JW Insider

Sorry if that was misunderstood. When I said "that's funny" I was thinking about the fact that TTH was trying to get this Lincoln/Grant discussion away from JW Only forums and finally put in a general non-JW forum. On this "third" attempt to remove it from JW references, TTH mentioned John Brown, and I wondered if someone might confuse this John Brown with John Aquila Brown. I was afraid someone would say: "Wasn't John Brown the man who wrote about the Gentle Times?"
For anyone who isn't aware of how this ties to JW beliefs, John A. Brown is mentioned in the JW "history" book, that we often just call "Proclaimers," quoted below:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. ... He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
That brief and only mention of him in our publications has confused some into thinking that John A. Brown mentioned 1914. He never did. Based on the above "Proclaimers" quote, some Witnesses have also thought that at least "he did, however, connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24." He never did that either.
So far, the WTS has not corrected the misinformation.
To see what John A. Brown actually said, one can find the primary book about the topic here:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/BakZr75kBvYC?hl=en&gbpv=1
That's volume 1 of Even-Tide, above. Volume 2 is on Google Books, too, but it goes on to other topics:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/FokAQDtWwQgC?hl=en&gbpv=1
He also wrote this book:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Jew_the_Master_key_of_the_Apocalypse/NKPhpB9uKEUC
If anyone wishes to discuss his books, I can join. I've read two of them, and that discussion will be moved to a JW-related forum.

Yep. That's a big part of the point I was hoping to make.
J A Brown was likely a strong influence directly or indirectly on William Miller who accepted the 1844 date. Miller was very influential on Nelson Barbour who had been a Second Adventist follower of Miller, and Barbour was the one who added 1873 and 1914 to Miller's mix, similar to how J A Brown had previously added 1873 and 1917. And Barbour was obviously very influential on C T Russell who admits that he learned his chronology from Barbour. And of course, Rutherford and Franz learned it from Russell. 
J A Brown is therefore clearly a part of our own JW history. Which reminds me:
George Santayana: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Karl Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." (Romans 15:3, 4) . . .“The reproaches of those reproaching you have fallen upon me.” 4 For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction,. . .

Yep. That's a big part of the point I was hoping to make.
J A Brown was likely a strong influence directly or indirectly on William Miller who accepted the 1844 date. Miller was very influential on Nelson Barbour who had been a Second Adventist follower of Miller, and Barbour was the one who added 1873 and 1914 to Miller's mix, similar to how J A Brown had previously added 1873 and 1917. And Barbour was obviously very influential on C T Russell who admits that he learned his chronology from Barbour. And of course, Rutherford and Franz learned it from Russell. 
J A Brown is therefore clearly a part of our own JW history. Which reminds me:
George Santayana: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Karl Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." (Romans 15:3, 4) . . .“The reproaches of those reproaching you have fallen upon me.” 4 For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction,. . .

No. It's just that some people might still be confused about what J A Brown said. He never said that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 or 1917. It looks like you are confusing what Brown said about the "4 Tyrannies" (2,520 years) running for "7 times" starting with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar until 1917. You were probably led to believe that Brown considered those 7 times to be the Gentile Times. Of course, these could NOT be the Gentile Times, according to Brown, because for him, the Gentile Times were only 3.5 times (a time, 2 times, and a half a time), not 7 times.
Brown said that the Gentile Times started in AD 622 and would end in AD 1844. Brown said that the Gentile Times would be 1,260 years long: Brown said that AD 1844 would be the end of several different prophetic periods. The 1260 lunar years of Mohammedan (Muslim) Impostuture (from AD 622) The 1260 solar years of Papal claims to infallibility (from AD 584) The 2300 solar years of Jewish Polity & cleansing of the Sanctuary (from BC 457) The thought is repeated several times by Brown.

----------------

----------------

Just read several pages of his book. You'll see that this has nothing to do with theory. It's all pretty straightforward and he repeats a lot of the same things over and over again.
 

