain events, while rejecting the dates for other events that have been verified by using the exact same methods and sources that were used to confirm 539 BCE. This would be an intellectually dishonest approach. Counter to what Arauna stated about the unreliability of Babylonian sources to get at the truth about dating Babylon's fall to 539 BCE, we cannot get to the truth about 539 BCE (or the year of Jerusalem's destruction) without Babylonian sources.
 
 

You should still be able to find at least one quotation that indicates this. You shouldn't say "done already" if it wasn't done. And as I explained above, I do already know that it isn't true. Russell did not predict any kind of war resembling WWI in 1914. This must be one of the reasons that Russell (after 1914 came and went) began using the year 1915 as the date for the end of the Gentile Times.
That doesn't say a lot for whether there were any anointed in 1914 who were truly able to discern the sign in 1914, does it? Yet, that's how we define the beginning of the "two-group generation." In fact, the Watch Tower continued saying that Jesus' Parousia had begun in 1874 all the way up until the formal change in 1943/4, nearly 100 years after Barbour first started promoting 1874 as the date for Jesus' Parousia. It might even be why it wasn't until the 1920's that the Watch Tower ran the story of Russell announcing the End of the Gentile Times in early October 1914 (Can't give the exact day when that announcement happened, because it's also changed 3 different times.)
As I said, I don't receive "special interpretation." I was referring to the way YOU defended a "special interpretation" by claiming that it was OK to use the least likely definitions of someone's words. The analogy I used was probably confusing. Sorry.
By the way, these topics that reverted back to 1914-related subjects will probably go back to their respective topics where they started from.

It's possible, so I'll assume you're right. I'm going to try to get in some late edits that don't cause too much confusion so that I can remove my previous assumption that he purposefully pulled it out of context. In some ways, I felt it was a different kind of insult to him to assume he hadn't really understood what he was doing. Hard to find a middle ground here. 
I think I know what he misunderstood here. I've seen A.S. do the exact same thing with the exact same reaction on a similar expression. In context, of course, he said he would ALWAYS prefer the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to the Bible even if he knows that specific teachings might be different. Several times I spelled this out and was clear that it was only "specific teachings" that he might know are wrong. But because it was clear from context, I left out the idea about certain "specific teachings" and accidentally wrote "the teachings." He was able to jump on that and decide that I must have meant that ALL the teachings must be different from what the Bible teaches.
Historically, most of us have a bad habit of supporting "proof texts" vs. "context," so I should have seen it coming. I got a little more careful when engaging with A.S. because I'm sure you've seen how 'black and white" thinking with no room for subtlety or "gray areas" often results in this type of misunderstanding. It seems that words get culled and re-culled to find little snippets of "proof texts" for a preconceived notion. I've purchased CD's from bruceq, one of which contained several resources we have quoted from. I realized that this is an even bigger problem than I had ever noticed before, when we look to outside sources for quotes and support. Very often we just take a "proof text" without realizing that the context says almost the opposite. Even G.S., a writer at Bethel, was infamous for this kind of misunderstanding. He would read through newspapers and magazines searching for little phrases he could pull out of context. But as smart as he is, I don't think he always noticed when the context was saying the opposite. That's approximately what happened in both of these recent misunderstandings with bruceq. 

It's possible, so I'll assume you're right. I'm going to try to get in some late edits that don't cause too much confusion so that I can remove my previous assumption that he purposefully pulled it out of context. In some ways, I felt it was a different kind of insult to him to assume he hadn't really understood what he was doing. Hard to find a middle ground here. 
I think I know what he misunderstood here. I've seen A.S. do the exact same thing with the exact same reaction on a similar expression. In context, of course, he said he would ALWAYS prefer the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to the Bible even if he knows that specific teachings might be different. Several times I spelled this out and was clear that it was only "specific teachings" that he might know are wrong. But because it was clear from context, I left out the idea about certain "specific teachings" and accidentally wrote "the teachings." He was able to jump on that and decide that I must have meant that ALL the teachings must be different from what the Bible teaches.
Historically, most of us have a bad habit of supporting "proof texts" vs. "context," so I should have seen it coming. I got a little more careful when engaging with A.S. because I'm sure you've seen how 'black and white" thinking with no room for subtlety or "gray areas" often results in this type of misunderstanding. It seems that words get culled and re-culled to find little snippets of "proof texts" for a preconceived notion. I've purchased CD's from bruceq, one of which contained several resources we have quoted from. I realized that this is an even bigger problem than I had ever noticed before, when we look to outside sources for quotes and support. Very often we just take a "proof text" without realizing that the context says almost the opposite. Even G.S., a writer at Bethel, was infamous for this kind of misunderstanding. He would read through newspapers and magazines searching for little phrases he could pull out of context. But as smart as he is, I don't think he always noticed when the context was saying the opposite. That's approximately what happened in both of these recent misunderstandings with bruceq. 

