AllenSmith

The chronology, interpretation, speculation   CAUTION The following discussion make reference to one of the "cornerstones" of the understanding of the "faithful and discreet slave". Since the author is not going to create a stumbling block for anyone, let alone create divisions, the reader is invited to consider carefully whether you want to read on. Continue or not to continue, therefore, it will only be a personal decision. An even better thing that we could do all: open the Bible and compare all the scriptures quoted or cited and evaluate, in conscience, whether its topics are logical and consistent with the Word of God         All you have read about the prophecy of the "seventy weeks" reported in the book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy!" (Chapter 11) is worthy of attention and shows how the word of God is accurate and reliable even when ruling prophecies very distant in time. And 'historical accuracy was also evident and numerous scriptural references that gave weight and credibility to the whole matter. Anyone who approaches the Word of God without preconceptions can not help but be impressed by this demonstration of the power and wisdom from God. The explanation of the 70 weeks is beyond reproach, but can the same be said of other prophecies? What about those calculations on which many of us have based their hopes of a lifetime and who clashed with criticism of the majority? We are talking of 1914. This is also a prophecy of Daniel? This too was treated with the same wonderful accuracy of the seventy weeks we just read? Although it may not be easy, we try to be very objective because they understand or not understand the prophecy, like the rest of God's Word, can make a big difference for our eternal future - John 17: 3; 2 Thessalonians 1: 8   SAY THAT OF 1914?   The book "pay attention to the prophecies of Daniel" on pages 85 to 97 (italian edition) explains in detail the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the prophecy of the seven times asserting it indicates the coming of God's Kingdom in 1914.
It would be profitable, therefore, take the book and compare with what you will read below.
The dream of Nebuchadnezzar actually prophesies the coming of God's Kingdom in 1914?   THAT'S IT'? Let's examine what is written in the book without bias. At first glance it seems that Jehovah God has wanted to give a lesson in humility to Nebuchadnezzar, which he did. The "seven times", at least for him, was seven years and this is confirmed by the whole story. Reading all this without bias, it does not seem that we have to look for other explanations more or less hidden. But let's take this argument that "the tree indicates a domain and a much more sovereign than the king of Babylon. It symbolizes the universal sovereignty of Jehovah, the King of heaven, especially with respect to the earth. " This means, first, that the Kingdom of God you are comparing, in a way, to the kingdom of Babylon and this contrasts with many biblical passages that describe Babylon as the greatest enemy of God's people. It also means that the "vigilante" (that is, an angel of the Lord) decides to overthrow the Kingdom of God and this is, to say the least, strange. Some will object that we should not look for similarities in every aspect of the prophecy but also to decide which part of the prophecy must have a second commitment and which not could be quite arbitrary. Basically we have no other scriptures that indicate there on what particular focus and which leave out. So you're saying that the tree prophecy applies entirely to Nebuchadnezzar, while only a small part would apply to the Kingdom of God. For the prophecy of the "seventy weeks," we did not need to break up the prophecy to try to understand who is applied or if they apply to more than one person because the subject was clear and very beginning. The whole prophecy of 7 times, however, is built on a single verse that is what it says ... " The tree grew and became strong, and its height it finally reached the heavens and was visible to the extremity of ' whole earth " (Daniel 4:11) The mentioned book says: "the big tree is the 'domain that reaches the ends of the earth', which embraces the whole kingdom of mankind. Therefore symbolizes Jehovah's universal sovereignty, particularly in relation to the earth. - Daniel 4:17. " There is a bit fragile, say risky, build a series of prophecies (all linked together) of this single explanation? Note that the specification "particularly in relation to the earth" is due to the fact that Jehovah's universal sovereignty is, in fact, universal, so the tree would have seen not only in all the earth but in the whole universe. By specifying, however, "in relation to the earth," we can rule the skies by the vision and take in the good application. However, we should ask ourselves a question. The fact that the tree reaches the heavens or the ends of the earth is a demonstration or even an indication that we are talking about God's Kingdom? We always leave it to the Bible to enlighten us. We notice what Jehovah said to Ezekiel in reference to Pharaoh. Ezekiel 31: 1-8 says ... "It occurred even in the eleventh year, in the third [month], the first [day] of the month, the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying:" Son