JW Insider

Please explain the difference between the first part of that scripture and the second part. After all there is an "AND" between the two parts so we should be able to understand both the first portion AND the second portion.
The first part says that one day with Jehovah is as a thousand years. That should be pretty easy. It would mean that one 24-hour day to a man is like 1000-years with Jehovah. Obviously it doesn't mean that Jehovah is 365,000 times slower than humans (as some people consider slowness). Perhaps it could imply that Jehovah can easily manage 1,000 years worth of heavenly accomplishments in a human's 24-hour period of earthly doings.
Then the second part seems to say the opposite: that 1,000 years of human, earthly doings is like only one day to Jehovah. It's mostly the second part of the verse that Peter is apparently using to show why that final judgment parousia had not begun yet, and why people were already, in those last days, ridiculing the parousia expectations during that first century.
But when we take both those ideas together, we see that it is really saying that Jehovah is outside of human time restrictions. It's not about giving us a formula that only relies on the second part of the verse. We can't just select only the part that seems useful to our theories. We have to take the whole Bible, where both these statements are true:
24 hours seems like 1,000 years to Jehovah   (1:365,000) 1,000 years seems like 24 hours to Jehovah   (365,000:1)

In this instance he was speaking figuratively of his BODY - not the congregation or the millennial reign.   
 
Read verse 21 and you will see Jesus was talking about his personal body -  " "21 but he was talking about the temple of his body".  As I said before' one cannot use this reference to the most sacred event to refer to his reign. 
 
Out of context because Jehovah spoke about the restoring of his people after genuine repentance NOT about millennial end of times.   "he struck us but he will bind out wounds, He will revive us after two days, on the third day he will raise us up.  We know that the number two and three has significance for the assurance that it will happen. When did Jehovah struck Christian believers down?   However, he did strike Israel when he allowed them to be exiled.
Now this comparison I can agree with because you are comparing concrete numbers and a specific timed event.  It may apply - but Jehovah is going to cut the time short in order to save some..... so Armageddon can come at any time between today and the date you are giving - which is derived from the flood event.

…

I appreciate that you finally fixed part of your mistake.
In the past few years you kept insisting that this quote about 1914 +120 years came from Russell himself. Later, you reworded slightly to make it look like it came from the beliefs of Russell himself. Now you finally admit above that it comes from the "International Bible Students Association." It doesn't of course. As I documented for you already, it's just a recent quote from a modern-day Russellite-styled "Bible Student" (not the IBSA) who still hopes to protect Russell's reputation against the  the failure of those old 1914 predictions.
The man you are quoting from is just another Internet forum contributor and writer, probably much like yourself, who would love to see that 1914 still has some specific significance to the "generation that will not pass away." I suspect that, like a lot of us, you see the folly of the word-game that some of the brothers (like Brother Splane) have begun playing with the multiple overlapping lifespans that make the length of that generation "fuzzy." You want to see 1914 become a clearer demarcation point that still plays a direct role in Bible prophecy.
Our publications admit that all the various teachings we had about the "generation" from 1879 to about 2009 were incorrect teachings. A lot of Witnesses I have talked to, still want those old statements to be correct, even if it means stretching things a bit. I still hear a Witness now and then say that there have been persons in Siberia that lived to be 120.
At least you are not emphasizing the possibility of a 120-year lifespan. I think a lot of Witnesses don't understand that by trying to hold to 1914 this way, they are really just making a mockery out of Jesus words. This idea that at least one person might have been born in 1914 and live to the year 2034 implies that Jesus was really saying something like this:
When you start to see all these things occurring, lift up your heads and rejoice, because all of you will be dead, except for maybe one of you. And if that one 120-year old person endures to the end, he will be saved. He will also be very thankful that the days of tribulation were cut short on account of the chosen one, him.

It just jars with me to use the resurrection of Jesus as a definite time table for future events.  You see, not one person on earth can compare their life with that of Jesus.  He is absolutely unique.  Most of us who want to live through to the "rest" period of 1000 years made possible by Jehovah  under rulership of his Son, will not be anointed. Many of us may live through and not need a resurrection,  and will live on earth - not heaven.
The "sign of Jonah" has already taken place (fulfilled in Jesus) and nowhere is there mention in the scriptures that the sign of Jonah will appear again. It relates only to Jesus. 
Now when you talk of the flood - and last days are in many ways like the flood - that time table I may accept with a pinch of salt.  1914 + 120 = 134
We are so close now to the UN taking power over from the world authorities to bring Health security, environment security and financial security...... And we know from bible prophecy that UN will rule for one hour with ten new kings. .....
That one hour may be 12 years or it may be shorter.   Remember, Jehovah is the one who decides the exact day and hour.  So, for now ....  I wait and see.....   Hunger is looming, more pestilences are looming, natural phenomena - disasters - are looming....  and in human society the biggest earthquake ever.... is looming! 
I went back to Hosea 6 - and I can see you took the scripture out of context.  This is about unfaithful Israel and Juda, how they must repent and return to be healed.   I think one should not just quote the one verse as if it pertains to the beginning of the millennium: 
Come, and let us return to Jehovah,
For he has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us.
He struck us, but he will bind our wounds.
 2 He will revive us after two days.
On the third day he will raise us up,
And we will live before him."
 
