JW Insider

Ah! I have seen that. I went immediately for the cliché meaning when it's combined with the word attack and assumed "venomous, vitriolic, virulent, vicious" which didn't quite ring true in my experience. Even the word "attack" still didn't quite ring true, and I think I've seen more direct, clever and cruel attacks on the blood issue, supposed education policy and unfortunate prevalence of pedophilia.
But then, I decided to review Brother Splane's presentation on the issue of the overlapping generation, and instead of going to the original source, I assumed that someone would have cut it down to exactly the 10 or so relevant minutes out of the longer broadcast, so I went to Google and typed in "Splane on generation" without the quotes. I saw a couple of YouTube videos and clicked on them. One was both "direct" and "cruel" comparing it to a pile of dung. And another one was "clever" only in the sense that it seemed like the correct video, but was full of derisive laughter at the end, and YouTube itself offered a couple more options which were apparently along the same lines of those two videos at the top of the original search results.
My third attempt worked just fine, but I have no doubt now that you had more good reasons for using the term "acerbic attack" than I was aware of. Sorry to have doubted you. 

The stupidity of chasing after material things.

As I explained in a previous post:
"... they simply 'did not know' when the Flood was coming until it was upon them and took them by surprise (this is the whole point of the illustration - like the Flood, Jesus' Parousia will be unpredictable). 
The NWT poorly renders the Greek as 'took no note' in this verse. As a sidebar, compare the changed rendering in the rNWT with that in the older NWT at John 17:3. The same word ginōskō used there is also used in Jesus' illustration, but in the latter instance, the antediluvians did not 'know' or 'come to know.'"
God told Noah to build an ark because He was going to wipe everyone out; He didn't tell him when the Deluge would be until a week before. Not only that but, if you believe the Flood was global, 99% of the world's inhabitants would have been completely oblivious to what was going on in some plain in Mesopotamia.

It was pretty funny, as long as you can pretend it was some other religion she was talking about.
One line hit a little too close for comfort at about 14min40sec.
[Brought to you by "New Light"!!]
"New Light! If you can't change what you say, change what 'what you say' means."
This is exactly what happened with the phrase "The Gentile Times have ended..."

The primary manipulation, as I understand it, is that the person who is credited with taking the picture is supposedly just interested in humanitarian issues. The problem was that it was quickly shown that he had just previously been photographed with a person beheading a young Palestinian, probably 11 years old. He is actually mixed up with some wacky extremists. But this actually may be true of the "White Hats" in general. What has happened is that there are a lot of people who push for war, when they believe that support for that war can include millions of dollars in aid from the United States. In this case, there are thousands of contractors and political hawks that also want war, and they are anxious to get credibility for the war. That credibility at one time in the recent past had to come from media support, but the media is no longer trusted, because they are often sequestered into "safe" hotels where the war stories are fed to them from military insiders. However, even the media has turned against this practice because it has so often led to mistaken reporting and gullibility.
So the new "trusted source" for warmongering has become humanitarian aid agencies who are willing to work with the military. What is missed however, is that organizations such as USAID which attempts to present itself this way, is actually a U.S. organization with a Department of Transitional Initiatives which has been linked to several "regime change" programs often making use of social media disinformation. (Massive programs making use of fake accounts, etc.)
This is also a partial explanation for the talk about a "no fly zone" in Syria. It is sometimes called a "safe" zone, or no-bombing zone, and it sounds excellent in theory. But every U.S.-backed "no fly zone" has historically been a euphemism for war that is intended to end in regime change. 
Naturally, I have no stake at all in trying to figure out what is right or wrong when it comes to regime change anywhere. It almost always results in more problems than it solves, and I always hope for peace on earth and goodwill towards men. But my only point here is that manipulation is common when it comes to talking a nation into giving its tacit backing to war. But we shouldn't be naive about how clever these methods can become. PR groups, and humanitarian groups are as likely to be involved these days as politicians and media.