of man, of 'Pharaoh king of Egypt and his crowd: " ' To look like in your greatness? Here, an Assyrian, a cedar of Lebanon, with beautiful branches, with thick shady ramifications, and a high height, so that its top was among the clouds. The waters made it grow; for the deep made him become high. With their current they went all around his plants; and sent their channels to all the trees of the field. So there was higher in height than all the [other] trees of the field. " ' And its boughs were multiplied, and its branches continued getting longer because of much water in its watercourses. Sui its branches made their nests all the flying creatures of the heavens, and under its twigs bore all the wild beasts of the field, and in its shadow dwelt all populous nations. It became beautiful in its greatness, in the length of its foliage, for its root system was on many waters. [Other] cedars not equalize in the garden of God. As for juniper trees, they had no resemblance to its branches. And the plane trees were not the same like the twigs. No [other] tree of God like him in beauty garden. " We note some similarities with the vision of Nebuchadnezzar? Both are compared to high and mighty trees. Both reach heights up to heaven in fact the expressions "reach the heavens" or "reach the clouds" are equivalent - Compare Job 22:14; Isaiah 14:14; Daniel 7:13 Of both of you notice the big difference with other trees. In both it is said that all the flying creatures and all the wild animals find food and shelter. Now, if we apply the principle that the tree that "reaches the clouds" must represent the Kingdom of God, then even the Egyptian empire should be an antitype of the Kingdom. Unfortunately, this story does not make any mention of "time" and therefore can not count anything. If you think it's ridiculous to think that the Egyptian empire will represent the Kingdom of God, why should it be acceptable to the Babylonian empire?   Jehovah goes on to say "For the reason that you became high height, so that it put its top even among the clouds, and his heart is exalted because of its height, I will give it into the hand of a despot of the nations" - Ezekiel 31:10, 11 The Pharaoh exalted, just as He did Nebuchadnezzar, and for this reason God decided to humiliate him - Matthew 23:12 Nebuchadnezzar escaped with seven years of madness while the Pharaoh's empire was besieged. This verse also emphasizes the fact that God takes away and "the kingdom to those who want" (and in this case he gave the kingdom to Pharaoh "despot of the nations"). Ezekiel 31: 12-14 continues ... "And strangers, the tyrants of the nations, cut it, and the people will abandon the mountains; and its foliage will certainly fall in every valley, and his branches will break between all the beds of the rivers of the earth. And all the peoples of the earth will come down from its shade and abandon. On its fallen trunk reside all the flying creatures of heaven, and its branches will certainly be all the wild beasts of the field; so that none of the watered trees may become high in height, or put her top even among the clouds, and because no drinking water is standing against them in his height, certainly as will all the data to death, to the earth below, in among the children of mankind, those who go down into the pit. ' " Although this tree is cut down and humiliated (Jehovah will do this through the king of Babylon). Because of the many similarities to the kingdom of Egypt, are we really sure that the tree "reached the heavens" refers to God's Kingdom?
  When we have to discuss  the 1914, we really like the Bereans? Or are we "Berean" only when we must refute the doctrines of Christianity?   There is another interesting detail which should give us pause. The Bible compares heaven to governments, be they human or celestial. Applying this concept to the tree that reaches the heavens and where other trees can not compete with it, would simply mean that this tree has a kingdom over other kingdoms (smaller) and Babylon the Great is said, in fact, who " a kingdom over the kings of the earth "- Revelation 17:18 The only legitimate parallel that you can do with Babylon, without fear of taking corners, is related to Babylon the Great because it is the parallelism that makes the Bible. In fact all the world empires mentioned in the Scriptures have had, for a time, a kingdom over other kingdoms. Cyrus claimed that he himself ... " I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four end (of the earth), son of Cambyses ( Ka-am -bu-zi-ia ), great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus . . . descendant of Teispe,. . . of a family (which) has always reigned. " ( Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 316) Surely humility was not a feature appreciated by the Persians as even by the Babylonians but in fact the kingdom had power over other known kingdoms ( much to be called " king of the four ends of the earth") and then you could well say that its height he had reached the heavens and was visible or known to the ends of the earth. In the story of Ezekiel and that of Daniel there is no reference, no one, to the Kingdom of God but ... both reports mention a judgment from God on enemy nations, proud and