I a with you on this - we should be awake and look for the signs that are clear from the scriptures.  
 

Thank you for this. Yes it just shows the stupidity of it all.  We all know the end of this old system is coming
BUT NONE OF US KNOWS WHEN.  Keep on the watch, YES. Make up false predictions NO. 

I appreciate that you finally fixed part of your mistake.
In the past few years you kept insisting that this quote about 1914 +120 years came from Russell himself. Later, you reworded slightly to make it look like it came from the beliefs of Russell himself. Now you finally admit above that it comes from the "International Bible Students Association." It doesn't of course. As I documented for you already, it's just a recent quote from a modern-day Russellite-styled "Bible Student" (not the IBSA) who still hopes to protect Russell's reputation against the  the failure of those old 1914 predictions.
The man you are quoting from is just another Internet forum contributor and writer, probably much like yourself, who would love to see that 1914 still has some specific significance to the "generation that will not pass away." I suspect that, like a lot of us, you see the folly of the word-game that some of the brothers (like Brother Splane) have begun playing with the multiple overlapping lifespans that make the length of that generation "fuzzy." You want to see 1914 become a clearer demarcation point that still plays a direct role in Bible prophecy.
Our publications admit that all the various teachings we had about the "generation" from 1879 to about 2009 were incorrect teachings. A lot of Witnesses I have talked to, still want those old statements to be correct, even if it means stretching things a bit. I still hear a Witness now and then say that there have been persons in Siberia that lived to be 120.
At least you are not emphasizing the possibility of a 120-year lifespan. I think a lot of Witnesses don't understand that by trying to hold to 1914 this way, they are really just making a mockery out of Jesus words. This idea that at least one person might have been born in 1914 and live to the year 2034 implies that Jesus was really saying something like this:
When you start to see all these things occurring, lift up your heads and rejoice, because all of you will be dead, except for maybe one of you. And if that one 120-year old person endures to the end, he will be saved. He will also be very thankful that the days of tribulation were cut short on account of the chosen one, him.

You know, this is helpful. It really is. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve grabbed a jar on the store shelf hastily only to be disappointed back home because what I really wanted was another derivative of the stuff.

Jelly is gelled fruit juice.
Jam is gelled fruit juice + pulp/puree
Preserves are gelled fruit juice + actual chunks of fruit.
 

I appreciate that you finally fixed part of your mistake.
In the past few years you kept insisting that this quote about 1914 +120 years came from Russell himself. Later, you reworded slightly to make it look like it came from the beliefs of Russell himself. Now you finally admit above that it comes from the "International Bible Students Association." It doesn't of course. As I documented for you already, it's just a recent quote from a modern-day Russellite-styled "Bible Student" (not the IBSA) who still hopes to protect Russell's reputation against the  the failure of those old 1914 predictions.
The man you are quoting from is just another Internet forum contributor and writer, probably much like yourself, who would love to see that 1914 still has some specific significance to the "generation that will not pass away." I suspect that, like a lot of us, you see the folly of the word-game that some of the brothers (like Brother Splane) have begun playing with the multiple overlapping lifespans that make the length of that generation "fuzzy." You want to see 1914 become a clearer demarcation point that still plays a direct role in Bible prophecy.
Our publications admit that all the various teachings we had about the "generation" from 1879 to about 2009 were incorrect teachings. A lot of Witnesses I have talked to, still want those old statements to be correct, even if it means stretching things a bit. I still hear a Witness now and then say that there have been persons in Siberia that lived to be 120.
At least you are not emphasizing the possibility of a 120-year lifespan. I think a lot of Witnesses don't understand that by trying to hold to 1914 this way, they are really just making a mockery out of Jesus words. This idea that at least one person might have been born in 1914 and live to the year 2034 implies that Jesus was really saying something like this:
When you start to see all these things occurring, lift up your heads and rejoice, because all of you will be dead, except for maybe one of you. And if that one 120-year old person endures to the end, he will be saved. He will also be very thankful that the days of tribulation were cut short on account of the chosen one, him.