Actually, you already conceded that this does not necessarily mean it is more likely, only that you would accept it as what you would be required to believe, whether it was true or not. Under another topic you just recently claimed that if you were in a first century congregation that you would have gone along with the body of elders if they told you the resurrection had already occurred. Had you been in a congregation between 1919 and 1925 you are admitting that you would have gone along with 1925 and promoted it even if you knew it was wrong. Your position of removing all responsibility for carrying your own load is sad when you compare it with the counsel we get in the Bible. This completely ignores the counsel that Paul gave to the Galatians:
(Galatians 1:6-9) 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from the One who called you with ChristÂ’s undeserved kindness to another sort of good news. 7 Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. Paul said it didn't matter how highly regarded the men were that were preaching another sort of good news, they could be men of high regard, they could even be pillars in the congregation. In fact, they could even be "angels." But we should not accept any good news beyond what Christ Jesus tells us to follow. And who were these men that might have even been considered by some to be on par with "angels"? Let's see.
Who is it that Paul makes a point of saying that he did NOT see when he went to Jerusalem?
(Galatians 1:16, 17) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. Why do you think it was important for Paul to make it so clear that he did NOT go to Jerusalem where the apostles were?
(Galatians 1:18-20) 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ce?phas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. Why make it a point that it was three years before he saw Peter or James, and even then for only 2 weeks, and that he did NOT see any of the other apostles?
(Galatians 2:1-5) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Bar?na·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. Why do you think Paul considers it so important to say it wasn't until 14 whole years later that he visited Jerusalem again, and this time it wasn't because they called him, it was because he had a revelation to tell them? Obviously these men who were highly regarded were the apostles, especially. But he again makes a point that they weren't able to compel his traveling companion to be circumcised. He says the whole matter wouldn't have even come up if false brothers hadn't been brought in to spy on them. But he didn't yield in submission to them. What is so important about not yielding to the apostles and older men of Jerusalem. Again, who likely sent these false brothers who were brought in?
(Galatians 2:12) 12 For before certain men from James arrived,. . . So who were these ones who "seemed to be important"? Who were these ones who "seemed to be pillars"?
(Galatians 2:6-9) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . .  9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ce?phas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars. . . Today, we would call these ones the "Governing Body," right?
So why does Paul go to so much trouble to tell the Galatians that they must be senseless for having listened to them, and been influenced by them? Why does he say they are accursed if they accepted teachings from the Governing Body that were not in line with what Jesus taught them? Do you think that Paul said this only to brag? Or was he making a point about following God instead of a Governing Body when it comes to doctrine? I'm sure you know the answer, but Paul gives it, too:
(Galatians 1:10) 10 . . . .Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be ChristÂ’s slave. Jesus goes through the same issues to John in Revelation when he gives counsel about the various congregations. The representative of each congregation is called an "angel" here too.
(Revelation 2:1, 2) 2 “To the angel of the congregation in Eph?e·sus write: . . . ‘I know your deeds,. . . and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, . . . This does not mean that we expect the leadership of the congregations or the Governing Body to mislead us. They surely would never do such a thing on purpose. But the verses show that it is right for us to put to the test those who seem to be important, those who seem to be pillars, those who are highly regarded, even the very ones we would now call the "Governing Body." Even we expect 99.9% of what is taught to be correct, it is still our own responsibility to put to the test those who teach doctrinal matters, because it is much more important to follow Christ wherever he goes.
(Galatians 6:5) 5 For each one will carry his own load.  

You did not include the context, and I can see why. This comes across as just as dishonest, although I'll assume you might not have realized this.
[edited to replace some earlier assumptions] I never claimed to get any special interpretations. In fact, I was talking about YOUR special interpretations. I'll assume you didn't understand this. I was referring to the ridiculous kinds of special interpretations that YOU defend when you pick the most unlikely meaning of each word to fit an interpretation. You claimed that we should defend the most unlikely meanings, because our interpretation SHOULD be the most unlikley, while Christendom accepts the most likely meaning. That's why I said "SUPPOSE" that I used  the same ridiculous logic in order to MISunderstand what you were saying.
So, back to the question you pretended to ask:
The context was how you @bruceq, could be misinterpreted if someone were to take your words and act as if some of the most unlikely meanings of your words
So, to recap, you made a statement: . . . And I said that if I took the words in it and forced unlikely meanings on them that this would force a misinterpretation. You had also argued that if Christendom doesn't agree with an interpretation that it must therefore be right, which is also ridiculous on its own. So I asked you to imagine (I used the word "suppose") that I found a way to make your words mean something ridiculous. So I was also saying that [if I were using bruceq's logic], I could even defend my special interpretation, because I'm sure I could find persons in Christendom who understood it correctly, therefore they must be wrong and this unlikely interpretation would be right, according to your way of thinking.
So I showed you what a ridiculous mistake I would be making if I used the methods you had just defended to defend this "special interpretation" of your meaning based on definitions of words were that were not only unlikely, they were ridiculous.
I apologize that my previous assumptions here, made it appear that you were purposefully dishonest. Even if they weren't purposeful, your assumptions, after taking those words out of context, still appear to be dishonest, so I'm just suggesting that you look at context more carefully.