violent. Any chronological calculation should respect the subject and in fact this part of Scripture is quite different from what is said about the "seventy weeks" - Daniel 9: 24-27 In the account of Daniel chapter 9 clearly speaks of the Messiah (see Daniel 9:25) and do not need to read what is not written. Anyone wishing to be controversial might discuss the starting date from which to count the "weeks" or even the alleged method * (one day for a year) but it certainly can not discuss the subject in existence (the Messiah). It could, ironically, even argue about who really was the Messiah (something which still discussing the Jews) but of course you can not argue that Daniel chapter 9 speaks of the Messiah! Instead Daniel chapter 4 speaks of Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom, while all "the intention" for the Kingdom of God is built on four lines in the book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy!" Read: "But the big tree is the domain that reaches the ends of the earth, which embraces the whole kingdom of mankind. Therefore symbolizes Jehovah's universal sovereignty, particularly in relation to the earth. - Daniel 4:17 "(Chapter 6, page 87 of the book Italian edition). It does not seem very strong statement with a very weak base? We try not to say to Daniel 4:17 that does not really say because you just know the basic rules of grammar not to distract from the subject. The subject is Nebuchadnezzar and God makes him understand that, due to the fact that he is exalted, would have removed the kingdom and would give it to whomever He had wanted (just as He did with Pharaoh). In practice, one who really governs is the Creator and the other kingdoms exist only because He allows it - Compare Romans 13: 1 So there is no reason to believe that the tree (that is, one of the many governments that Jehovah has allowed in the history of mankind), represents the Kingdom of God really is. If someone wants to suggest that the fact that God mentions His domain is indicative that the tree itself depicts your domain (and it's amazing stunt semantics) then we can take the story reported in 2 Kings 19: 14-19 and do the same reasoning. " Hezekiah then the letters from the hand of the messengers and read them, after which Hezekiah went up to the house of Jehovah and spread out before Jehovah. 15 And Hezekiah prayed before Jehovah and said: "O Jehovah, God of Israel, enthroned upon the cherubim, you alone are the [true] God of all the kingdoms of the earth . You yourself have made the heavens and the earth. 16 Incline your ear, O Jehovah, and hear. Open your eyes, O Jehovah, and see, and hear the words of Sennacherib which he has sent to blame the living God. 17 It is a fact, O Jehovah, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their country. 18 And they delivered their gods to the fire, because they were not gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone; so that they destroyed them. 19?And now, O Jehovah our God, save us, please, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth know that you alone, O LORD, are God . " Hezekiah knows very well that Jehovah was "the true God of all the kingdoms of the earth" and prayed that Sennacherib were stopped in his attempt to destroy Jerusalem. We know very well what was the response of Isaiah that last part says ... "Why is your turn you against me and your roaring have come up to my ears. I certainly put my hook nose and my bridle between your lips, And actually I take you back to the way by which you came "- 2 Kings 19:28 If we did the same reasoning alleged to chapter 4 of Daniel, then we could assume that the "Sennacherib" kingdom was a antitype of God's kingdom because he also had to learn (at his expense) that Jehovah is "the true God of all the kingdoms of the earth "or, in other words" rules over all mankind. " Alas, in this story there are no numbers, days, weeks or months to be calculated and therefore no reason to read "coming of the kingdom of God" even where it makes no mention. It 'possible that the strong desire to see fulfilled the prophecies influenced the intentions and then had driven to read what was really written? This means that, if we really want to see a second commitment to the story reported in Daniel chapter 4, you should respect the subject into being , namely Babylon . It is likely that the story of Daniel is simply telling the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar and that the "seven times" mean only seven years, but we can not be categorical. In this regard it is worth reflecting on the fact that even the humiliation of Pharaoh, reported in Ezekiel, could have a second commitment as Jehovah says it "will shake the nations" and this could be a reference to the war of Armageddon. So, without staring too much of a specified date , if the story of Daniel had wanted to show us a second fulfillment of the prophecy, the report is actually saying, "Babylon will fall, it will remain inactive for seven days and then rise again." This can only bring our minds to the last mention that the Bible makes of Babylon - Revelation 17: 5 The clues regarding Babylon the Great took us to the nation of Israel so the question you should ask is ... "Since that year we should start counting 2520 