On June 4, our local NPR station broadcast some BBC interviews about the fact that this year, and for the last 3 years, no public vigil/memorial was allowed on the anniversary of the "Tiananmen Square Massacre." The last two years, officials used Covid as the excuse, but this year it was clearly more than just Covid or any other pox at play. But as I listened, I almost had to laugh at the BBC interviewer who had found a person who spoke good English decrying the new rule about memorials/vigils this year. The man agreed that it was wrong to stop the memorials, and then he was asked if he thought his life or at least his freedom was in danger for giving the interview. The interviewee fumbled for a bit, knowing what the interviewer wanted, but very nicely told him that as a Chinese person he still has leeway to speak about it, but that it was still wrong for the government to disallow the actual memorial events, because it's a part of history he remembered as a child, and he wants his children never to forget it.
The program cut to a replay of the BBC reporting way back from that day in 1989, and I noticed something odd in the exact wording of the report when the announcer said: "We are heading toward the Square now, and we can hear gunfire coming from not far away." This was actually one of the accurate reports, because, while there were protests on the Square that became violent, that gunfire wasn't coming from the Square but was many blocks away from the Square.
The explanation is presented very simply in a "Tweet" from someone who just got banned from Twitter for it, even though it is true, but almost never reported this way in the West. This is the way some journalists on the spot at the time also reported it, until the Western narrative changed and the numbers of dead also had to be multiplied drastically.

….. my original post.

Instantly you have put your finger on the rot underlying this system of things. You will never know if they are or not, unless you spend a lifetime of searching, and even then you may be mislead. A dozen liars spin things a dozen ways, to conform to a dozen vested interests, and no way are you going to uncover it—though you may think you do.

The Propaganda is getting insane by the day. I'm on break now but this semester, the mentality for most concerning Ukraine is absolute bonkers, so much so people who say other would refer to these people as radicalized. One of my professors dyed his hair blue/yellow to support Ukraine.
But so far I have been looking more into the history, and I saw that this all traces back, well most of it, to former Ukraine president Viktor Yanukovych, and the Euro Madian riots of 2014, and the Donbas War.
What makes this even more concerning, I did see some Ukrainian (and Ukrainian Americans) sport the Azov Battalion insignia on a part of their clothing or bag. Then there is the unnecessary hate for Russians because of Putin.
Arauna and SM mentioned Russia's allies and it looks like they are making moves too it seems.
What I find interesting is I had seen others who are not one of JWs refering to Russia (since they are friends with Syria) as the King of the North.
Even tho you can ignore all this stuff, it still has an effect indirectly and it's big time. My cousin was angry because of gas prices, just to fill up he pays close to $100+ now which is crazy. Thank goodness I rarely use my car lol 😆 

About a week ago, and then yesterday, too, two different persons asked me some "legitimate" questions about things that were already said on this topic. I had hoped to turn the topic away from the book itself and just discuss more general issues about early Bible Student history.
I also realize that a lot of false claims have been made. By not even trying to respond, it might give the impression that I agree with the false claims. I probably shouldn't feel this way, but somehow it just seems dishonest to start a discussion and then allow so many false statements to go without any comment.
But WalterPrescott is correct that the particular book I brought up here is really mostly going over material that has been hashed and rehashed before. Nothing terribly new here, even if it's a pretty comprehensive and detailed historical review which can now be found in one place instead of going off to dozens of separate resources.
So, I think my best compromise would be to go ahead and answer the questions that have come up both here and through PM's. Also, since some people are offended by the book, or its author, I will forget the book and just give an overview based on the same historical resources and evidence that we can all find, many of which have already been brought here and elsewhere on the forum over the last few years.
I'm not saying I'll do this right away, but I will probably get around to starting it in several days.

Thanks for that information. There have been reports here on the forum from a Witness in Poland. Some activity on Twitter also relates to Witnesses leaving Ukraine. Also, the latest reports on jw.org have more information about relief efforts and Ukrainian Witnesses who have fled their homes, and the country.
UPDATE #7 | Brotherly Love Prevails Amid Ongoing Crisis in Ukraine
Brothers Courageously Deliver Aid, Rescue Others in Ukrainian War Zone