No one can or should try to judge the claim of any specific individual. However the current teaching is only saying that if any persons claim to have become "of the anointed" after the first group died out, then the length of their life doesn't matter anyway in trying to determine the length (or makeup) of the generation. The point has nothing to do with whether their claim has any "merit." 
The first generation is assumed to have died out already, although who could say for sure if there was not a 120 year old brother or sister somewhere who was of the anointed at age 16?  If so, that first group has not died out yet, but will likely die out in the next year or so. If we assume that the last member of group one died on January 1, 2000 at 12:01 am EST, then it is quite possible that two brothers who were twins, born in say, 1980, could both be of the anointed. If one of the twins (let's say, the younger one) started professing to be of the anointed at three minutes before 12:01 am EST on January 1, 2000 then he would be part of the "generation" that would not pass away. If the other one (let's say, the older one) started professing to be of the anointed at three minutes after his twin brother, then he would not be part of that generation.
So it's even very possible for a younger person to be a part of the generation where his older brother is not part of it.
Hope that makes sense.
 

“Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it. “Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. Every tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men." - Matthew 7:13-20
 

Thats  right,  Jim63.....   We  all  want  go  on  the  tight  way  to  Jehovah  -  lets  hope,  we  work  it !    Thats  our  first  Destination ❤   Lets  be  loyal  until  to  the  end....

Thanks for the response. I'm not arguing for the correctness of the list or the Wikipedia quote. I barely skimmed the list. But if you have found differences, some here might find those interesting, too.

Hello Dolly(s).................
Novel idea. S'pose you think this applies to Jesus as well??
Doesn't this statement contradict the definition of the word CLONE?
There's nothing new about folks having difficulty with the Bilble's teaching on the resurrection.  And nothing new about certain of those folks holding that teaching up to ridicule as a result. 
Jesus summed up their problem better than anyone could do today when he said:
“You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God."  Matt.22:29
 

Enjoy the beautiful picture ! Thats all ;-)  

Mir auch. Ich habe den Besuch des deutschen Bethel genossen. In Patterson haben wir sogar ein Bild vom Paradies, wo die Kinder Fußball spielen.
But I understand your request to avoid discussion. Thanks for the picture.

You're welcome!
I understand. Thanks for the posting, though.

What was the point of the foul language in the title? A small warning about foul language in the video itself should have been sufficient, I'd think.
That said, I was surprised the brother walked back into the fray to pick up something. Methinks he might have grown up on these same streets himself.

This report is false, and no alleged "hidden camera and surveillance footage" documenting voter fraud is actually viewable on the site. The screenshot that accompanies the article was actually taken from BBC news footage about alleged vote fraud in Russia, not the United States:   -- http://www.snopes.com/leaked-videos-clinton-voter-fraud/ Hillary Clinton might be one of the two most corrupt politicians in the (United States) news right now, but this particular report appears to be completely fake. That sometimes means that more people will believe it, because it appeals to something people want to believe. If people don't want to believe something, no amount of evidence ever seems to help.

What was the point of the foul language in the title? A small warning about foul language in the video itself should have been sufficient, I'd think.
That said, I was surprised the brother walked back into the fray to pick up something. Methinks he might have grown up on these same streets himself.