The sculptured Dendera zodiac (or Denderah zodiac) is a widely known Egyptian bas-relief from the ceiling of the pronaos (or portico) of a chapel dedicated to Osiris in the Hathor temple at Dendera, containing images of Taurus (the bull) and Libra (the scales). This chapel was begun in the late Ptolemaic period; its pronaos was added by the emperor Tiberius. This led Jean-François Champollion to date the relief to the Greco-Roman period, but most of his contemporaries believed it to be of the New Kingdom.
The relief, which John H. Rogers characterised as "the only complete map that we have of an ancient sky", has been conjectured to represent the basis on which later astronomy systems were based. It is now on display at the Musée du Louvre, Paris. D 38 Hall 12 bis In Egyptian mythology.
------------------------------------
Astrology had a big place in the art of divination from the second millennium BC when the Babylonian priests established the zodiac.
This term comes from a Greek word that means circle of animals. 
The signs do not correspond to the constellations, which earned them their original name.
The cult of the stars was particularly dominant in Babylon.
-----------------------------------
The servants of God took a strong stand against the cult of the stars. 
They shared the view of the Scriptures, seeing them as mere material bodies that do not dominate man but rather serve as lighting and benchmarks.
The faithful King Joshua "put out of business the foreign-god priests [...], those making sacrificial smoke to Ba´al, to the sun and to the moon and to the constellations of the zodiac." (2 Kings 23:5). This expression comes from the Hebrew word mazzalôth, plural, which appears only once in the Bible.
-----------------------------------
The signs of the zodiac were introduced in the cathedrals of Christendom, and in Paris can be seen on the portal and left around Mary in the huge central rose of Notre-Dame de Paris and Burgundy the facade of the Basilica of Vezelay. 
See more here

The points  I get from all of this discussion is that in the last two millennium, EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.
And there have been NO exceptions.

I wonder what you thought John Brown was right about, then, when you said "that doesn't mean he was wrong about 1914."
For the record John A Brown (in 1823) said that:
The end of the Gentile Times was going to be just a few years off, in the year AD 1844. The beginning of the Gentile Times was the start of Mohammedism (Muslims) in AD 622. The Gentile Times were 3 and 1/2 times in length, using the length Revelation 11:2 assigns to them. Multiple times he clarifies that the length of the Gentile Times in Luke21:24 = 1,260 (day/yrs) The reason this looks like only 1,222 [solar] years is because he uses "Mohammedan" lunar years So there is really nothing about John A Brown thinking there are "seven" Gentile Times. (Of course, the ONLY length of time that the Bible ever associates with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 is 1,260 days, so Brown uses that period in years.)
The completely separate 2,520 year period which he derives from Daniel 4 is a period he sets to the start of Nebuchadnezzar's first year of reign in 604 BCE. That would be the year to start the "head of gold" from the image found in Daniel 2  So to Brown it's unrelated to Jewish or Messianic rulership, or the destruction of the Temple about 18 or 19 years later (which Brown would have therefore associated with 587 or 586 BCE.)
And Brown never indicates that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 or 1917 or any time around World War I. He ends the Gentile Times in 1844. He ends Daniel's 1,290 day period in 1873. And he ends Daniel's 1,335 day period in 1917. Because all the periods started with the beginning of the Muslim Mohammedan religion in AD 622.
C.T.Russell and many other commentators had focused on the Papal and secular politics of the Holy Roman Empire, using only Solar years, and therefore had started the 1,260 "days" earlier and ended them in 1799. That made the 1,290 "days" end in 1829 and the 1,335 "days" end in 1874. J A Brown appears to be the first commentator to end the 2,300 days in 1844, which Adventists also accepted, both using solar years and starting around Ezra's time in 457 BC.

@Pudgy With respect to the so-called "overlapping generations," John A Brown had "solved" this (in 1823) by saying that Jesus was referring to the literal, physical "Nation of Israel." Curiously, his arguments also count on the fact that the natural nation of Israel would NEVER pass away, but would be restored at Armageddon in 1844, and would become a world empire, surviving the attack of Gog and Magog in 1873, and would reach its full and glorious realization in the entire world by the time of the second judgment in 1917. Some of this is similar to C.T.Russell's view in the Watchtower, and even Rutherford's view up until at least 1925, that the nation of Israel would gradually become the only surviving nation in the world, ruling from Jerusalem in Palestine.
A lot of Witnesses are not aware that C.T.Russell was a "world famous" Zionist according to some current Zionist historians. But Rutherford's last major support for Zionism was the book "Comfort for the Jews" in 1925, containing teachings that Rutherford dropped completely by 1930 (in the books, Light I and Light II).