years (ie 360 * 7) until you see the revival (if any) of Babylon? " From the story of Daniel the possible dates from which to count the seven periods of time are two: 1) Since Nebuchadnezzar had the vision or has fallen into "disgrace" (in fact, Daniel says "the tree is you" - Daniel 4: 20-22) 2) From the death of Nebuchadnezzar (if Nebuchadnezzar represents the kingdom of Babylon, his death is the moment in which the tree is "knocked down" but it is noteworthy that there is no reference to this in Daniel's narrative which, indeed, he says that the kingdom would have been assured - Daniel 4:26)   As for the first hypothesis it is impossible to have an accurate date because neither the Bible nor secular history tell us in what year Nebuchadnezzar was driven from his kingdom. This happened, of course, after 597 BCE (the year in which Nebuchadnezzar brings the first Jews prisoners in Babylon in accordance with the secular dating; there is a 20-year difference with that of the slave that, in fact, puts the BCE 617) and within the 570 BCE (when Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE - according to the secular date - and the period of "captivity" lasts seven years, and the kingdom he is returned are deemed to have reigned for at least a year, the 570 is the last year helpful). However, in the first four chapters of Daniel are mentioned Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, first as children (Daniel 1: 3, 4) and then as strong men (Daniel 3:12, 27) and all this before Nebuchadnezzar to buckle the famous dream tree . This means that, by their deportation until the day in which the king erected the golden image, they passed at least 15 , 20 years. So if the Jews have come to Babylon in 597 BCE, but spend 20 twenty years before the construction of the idol of gold and having good outlet to the secular date (562 BCE), you can restrict the period from 577 BCE to 570 BCE Obviously they are only estimates but the important date is the maximum time limit (570 BCE) so if from deportation until the construction of the image had been 15 years instead of 20, the start date would be 582 BCE, but the last date useful as possible would always be 570 BCE Any revival of Babylon, if this is talking about Daniel, which is far from certain, would take place between 1943 EV (2520-577) and 1950 EV (2520-570). To reinforce this hypothesis there would also be the fact that the story of his expulsion is the last tale told Nebuchadnezzar. A few verses later, in fact, we no longer speak of him but of Belshazzar (Daniel ch. 5). It's reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Nebuchadnezzar had a vision in recent years, perhaps during the last decade of his reign.   The second hypothesis concerns Nebuchadnezzar's death and which occurs, according to the secular sources, in 562 BCE According to the slave is the case in 582 BCE (see the book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy" chapter 7, page 99). Counting 2,520 years you get to 1958 EV in the first case and 1938 EV in the second case.   What about the recent history? If, as we have seen, Babylon the Great is the nation of Israel, this would indeed support the first hypothesis. The first hypothesis places the revival of Babylon between 1943 and 1950. The "resurrection" of Israel takes place, in fact, in May 1948. Knowing the fixation of human beings for dates and calculations, however, it is prudent to pay attention to more important things. The secular dates can not be safe, based on findings and comparisons more or less incomplete, and certainly we can not base our faith on this one - 2 Corinthians 5: 7 What would happen if the 597 BCE, as well as 607 or 537 or any other date on which we have based much of Bible prophecy (not that there was a real reason to do it) tomorrow will prove completely wrong? The consequences could be very serious and not only from a human point of view - Amos 3: 1, 2 We must not take for granted Jehovah's mercy we must be cautious in our statements. Since we have no certainty that the "seven times" does not depict just seven years, we should not get bogged down in these speculations. The most important thing is not perhaps understanding the identity of Babylon the Great? This is a crucial aspect of the prophecy because they are clues to guide us in the subjects and in the times we are living like road signs, and not the calculations - Compare Matthew 00:32, 33 and 2 Timothy 3: 1-5 and make a contrast with Matthew 24:36 There is no time stamp for the killing of two witnesses in sackcloth (see Revelation ch. 11), but we know that they are revealed at the end of the war. We know that the city called "Sodom and Egypt" is Babylon the Great, then Israel, and therefore we also know what country and what events to look carefully . What the Bible actually prophesies the year of his "resurrection" or not, it is certainly interesting but not essential for those who believe, it really is the inspired Word of God. Fundamental, if anything, will be "out of it" when the UN will prepare to destroy it.     * However, the Bible confirms the method "a day for a year" and also that this was the same method used by the people of God - Ezekiel 4: 6; Luke 3:15   For more information https://attenzioneallaprofezia.blogspot.it/