My "next post" was going to be tomorrow with specific reference to Jesus' statement that the parousia would be like the days of Noah. But this is the same basic question. Again, I don't expect that these opinions, on their own, should convince anyone one way or another. I'm trying to present a case for why it is easier to understand Matthew 24 and everything about the parousia in a way that appears more consistent with all the Bible references in context, and why our current doctrine produces some difficulties and contradictions. So here goes:
There are NO Bible references to the "parousia" that are not directly related to Jesus' coming to execute judgment. In other words, ALL Bible references to the "parousia" refer to the judgment events that we associate with the "great tribulation" and Armageddon.
In fact the 2013 Watchtower you quoted in a separate post moved several teachings from the beginning of the "1914 generation" to the end that we once assigned to the beginning of the generation. I'll highlight a few portions:
*** w13 7/15 pp. 7-8 pars. 14-19 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
Does a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy reveal that our understanding of the timing of other significant events needs to be adjusted? . . . Jesus focuses primarily on what will happen during these last days and during the coming great tribulation. There, Jesus makes eight references to his “coming,” or arrival. . . .  (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44; 25:31) Each of these four references applies to Christ’s future coming as Judge. Where in Jesus’ prophecy do we find the remaining four references?
16 Regarding the faithful and discreet slave. . . (Matt. 24:46; 25:10, 19, 27) To what time do these four instances of Jesus’ coming refer?
17 In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read Matthew 24:45-47.) . . .
18In the verses that lead up to Matthew 24:46, the word “coming” refers consistently to the time when Jesus comes to pronounce and execute judgment during the great tribulation. (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44) Also, as we considered in paragraph 12, Jesus’ ‘arriving’ mentioned at Matthew 25:31 refers to that same future time of judgment. So it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings, mentioned at Matthew 24:46, 47, also applies to his future coming, during the great tribulation. Indeed, a consideration of Jesus’ prophecy in its entirety makes it clear that each of these eight references to his coming applies to the future time of judgment during the great tribulation.
19 . . . So, then, all three “whens” apply to the same future time period—the great tribulation. How does this adjusted view further affect our understanding of the illustration of the faithful slave? Also, how does it affect our understanding of other parables, or illustrations, of Jesus that are being fulfilled during this time of the end? These important questions will be considered in the following articles.
This had to be done, because several contradictions were being produced by our former explanations of various prophecies and parables (and also "prophetic dramas" that we were still deriving from Bible narratives at the time of this article). But this didn't get rid of all of the contradictions.
In fact, the "1914 doctrine" no longer serves any purpose except to point to a time when we assume that Satan was cast out of heaven in October, which vaguely explains the war that broke out earlier in July and which the Watchtower had said was easily predicted from the political tensions and build-up for several years prior to 1914. Casting him out is also supposed to explain Satan's anger at his short period of time, explaining his wrath in the WWI period, and which we should assume is now even a shorter period of time than it was in 1914. But the "1914 doctrine" does nothing to explain why the Gentile nations got much stronger, more numerous, and more effective after 1914 now that their "times had ended" and their kings had already "had their day." Somehow, this explained how Jesus had come into Kingly power in 1914.
In fact, related to that last point, note that the article points out that 1914 was no longer even the time when Jesus "sat down" on his glorious throne as we had always explained Matthew 25:31. There was a recent discussion on this forum about the "sit then stand then sit again" sequence, which has also changed a few times over the years. 
11 In the mid-1990’s, The Watchtower reexamined Matthew 25:31, which states: “When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne.” It was noted that Jesus became King of God’s Kingdom in 1914, but he did not “sit down on his glorious throne” as Judge of “all the nations.”
But it turns out that all these issues go away, and we no longer have to create special or "less likely" translations of various Greek words, if we just take notice of the fact that ALL the references to the parousia are about the final time of tribulation and judgment.
The reference to 2 Peter 3:12 is just one of many verses that highlights this same point. Note that this is about the "parousia of the Lord." (The NWT uses the term Jehovah here, and it might not be as clear therefore that the Greek refers to the same Parousia of Jesus.) I'll temporarily change it back to the Greek manuscript "Lord", and change "presence" to "parousia" and I think it will be clearer. 
(2 Peter 3:3-12) 3 First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come . . . saying: “Where is this promised PAROUSIA of his? . . . 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago. . . the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people. . . . 10 But the Lord's day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, . . . consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the PAROUSIA of the day of the Lord, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat!
In fact, our publications do not usually associate this particular "parousia" with Christ's parousia starting in 1914, but to the "end" (except that we contradict this by always using verses 3 and 4 to point to the duration from 1914 through the end). Notice this particular explanation:
*** it-1 p. 595 Day of Jehovah ***
That “day of Jehovah” came in 70 C.E., when, in fulfillment of his Word, Jehovah caused the armies of Rome to execute divine judgment upon the nation that had rejected the Son of God and defiantly shouted: “We have no king but Caesar.”—Joh 19:15; Da 9:24-27.
However, the Scriptures point forward to yet another “day of Jehovah.” After the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem following the Babylonian exile, Jehovah caused his prophet Zechariah (14:1-3) to foretell “a day . . . belonging to Jehovah” when he would gather not merely one nation but “all the nations against Jerusalem,” at the climax of which day “Jehovah will certainly go forth and war against those nations,” bringing them to their end. The apostle Paul, under inspiration, associated the coming “day of Jehovah” with the presence of Christ. (2Th 2:1, 2) And Peter spoke of it in connection with the establishment of ‘new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness is to dwell.’—2Pe 3:10-13.
This gives context, again, to the verses referenced from 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2 where the Parousia is not a drawn-out time period of 100 to 150 or even 200 years, but a specific time of judgment.
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence [PAROUSIA] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah [day of the Lord] is here.
The "day of the Lord" is equated with the "parousia of the Lord." And Paul goes on to explain why: because the apostasy would come first and the Parousia would be the time of judgment against that apostasy:
(2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [Gk: GLORIOUS EPIPHANY of his PAROUSIA].
We could look at every reference to Christ's parousia, and notice that it makes much more sense to translate it as an EVENT related to the judgment. When referring to Jesus' "parousia" it is always a reference to a bright, visible, unexpected event using a term that would also remind the first Greek-speaking audience of the famous parade-like event, the "royal visitation" of an emperor:
*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia) ***
pa·rou·siʹa “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.”
It is never necessary, Biblically, to think of it as a drawn-out "presence."