I wonder what you thought John Brown was right about, then, when you said "that doesn't mean he was wrong about 1914."
For the record John A Brown (in 1823) said that:
The end of the Gentile Times was going to be just a few years off, in the year AD 1844. The beginning of the Gentile Times was the start of Mohammedism (Muslims) in AD 622. The Gentile Times were 3 and 1/2 times in length, using the length Revelation 11:2 assigns to them. Multiple times he clarifies that the length of the Gentile Times in Luke21:24 = 1,260 (day/yrs) The reason this looks like only 1,222 [solar] years is because he uses "Mohammedan" lunar years So there is really nothing about John A Brown thinking there are "seven" Gentile Times. (Of course, the ONLY length of time that the Bible ever associates with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 is 1,260 days, so Brown uses that period in years.)
The completely separate 2,520 year period which he derives from Daniel 4 is a period he sets to the start of Nebuchadnezzar's first year of reign in 604 BCE. That would be the year to start the "head of gold" from the image found in Daniel 2  So to Brown it's unrelated to Jewish or Messianic rulership, or the destruction of the Temple about 18 or 19 years later (which Brown would have therefore associated with 587 or 586 BCE.)
And Brown never indicates that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 or 1917 or any time around World War I. He ends the Gentile Times in 1844. He ends Daniel's 1,290 day period in 1873. And he ends Daniel's 1,335 day period in 1917. Because all the periods started with the beginning of the Muslim Mohammedan religion in AD 622.
C.T.Russell and many other commentators had focused on the Papal and secular politics of the Holy Roman Empire, using only Solar years, and therefore had started the 1,260 "days" earlier and ended them in 1799. That made the 1,290 "days" end in 1829 and the 1,335 "days" end in 1874. J A Brown appears to be the first commentator to end the 2,300 days in 1844, which Adventists also accepted, both using solar years and starting around Ezra's time in 457 BC.

@Pudgy With respect to the so-called "overlapping generations," John A Brown had "solved" this (in 1823) by saying that Jesus was referring to the literal, physical "Nation of Israel." Curiously, his arguments also count on the fact that the natural nation of Israel would NEVER pass away, but would be restored at Armageddon in 1844, and would become a world empire, surviving the attack of Gog and Magog in 1873, and would reach its full and glorious realization in the entire world by the time of the second judgment in 1917. Some of this is similar to C.T.Russell's view in the Watchtower, and even Rutherford's view up until at least 1925, that the nation of Israel would gradually become the only surviving nation in the world, ruling from Jerusalem in Palestine.
A lot of Witnesses are not aware that C.T.Russell was a "world famous" Zionist according to some current Zionist historians. But Rutherford's last major support for Zionism was the book "Comfort for the Jews" in 1925, containing teachings that Rutherford dropped completely by 1930 (in the books, Light I and Light II).

See?

Why? What happened in 1866?
 
2520 - 604 (+1) = 1917
2520 - 653 (+1) = 1866

Not nearly as interesting as Bullwinkle the Moose pulling a rinocerus out of a hat, but then again, it was the wrong hat.

Now that's funny!!

Whoops! You are right. I did indicate that I was taking about a month-long break way back around December 10th (on another part of the forum). It sure FEELS like it's been a month already.

“I will not run! If elected, I will not serve! I am not going to participate here at least to the end of the year. NOT! NOT! NOT! Get behind me Satan! You cannot tempt me for all the guns in Harpers Ferry!”
I’ve no doubt that when I mention Frederick Douglass there will be a Frederick A Douglas who served in the Antarctic Branch.

Sorry if that was misunderstood. When I said "that's funny" I was thinking about the fact that TTH was trying to get this Lincoln/Grant discussion away from JW Only forums and finally put in a general non-JW forum. On this "third" attempt to remove it from JW references, TTH mentioned John Brown, and I wondered if someone might confuse this John Brown with John Aquila Brown. I was afraid someone would say: "Wasn't John Brown the man who wrote about the Gentle Times?"
For anyone who isn't aware of how this ties to JW beliefs, John A. Brown is mentioned in the JW "history" book, that we often just call "Proclaimers," quoted below:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. ... He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
That brief and only mention of him in our publications has confused some into thinking that John A. Brown mentioned 1914. He never did. Based on the above "Proclaimers" quote, some Witnesses have also thought that at least "he did, however, connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24." He never did that either.
So far, the WTS has not corrected the misinformation.
To see what John A. Brown actually said, one can find the primary book about the topic here:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/BakZr75kBvYC?hl=en&gbpv=1
That's volume 1 of Even-Tide, above. Volume 2 is on Google Books, too, but it goes on to other topics:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/FokAQDtWwQgC?hl=en&gbpv=1
He also wrote this book:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Jew_the_Master_key_of_the_Apocalypse/NKPhpB9uKEUC
If anyone wishes to discuss his books, I can join. I've read two of them, and that discussion will be moved to a JW-related forum.