Cognitionis
 
Sir, if the error “lies with” me, as you accuse, maybe you should ask the person with whom I was in discourse with at the time on whether what Mr. Smith alleges is the correct conclusion, for nowhere do I dispute that “fill” is in the passage of Exodus 31:3 as Mr. Smith contends.
Did you not you read what I said? I was responding to what Mr. Smith alleges, what would you have me say, that he was correct in his allegation when he was not?
 
Interestingly how you just joined this forum and then at the same time just jumped in on this conversation...you know what that looks like? But hey, whatever motive moves you to do what you do is not my concern. <><

I believe the error lies with you. Mr. Smith interpretation of your conclusion is correct. Why would you say otherwise, out of anger?

"Quod est necessarium est licitum"
That which is necessary, is legal.
If I ... with premeditation ...  I deliberately murdered a Sister out in Service by shooting her through the head through her car side window ...who was screaming in horror and pain, her body and face ON FIRE ...burning to death in a car fire, and nobody could not get her out ....
... how do you think the Congregational Judicial Committee would handle it?
... how do you think a civil Jury would handle it?
... how do you think any sane, reasonable adult would see it?
 

Neither system is perfect ... and and I have stated many MANY times earlier on this blog ... Justice we only get from Jehovah God ... everything else is just "due process".
However, there is a difference in what "due process means in various "systems".
Total Anarchy has one definition of "due process"
Transylvanian dictator Vlad the Impaler had a definition of "due process"
Soviet Josef Stalin had a definition of "due process".
The Nazi Gestapo and Department of Justice had a definition of "due process".
The WTB&TS has a definition of "due process"
The USA court systems have their definitions of "due process"
etc.
etc.
If your life was on the line, which system would YOU choose to get what approximates Justice?
In Las Vegas, about two weeks ago, a man stole a truck when the keys were left in the ignition .. admits it openly, and is NOT repentant ... and can NEVER be repentant. 
The whole WORLD ran the story of this theft .... he did it ... he confessed to it  ....and he was brazenly proud of it!
Under WTB&TS POLICY which is always enforced according to THAT SPECIFIC CRITERIA  ... if he had been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, he would be disfellowshipped as an unrepentant thief with an apostate morality ... completely different than that of the Governing Body's morality.
Not only would he be cut off from the Congregations, but all his friends he held dear, if they were also Jehovah's Witnesses.
 Under the WTB&TS system there is in REALITY  .....  NO PROVISION FOR MERCY OR COMMON SENSE.
Only the "rules".
Judicial Committees are NOT Judges ... only clerks. 
But ... they DO JUDGE.
The fact that he used that stolen truck to rescue people being massacred, the wounded and dying, to the hospital, does not fit into the robot software program of the current "clerk" administered rules.
DO YOU KNOW ANY REAL LIFE EXAMPLES ... ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where the WTB&TS has shown mercy for an unrepentant  brazen wrongdoer?
Everything I have seen and know about is that Witnesses FEAR the WTB&TS judicial machinery, because it has ZERO provisions for common sense mercy.