Of course. And I think that many of us have used this very reasoning by way of explanation for past (and even current) Watchtower predictions. But Jesus specifically said to "keep on the watch" because we cannot know the chronology in advance. The "contradiction" is summed up in the words from a recent Watchtower indicated by the words: "On the other hand" at the beginning of paragraph 8 below:
*** w15 8/15 pp. 15-16 pars. 7-8 Keep in Expectation! ***
However, Jesus said that most people would take “no note” of his presence, carrying on with life’s normal activities until it is too late. (Read Matthew 24:37-39.) Thus, the Scriptures indicate that world conditions during the last days would not become so extreme that people would be forced to believe that the end is near.—Luke 17:20; 2 Pet. 3:3, 4.
8On the other hand, for the composite sign to serve its purpose, the fulfillment of it would have to be obvious enough to command the attention of those who have been obeying Jesus’ counsel to “keep on the watch.” (Matt. 24:27, 42) And that has been the case since 1914.
Jesus' illustrations at the end of Matthew chapter 24 and into chapter 25 match what 2 Peter says about how we should "keep on the watch." It's about watching the sort of person we ought to be. That's how we prepare and keep it close in mind.
On the other hand Jesus' apostles had asked Jesus what they should watch out for in order to be able to predict the time: When will these things happen to Jerusalem's Temple and buildings?
The very first thing Jesus said was "Do not be misled!" He didn't say it's inevitable that you will be misled out of feverish expectation. He gave them very specific instructions NOT to watch for signs of the time. Yes, the Temple would fall in their own generation, but whether early or late in that generation, he wouldn't say, and said he didn't know himself, anyway! He warned them specifically about watching out for signs that are related to great wars, or great earthquakes or great famines, pestilences, etc.
Yet, every single generation since Jesus said these words tries to find signs of the times in wars, earthquakes, pestilences, famines, etc.
 

Precisely! When I was looking at the Bible's teaching about Jesus' Return/Parousia/Coming with fresh eyes all those years ago, it was a 'slap head' moment being scripturally led to the same conclusions as you have outlined in your past few posts. You've explained it so well. 