Sorry if that was misunderstood. When I said "that's funny" I was thinking about the fact that TTH was trying to get this Lincoln/Grant discussion away from JW Only forums and finally put in a general non-JW forum. On this "third" attempt to remove it from JW references, TTH mentioned John Brown, and I wondered if someone might confuse this John Brown with John Aquila Brown. I was afraid someone would say: "Wasn't John Brown the man who wrote about the Gentle Times?"
For anyone who isn't aware of how this ties to JW beliefs, John A. Brown is mentioned in the JW "history" book, that we often just call "Proclaimers," quoted below:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. ... He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
That brief and only mention of him in our publications has confused some into thinking that John A. Brown mentioned 1914. He never did. Based on the above "Proclaimers" quote, some Witnesses have also thought that at least "he did, however, connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24." He never did that either.
So far, the WTS has not corrected the misinformation.
To see what John A. Brown actually said, one can find the primary book about the topic here:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/BakZr75kBvYC?hl=en&gbpv=1
That's volume 1 of Even-Tide, above. Volume 2 is on Google Books, too, but it goes on to other topics:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/FokAQDtWwQgC?hl=en&gbpv=1
He also wrote this book:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Jew_the_Master_key_of_the_Apocalypse/NKPhpB9uKEUC
If anyone wishes to discuss his books, I can join. I've read two of them, and that discussion will be moved to a JW-related forum.

I’m not reading up on Lincoln anymore. I’m reading up on Grant. Pudgy would like both, I think and may already be well-versed. They both were raised in lowly circumstances. They both were unusually humble and defenders of the lowly. They both were continually sneered at by elites. They both made emancipation of slaves their chief mission. And they both . . . wait for it  . .  found occasion to suspect habeas corpus. 
I have a younger relative who is libertarian. By far, that is his overriding philosophy, motivating everything he does. The first factoid he ever learned about Lincoln was his suspension of habeas corpus. That was enough for him to permanently put Lincoln on his evil-person list. From there, he immediately bought into the invective that Lincoln didn’t give two hoots about freeing slaves—his sole concern was preservation of the union.
In fact, from the very beginning, Lincoln purposed that quenching the ‘rebellion’—such it was called at the time—would go hand in glove with destroying the