DO YOU KNOW ANY REAL LIFE EXAMPLES ... ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where the WTB&TS has shown mercy for an unrepentant  brazen wrongdoer?
A Watchtower reference would be nice, about now.

He is at the museum in London getting so smart and sucking up so much data I hate to think what he will do with it. 

Allen, Allen Allen.
The words were defined by Jehovah God ... and HE decided that Warfare was not murder ... back in the times of the ancient Israelites.
You need some serious Meds ....  or have a few beers, chill, and do research on this topic
This is from Wikipedia:
Thou shalt not kill (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), You shall not murder (Hebrew: לֹא תִּרְצָח ‎ lo tirṣaḥ) or You shall not kill (KJV), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah.[1]
..... Retzach
The Hebrew verb רצח‎ (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as "murder" or "kill", but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".
According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach, but if the killing is accidental, the accused must not leave the city, or he will be considered guilty of intentional murder. The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war.
Think about this AllenSmith ;
Murder is when you deliberately shed INNOCENT blood.
Someone not justified in doing so, trying to kill you is NOT INNOCENT!
It is legitimate self defense if you can manage to not let them kill YOU, and you stop them by killing them first.
.... and there is NO bloodguilt before Jehovah.
Their bloodguilt reverts back to them.

Yes.
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible . . . *** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
This gathering work does not refer to the initial ingathering of anointed ones; nor does it refer to the final sealing of the remaining anointed ones. (Matt. 13:37, 38) That sealing happens before the outbreak of the great tribulation. (Rev. 7:1-4) So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43. . . . So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time. I should add that the writer of the 2007 article still believed that the first resurrection had already begun at some point "soon after Christ's presence began." But the only initial premise starts out within the following range:
*** w07 1/1 p. 27 par. 9 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
Now look at chapter 17 of Revelation. We read there that after the destruction of “Babylon the Great,” the Lamb will conquer the nations. Then it adds: “Also, those called and chosen and faithful with him will do so.” (Revelation 17:5, 14) “Called and chosen and faithful” ones must already have been resurrected if they are to be with Jesus for the final defeat of Satan’s world. Reasonably, then, anointed ones who die before Armageddon are resurrected sometime between 1914 and Armageddon. The attempts to get closer than that rest on very flimsy evidence, even bordering on spiritism: the idea that Rutherford potentially communicated with the dead.
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935. Many in Christendom believe that persons who die are still alive as spirit creatures, and the Bible says that communicating with these spirit creatures is spiritism:
(Revelation 21:7, 8) . . .. 8 But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth . . . and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.” Yet, as soon as it comes to our belief that those persons of the 144,000 who died are still alive as spirit creatures, then we think that we can safely ignore what we have condemned others for believing.
 