The suggestion is that, for Jesus, the parousia appears to come at the END of the generation, not the BEGINNING.
I think that Matthew 24:37-39 not only 'sits well' with this suggestion, it offers additional evidence for it. But I also think it depends on whether we are willing to interpret Jesus' words in a consistent manner, or a contradictory manner. If we are willing to accept contradictions, then we could make Matthew 24 say anything we want. I prefer to see if there is a way to read Matthew 24 without so many serious contradictions.
For example, go back to some verses just leading up to these verses:
(Matthew 24:23-27) . . .“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned you. 26 Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence [parousia] of the Son of man will be.
Why is it that Jesus said not to believe anyone who claims that "The Christ is here!"?
Yet, many religions, including our own, have based their core message since 1878 on this specific claim that "The Christ is here!"
The reason Jesus said that this could not be claimed is that it would imply that they thought they had seen a sign or evidence prior to the actual event. This would, of course, be impossible because the actual parousia would be as unmistakable as lightning that flashes from one end of the horizon all the way to the other end.
So is it possible that this great event, "the parousia of the Son of man," could be invisible? Is it possible that Christ is here, but we just can't see him from where we are? Jesus covered this claim as well when he predicted that some might even claim that he was in the wilderness, or in the inner rooms. Jesus said: "Do not believe it!" Jesus perfectly covered the idea that people might claim falsely that "Christ is present, but he's invisible." How, would we know they were wrong? Because Matthew 24:27 explains that the parousia of the Son of man will be as visible as lightning.
In other words, his parousia should be compared to the most obviously visible event we can think of. More proof that it is an appearance, a manifestation is found by looking at the context of ALL the other mentions of Jesus' presence. A couple of them are included below:
(2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [parousia].
(2 Timothy 4:1) 4 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his Kingdom:
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) 7 . . . relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, . . . from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder . . .
(1 John 2:28) 28 So now, little children, remain in union with him, so that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not shrink away from him in shame at his presence [parousia].
Note especially that the word "parousia" is sometimes replaced, paralled, and modified with a word that means "glorious epiphany" in the Bible. In Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the definition includes the following:
ἐπιφάνεια, ἐπιφανείας, ἡ (ἐπιφανής), an appearing, appearance : often used by the Greeks of a glorious manifestation of the gods, . . .  not only that which has already taken place and by which his presence and power appear in the saving light he has shed upon mankind, 2 Timothy 1:10 (note the word φωτίσαντος in this passage); but also that illustrious return from heaven to earth hereafter to occur: 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13 . . . ἡ ἐπιφάνεια (i. e. the breaking forth) τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
 
(2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [parousia]. (NWT)
the brightness of his coming: (KJV)
the splendor of his coming. (NLV)
(Titus 2:13) while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, (NWT)


Taking a cue from the new "Kingdom" book, we could therefore speak of the beginning of the parousia as "the greatest event" (p.13). The parousia is indeed the "epiphany of his presence," the "glorious manifestation," the "brightness," the "lightning," the "revelation," the time of "flaming fire."
That is of course the background for answering the question about Matthew 24:37-39. (Next post)
 
 

English: "scarecrows"
(Genesis 40:17) . . .and there were birds eating them out of the basket on top of my head. . .
(Jeremiah 7:33) . . .will become food for the birds of the heavens . . .  with no one to frighten them away.
 

Of course. And I think that many of us have used this very reasoning by way of explanation for past (and even current) Watchtower predictions. But Jesus specifically said to "keep on the watch" because we cannot know the chronology in advance. The "contradiction" is summed up in the words from a recent Watchtower indicated by the words: "On the other hand" at the beginning of paragraph 8 below:
*** w15 8/15 pp. 15-16 pars. 7-8 Keep in Expectation! ***
However, Jesus said that most people would take “no note” of his presence, carrying on with life’s normal activities until it is too late. (Read Matthew 24:37-39.) Thus, the Scriptures indicate that world conditions during the last days would not become so extreme that people would be forced to believe that the end is near.—Luke 17:20; 2 Pet. 3:3, 4.
8On the other hand, for the composite sign to serve its purpose, the fulfillment of it would have to be obvious enough to command the attention of those who have been obeying Jesus’ counsel to “keep on the watch.” (Matt. 24:27, 42) And that has been the case since 1914.
Jesus' illustrations at the end of Matthew chapter 24 and into chapter 25 match what 2 Peter says about how we should "keep on the watch." It's about watching the sort of person we ought to be. That's how we prepare and keep it close in mind.
On the other hand Jesus' apostles had asked Jesus what they should watch out for in order to be able to predict the time: When will these things happen to Jerusalem's Temple and buildings?
The very first thing Jesus said was "Do not be misled!" He didn't say it's inevitable that you will be misled out of feverish expectation. He gave them very specific instructions NOT to watch for signs of the time. Yes, the Temple would fall in their own generation, but whether early or late in that generation, he wouldn't say, and said he didn't know himself, anyway! He warned them specifically about watching out for signs that are related to great wars, or great earthquakes or great famines, pestilences, etc.
Yet, every single generation since Jesus said these words tries to find signs of the times in wars, earthquakes, pestilences, famines, etc.
 