Persecution, from Jewish religious leaders at first, and Romans soon after, can also act as a unifying force, and creates a lot of publicity and concern over who these people are and exactly what is the claim against them.
There were a lot of prejudices, I think, in the Roman empire against Jews in some circles (and many of the Christians were treated as if the same as Jews). But Romans also put up with a lot of religious variety, including some "novel" ones, and many found the Jewish religion very appealing too. (Probably due to its sense of historical purpose, and better-documented claims of ancient origins, and a more rational story of creation than the Greek/Roman pantheons.)
Also, I think that the Christian variety of Judaism was one that some Roman political leaders did have a use for. It taught peace and cooperation with the political rulers, right up to the point where they wanted to force the worship of pagan gods or forbid the Christians their preaching ministry. If the Romans would learn not to push them too far, they were ideal citizens. 
Maybe not most, but the Greek mindset of the elites often found the idea of listening to new ideas (seedpickers) appealing.
I'd have to agree. This must have been a big thing in the first century. Although Christianity began reporting huge numbers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when we assume that these gifts had already faded to near non-existence.
It's possible, like some scholars claim, that the quick growth of Christianity outside "Palestine" was based on the appeal to wealthier Greek/Roman proselytes to Judaism. A lot of the synagogue funds for the Jewish diaspora had been coming from these families who had found Judaism appealing. But now a new version of Judaism had developed that had all the appeal of Judaism, but with a more urgent purpose, vibrant "living" beliefs, a much more appealing "Lord" and an imminent solution to political problems and injustices. And no pressure to circumcise!!!
The movie "Agora" (2009) doesn't claim to explain Christianity's rise in the early centuries, but it's historically sound enough to give us a good idea that the appeal for many adherents was more economic than spiritual. Christianity, to them, was a socialist revolution, with enough wealthy adherents to cover the needs of the poorest, through re-distribution.
(This probably doesn't belong to the Rutherford topic either, but ...)

Several more posts were just moved here from the Rutherford topic.

From your very first posts on this topic until now, many of your posts have contained claims that apparently have no evidence to back them up. And so many of the sources you have been quoting are merely the same sources that contradict your claims. Perhaps you could start explaining the reasons you make claims that appear to be the exact opposite of where the evidence leads. I know you like to point out how others are distorting nearly everything on this topic, but you never point out any specifics. Also, when you just make claims without any evidence, it could be that your own claims are just as distorted, or even more so. Just something to consider.
For example, why not start with your above claim that the board of directors weren't a legitimate body under the law. Where did you get that idea?

All the non-Christians (who would soon learn to become Christians as the millennium progressed). Of course this would be after the then-imminent rapture of the rest of the 144000. Then the left-behind Christians would likely die off normally and get their lesser heavenly reward over the next few years as they each met their own natural or circumstantial death.

No problem there. For several years, only the anointed were called "Jehovah's witnesses." For Rutherford, it was the way that the types and anti-types worked out for the identification of Israel in Isaiah 43. They were not to speak of a member of the "Other Sheep," "Great Crowd," as Jehovah's witnesses.
Russell had previously discussed the verse and presented it nearly the same way, saying that it meant that all true Christians would be called true Israelites, the Israel of God.
Russell's comments:
[Isa. 43:7] "Called by my name —Israel means "People of God" and the name will ultimately apply to all who are his. " .
. .  Those who thus covenant with God are begotten of the spirit of God, and as many such as are thenceforth led of the spirit of God, they are the recognized sons of God (Rom. 8:14)
But Russell considered the "Great Crowd" to also be a heavenly class, and anointed, just not the antitype of the more consecrated priestly Israelites: the Bride/Body that made up the 144,000. Russell's views on Isaiah 43 were confusing, however, because he was a Zionist who believed that the Jews were already returning to Palestine, setting up to make earthly Jerusalem the administrative capital of the world.
[Isa. 43:5] Gather thee —As certain as this prophecy has been fulfilled in the preservation of down-trodden Israel in all lands, so certain will it be fulfilled in their restoration to their own land. R232:5*
Rutherford gave up on Russell's Zionist views around 1930, opening the way for a clearer understanding of spiritual Israel. And a clearer understanding of Isaiah 43.

1914 is a good case in point. I'm interested in how our chronology traditions developed, and how these teachings were justified, and changed, and re-justified, with both secular mistakes, and Biblical interpretion mistakes. But I'm not interested in anecdotes about the personalities of those people who carried on and defended the chronology traditions. Those traditions (1844, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1925) either stand or fall on whether they had Biblical support. The human and secular support, or lack thereof, is far less relevant. The point should not be to embarrass Wm Miller, Nelson Barbour, Joseph Seiss, Charles Russell, Morton Edgar, or Joseph Rutherford, but to check such teachings against the Bible "touchstone."