institution of slavery. But he could not just outright say it. He knew he had to first build a consensus. Many were the northern abolitionists who did outright say it, and they were immediately marginalized into a minority camp. Minorities don’t win at the human game of government. William Seward (by far the front runner leading up to 1860–everyone supposed hewould be president, not Lincoln) also did say it, giving a lofty speech invoking a “higher law.” Not only was he marginalized by those to whom the sole mission of freeing slaves was insufficient motivation, but he was alsomarginalized by those who supposed there was no higher law other than the human experiment of ‘government by the people.’
The only way Lincoln’s Emancipation would fly in all the North, not just with the abolitionists, was for him to sell it as a military strategy. White northern troops fretted over who would mind the household while they were gone. White southern troops had no such concerns; their slaves could keep things humming. Free those slaves and the playing field was leveled. In fact, it was more than leveled: those slaves would begin to conspire against their masters.
Two sacrosanct, as human principles go—standards of justice took front and center stage in the Civil War years: state’s rights and habeas corpus. I can imagine Pudgy railing against any infringement of either:
”Tyranny …. in soft measured voices, done in secret, and with powdered silk gloves is STILL TYRANNY.”
Oh yeah, I can easily see it! And I’d tend to agree, in a relative sense—but only a relative sense. Fact is, such lofty human principles stood squarely in the way of a far greater good: the liberation of hundreds of thousands of enslaved people. Robert E Lee personally loathed slavery. He had never owned a slave. But he took up the call of what he considered even more sacred. ‘State’s rights’ became the clarion call for him. Consequently, he signed on to command Southern troops, enshrining slavery as the ‘right’ of the state to decide, not some meddling Union to impose their standards from afar.
‘Man is dominating man to his injury’—even (and in this case, due to) when they run by their own self-invented concepts of justice. In the greater removed picture, looked at from our time, only the elimination of slavery matters. One Union should split into two? It’s like Bud said when he threw away the anti-rattle clip he couldn’t figure out how to reinstall—“What’s more rattle on a Ford?” So it is with human self-government. What’s one more division of mankind in a sea of many divisions?
Here the two bedrock principles of American justice, habeas corpus and state’s rights, stood squarely in the way of real justice for hundreds of thousand of Blacks—for Whites too, for that matter, since Jefferson wrote of the South: “The parent storms [in domination of his slaves]; the child looks on . . . puts on the same airs . . . and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, can not but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities.” 
One is reminded (a bone for science-fiction aficionados) of ‘Childhood’s End, in which the alien overlords paid no attention whatsoever to ‘state’s rights,’ immediately and decisively ending the cruel spectator sport of bullfighting. 
Lincolns’ suspension of habeas corpus was a measure he deemed essential to preserve the Union, which action would enable the freeing of slaves. Certain journalists were openly encouraging desertion from the Northern army. ‘I should shoot some guileless plowboy deserter and not the guileful propagandist who induced him to do so?’ he posed.
Grant’s suspension of habeas corpus during his presidency is more directly connected with the welfare of Blacks than was Lincoln’s. In the early days of Johnson’s presidency, the Ku Klux Klan arose. Reports were that it commanded the active participation of 2/3 of southern Democrats whites, and the tacit participation of the other third. By many measures, Blacks were worse off than during slavery. The white aristocracy manipulated them into situations just as oppressive but with no obligation to provide for them.
Unspeakable and well-documented atrocities became routine. Not only might blacks be easily beaten or killed, but also white Republican southerners who aligned with them. Murderers could not be brought to justice. Witnesses were too intimidated to speak out, and with good reason; no jury of peers would convict Klansmen, and the retribution against witnesses would be severe. Grant sent in federal judges, and suspended habeas corpus in enough instances that Klansmen would turn upon each other in efforts to get off or gain lighter sentences for the crimes that a non-federal judge would excuse. Within a few years, he had broken the back of the Klan. It’s later reemergence is in name and ideology only (just as Baal worship kept coming back, even though guys like Elijah would clean it out from time to time.)
Habeas corpus and state’s rights—noble as far as human principles go, but not a guarantee that evil cannot, not only exist, but prevail. 
Anyone thinking that God works through America (or any other country—America being the only topic of consideration here) is invited to look at the Andrew Johnson administration. “Be Like Abe” flies, as does (to a lesser degree, but still doable) “Be Like Ulysses,” but not “Be Like Andrew.”
By the end of the war, Abraham Lincoln succeeded in bringing justice to blacks. Andrew Johnson undid it all. Grant’s work was to undo the damage that Johnson had wrought and he largely succeeded. What justice might have prevailed if Lincoln had been immediately succeeded by Grant, with no Johnson in between? 
Like Lincoln and Grant, Johnson too was brought up in lowly circumstances. He too was a self-made man. There the similarities end. Johnson was intensely racist. He was intensely vindictive (at first) to the former Confederacy, favoring severe punishment (akin to that imposed on Germany after WWI?) in contrast, Lincoln had been completely non-vengeful. Worse, vengeance was personal with Johnson. Vengefulness was a way of getting back at the aristocratic elites who had ridiculed and looked down upon him all his life. Northern abolitionists, who also (unlike Lincoln and Grant) favored harsh punishment for the South, at first thought they had found an ally in Johnson. But in fairly short order, he gave up despising the southern white aristocrats, and began kissing up to them, as though hoping to be anointed king of their club, his racist orientation a perfect match for theirs. 
God works through human governments? What if there had been no Johnson, and Lincoln’s ideals carried directly over to Grant. Shortly after the war, General Grant’s man told local transport companies in New Orleans that if they continued their practice of segregation, he would ban all that company’s cars from the road. According to Ron Chernow, author of Grant, “once the original hubbub over desegregated streetcars subsided, the locals had cheerfully adopted the new system and the excitement died out at once.” Chernow cites it as an example of the “startling early revolution in civil rights [that] would be all but forgotten by later generations of Americans.” What if Johnson had not come along to poison the well? Don’t you think if God ran the show through human government, he would not have?
A little bit on roll here. Sorry. I just wanted to kick back a little at those who think human standards of justice from the Founding Fathers are the bee’s knees. They're better than their absence, generally speaking, but sometimes they get in the way of true justice. 