2 Peter is especially comparing two different groups:
1. those who are keeping that day close in mind by preparing for the parousia by growing into the type of person they ought to be when that day arrives and appreciating that it will occur as a surprise at any time whether today or 1,000 years from now.
2. those who continue to live as they desire because it appears to them that parousia is never going to happen due to the delay of their expectations.
I was referring to persons who actually attempt a chronological prediction instead of humbly accepting that Jehovah may have his own timetable that does not belong to us. In fact, even from 2 Peter, it is still difficult to come to any other conclusion outside of arrogance and presumptuousness as the reasons that anyone would ignore the idea that, chronologically speaking, it will come as a surprise.

Good point. A brother once showed me a commentary in the Bethel Library published in the late 1700's or early 1800's that indicated it was a type of arrogance for every generation everyone to always believe that the last generation was going to be their own generation, and yet there have always been many who argued just that. I haven't been able to find that commentary yet, but it certainly fits the evidence.
The information below is from a book by a certain infamous "COJ," so read it at your own risk. During the time period when the Gentile Times were almost invariably associated with 1,260 years, note how most of the applications of those 1260 years were applied to a time that would end just a few years into the future (or a few years in the past such that a parallel period of 1290, or 1335 years would still extend the "end" into their own generation). There are only a couple of exceptions. For each set of three lines below, the numbers refer to the:
Name of author/expositor Approximate year of publication Years to which the 1,260 (or 1,290) days applied   Joachim of Floris 1195 1-1260   Arnold of Villanova 1300 c. 74-1364 (Gentile Times=1290 years)   Walter Brute 1393 134-1394   Martin Luther 1530 38-1328 (Gentile times =1290 years)   A. Osiander 1545 412-1672   J. Funck 1558 261-1521   G. Nigrinus 1570 441-1701   Aretius 1573 312-1572   John Napier 1593 316-1576   D. Pareus 1618 606-1866   J. Tillinghast 1655 396-1656   J. Artopaeus 1665 260-1520   Cocceius 1669 292-1552   T. Beverley 1684 437-1697   P. Jurieu 1687 454-1714   R. Fleming, Jr. 1701 552-1794 (1260 years of 360 days = 1242 Julian years)   R. Fleming, Jr. (adjusted) 1701 606-1848   William Whiston 1706 606-1866   Daubuz 1720 476-1736   J. Ph. Petri 1768 587-1847   Lowman 1770 756-2016   John Gill 1776 606-1866   Hans Wood 1787 620-1880   J. Bicheno 1793 529-1789   A. Fraser 1795 756-1998 (1242 Julian years)   George Bell 1796 537-1797   George Bell (adjusted) 1796 553-1813   Edward King 1798 538-1798   Galloway 1802 606-1849 (1242 Julian years)   W. Hales 1803 620-1880   G. S. Faber 1806 606-1866   W. Cuninghame 1813 533-1792   J. H. Frere 1815 533-1792   Lewis Way 1818 531-1791   W. C. Davis 1818 588-1848   J. Bayford 1820 529-1789   John Fry 1822 537-1797   John Aquila Brown 1823 622-1844