I don't follow the "Org," I appreciate the organization for how it has been instrumental in currently helping millions of people build their faith on a solid foundation: faith in Jehovah, Christ Jesus, and the words and teachings of the Bible. I appreciate that it very efficiently and effectively has been instrumental in teaching tens of millions more, and getting the word out to hundreds of millions. (I.e., setting an example for preaching and teaching "good news" about a time under the Kingdom when there will be no more war, no more divisive politics, no more racism, and a time when Jehovah's provisions will make all things new, returning heaven and earth to His original purpose.)
I don't believe we need worry too much about the history of an organization, as if that is what Jesus meant by building on a solid foundation. What the organization was back between, say, 1884 and 1935, or even between 1935 and 2021 is also not of such great concern to me. I'm interested in the history mostly to the extent that I want to make sure that what we currently teach about that history is accurate and not distorted.
I have other interests in history, more generally, because I find it fascinating. Not just religious history, but all kinds of history. I always learn about various mundane themes (sociology, class, leadership, politics, psychology) that seem relevant as historical situations tend to be repeated.
Also, my great-grandfather was a "Pilgrim" in the Chicago Bible Students who traveled with Russell to speak at conventions, and he continued on under Rutherford. He said that most of the Chicago Bible Students were "Russellites," as he himself had been, and most of them left under Rutherford. Some of his "brethren" had left even earlier. Some had left in 1909 over doctrinal issues (New Covenant, "The Vow") some in 1914 and 1915 over failed predictions and expectations. So I admit that some family stories and "artifacts" of the Bible Student era hold my interest for more mundane reasons, too.
Even if the original organization had been no more than another faction of Catholicism or Protestantism that didn't believe in Trinity, Hellfire or War, that would be more than enough of a good start. My only expectation, historically, is that it would continue to progress, to put off more and more false teachings. Then we should find some evidence of Jehovah's blessing as it should attract more people who are looking for a kind of Christianity with a reasonable core of Biblical values and therefore find a brotherhood that encourages and promotes Christian conduct and activities. But the foundation is Christ, not the Organization. 

I don't follow the "Org," I appreciate the organization for how it has been instrumental in currently helping millions of people build their faith on a solid foundation: faith in Jehovah, Christ Jesus, and the words and teachings of the Bible. I appreciate that it very efficiently and effectively has been instrumental in teaching tens of millions more, and getting the word out to hundreds of millions. (I.e., setting an example for preaching and teaching "good news" about a time under the Kingdom when there will be no more war, no more divisive politics, no more racism, and a time when Jehovah's provisions will make all things new, returning heaven and earth to His original purpose.)
I don't believe we need worry too much about the history of an organization, as if that is what Jesus meant by building on a solid foundation. What the organization was back between, say, 1884 and 1935, or even between 1935 and 2021 is also not of such great concern to me. I'm interested in the history mostly to the extent that I want to make sure that what we currently teach about that history is accurate and not distorted.
I have other interests in history, more generally, because I find it fascinating. Not just religious history, but all kinds of history. I always learn about various mundane themes (sociology, class, leadership, politics, psychology) that seem relevant as historical situations tend to be repeated.
Also, my great-grandfather was a "Pilgrim" in the Chicago Bible Students who traveled with Russell to speak at conventions, and he continued on under Rutherford. He said that most of the Chicago Bible Students were "Russellites," as he himself had been, and most of them left under Rutherford. Some of his "brethren" had left even earlier. Some had left in 1909 over doctrinal issues (New Covenant, "The Vow") some in 1914 and 1915 over failed predictions and expectations. So I admit that some family stories and "artifacts" of the Bible Student era hold my interest for more mundane reasons, too.
Even if the original organization had been no more than another faction of Catholicism or Protestantism that didn't believe in Trinity, Hellfire or War, that would be more than enough of a good start. My only expectation, historically, is that it would continue to progress, to put off more and more false teachings. Then we should find some evidence of Jehovah's blessing as it should attract more people who are looking for a kind of Christianity with a reasonable core of Biblical values and therefore find a brotherhood that encourages and promotes Christian conduct and activities. But the foundation is Christ, not the Organization. 

1914 is a good case in point. I'm interested in how our chronology traditions developed, and how these teachings were justified, and changed, and re-justified, with both secular mistakes, and Biblical interpretion mistakes. But I'm not interested in anecdotes about the personalities of those people who carried on and defended the chronology traditions. Those traditions (1844, 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1925) either stand or fall on whether they had Biblical support. The human and secular support, or lack thereof, is far less relevant. The point should not be to embarrass Wm Miller, Nelson Barbour, Joseph Seiss, Charles Russell, Morton Edgar, or Joseph Rutherford, but to check such teachings against the Bible "touchstone."