I was cleaning out old papers today and came across a final exam. I'll post a picture in a minute.
 

I received this joke today from my sister in Afrikaans - I hope it translates ok. 
Peter passed his driver's license and said to his father that he would like to have his own car.  His father said: "fine",  if you push up all your school marks from a symbol C to an average of B; read the bible daily; and have a haircut.
A few months later his son comes back and says that he had pushed up his school marks and read the bible daily.  So his dad said: what about the haircut? 
Peter started talking about his bible studies and mentioned all the Bible characters who had long hair: Samson, Absalom, Moses, John the Baptist and said that he is just about sure the disciples of Jesus also had long hair.....  so could he now have the car?
The father replied:  Did you notice in your bible studies that all of them walked where they wanted to go?🤣
 

I was cleaning out old papers today and came across a final exam. I'll post a picture in a minute.
 

Found a close version of it:
Instructions: Read each question carefully. Answer all questions. Time limit -- 4 hours. Begin immediately.
HISTORY: Describe the history of the papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially but not exclusively, on its social, political,economic, religious and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America and Africa. Be brief, concise and specific.
MEDICINE: You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze and a bottle of scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until your work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.
PUBLIC SPEAKING: 2,500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.
BIOLOGY: create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this form of life had developed 500 million year earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English parliamentary system. Prove your thesis.
MUSIC: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.
PSYCHOLOGY: Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ramses II, Gregory of Nicea, Hammurabi. Support your evaluation with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.
SOCIOLOGY: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your theory.
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE: Define management. Define Science. How do they relate?
COMPUTER SCIENCE: create a generalized algorithm to optimize all managerial decisions. Assuming and 1130 CPU supporting 50 terminals, each terminal to activate your algorithm; design the communications interface and all necessary control programs.
ENGINEERING: The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed in a box on your desk. You will also find and instruction manual, printed in Swahili. In ten minutes a hungry Bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel appropriate. Be prepared to justify your decision.
ECONOMICS: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan in the following areas: cubism, the donatist controversy, the wave theory of light. Outline a method for preventing the effects. Criticize this method from all possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the last question.
POLITICAL SCIENCE: There is a red phone on the desk beside you. Start World War III. Report at length on its socio-political effects, if any.
EPISTEMOLOGY: Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your position.
...
PHILOSOPHY: Sketch the development of human thought; estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.
GENERAL KNOWLEDGE: Describe in detail. Be objective and specific.
EXTRA CREDIT: Define the universe; give three examples.
http://www.mit.edu/people/dmredish/wwwMLRF/links/Humor/The_Exam.html

Found a close version of it:
Instructions: Read each question carefully. Answer all questions. Time limit -- 4 hours. Begin immediately.
HISTORY: Describe the history of the papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially but not exclusively, on its social, political,economic, religious and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America and Africa. Be brief, concise and specific.
MEDICINE: You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze and a bottle of scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until your work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.
PUBLIC SPEAKING: 2,500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.
BIOLOGY: create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this form of life had developed 500 million year earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English parliamentary system. Prove your thesis.
MUSIC: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.
PSYCHOLOGY: Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ramses II, Gregory of Nicea, Hammurabi. Support your evaluation with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.
SOCIOLOGY: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your theory.
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE: Define management. Define Science. How do they relate?
COMPUTER SCIENCE: create a generalized algorithm to optimize all managerial decisions. Assuming and 1130 CPU supporting 50 terminals, each terminal to activate your algorithm; design the communications interface and all necessary control programs.
ENGINEERING: The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed in a box on your desk. You will also find and instruction manual, printed in Swahili. In ten minutes a hungry Bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel appropriate. Be prepared to justify your decision.
ECONOMICS: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan in the following areas: cubism, the donatist controversy, the wave theory of light. Outline a method for preventing the effects. Criticize this method from all possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the last question.
POLITICAL SCIENCE: There is a red phone on the desk beside you. Start World War III. Report at length on its socio-political effects, if any.
EPISTEMOLOGY: Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your position.
...
PHILOSOPHY: Sketch the development of human thought; estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.
GENERAL KNOWLEDGE: Describe in detail. Be objective and specific.
EXTRA CREDIT: Define the universe; give three examples.
http://www.mit.edu/people/dmredish/wwwMLRF/links/Humor/The_Exam.html