That's not what I was saying. I was trying to point out that these particular scenarios are no longer real to Witnesses. Russell, as a resurrected spirit, could not have been really been communicating from beyond the grave in order to run the entire operation of the Watch Tower Society in 1917. This is because, after a few years, it was decided that he hadn't really been resurrected until the spring of 1918. Now, even that idea is in question, according to the Watchtower. Technically, the Watchtower even admits that it is possible that Russell has not been resurrected yet, as this could happen any time before the end of the Great Tribulation.
The actual credentials of other scholars or writers are not usually considered important. If a Bible or a commentary is published, that's the main thing. If it appears scholarly or has been quoted by someone who looks scholarly, then it is important to the extent that it supports our teachings. Prior to the year 2000, it was the exception in our publications to even mention the name of the book or or person we were quoting, and we more often would see expressions like "a well-known author once said that . . . " or "a 19th century scholar has said . . . " These kinds of quotes were actually unchecked by the proofreaders, who were sisters, and would only ask for the original if they used lengthy direct quotes. The interpretation of those quotes was not questioned by the sisters, even if it was clearly wrong.
The Awake! magazine once made up an embarrassingly inaccurate chart of earthquake activity to try to prove that earthquakes prior to 1914 were almost meaningless compared to the ones after 1914. These false statistics got picked up by a writer in Italy who didn't say he got them from the Awake! (even though it should have been obvious). The Watchtower then quoted that Italian author as evidence that the 1914 evidence was real. Although exJWs will say we did it on purpose to make it look like we had independent support, I'm sure it was the kind of accident that happens when papers and books are scoured just to find support for our beliefs. There were many times when the sources quoted didn't really support us at all, but the Bethel writer just misunderstood a phrase taken completely out of context while looking for support. I worked right outside one of the office of a well-known Bethel writer who spent most of his day scouring newspapers and Reader's Digest and Time, Newsweek, U.S.News, etc., just to find little quotes he could use to prove we were in the last days. History books were scoured for the "holy grail" which would be any quote that pointed to 1914 as the end of an era, even if the same history book also pointed to 5 other dates as the end of an era, too.
So I really doubt that it was even noticed that the Greber who was denounced in 1955 and 1956 was the same Greber whose translation was still sitting on the shelf in the Bethel Library and was therefore referenced again in 1962 through 1976. Seems it wasn't until about 1983 that someone noticed it again. I can even admit that I looked at the copy of Greber's Bible in 1977 and noticed the John 1:1 passage myself, and it never occurred to me at the time to read the accompanying information in the foreword.
 

Hello JW Insider,
 
It is good to speak with you again. At least someone else can see the absurdity of Mr. Ewing’s claim, however, the other JW’s here are not going to like that from you, even Mr. Ewing when speaking of you as an “ex-bethelite” does so with such venom in his tone.
 
I must thank you for a very detailed description of some of the “goings on” in WT H.Q., some of which I have heard about before.
 
 
Over the many years that the Watchtower quoted Greber for support does constitute a “steady relationship”, there was no other way for me to say it. Also, I can understand, due to your obvious background, how you would think that I exaggerated by using the words “how often”, it’s just a way of saying more than once.
 
 
Greber mentions that the ‘spirits’ directed him to alter what they said were “many erroneous doctrines that had subsequently crept into the Christian faith” and it was these that he changed under the their guidance. 
 
 
I get the impression that you do not think that the occult is an actual phenomenon? Through my study of the Bible I am convinced that the occult world of demons is quite real and that their continual evil influence should not be dismissed as a “maybe”.
 
 
There is a problem here. If you are going to quote, and use as support someone else, wouldn’t the credentials of that person be looked into? Or is that something that the writers neglect to do? Surely someone in the writing department was paying attention to what was mentioned in 1956…? And then, what about the proof readers whose job it is to make sure that what goes to printed is acceptable…?
 
I notice that you make some further interesting comments in other posts that I’d like to discuss with you some other time, I’ll have to end this post here as I have other pressing matters that I need to attend to for now. <><
 

"Was god" does not make as much sense to me as "was divine." But this is based on other scriptures, not purely the Greek which could apparently go either way. I don't know Latin. I've actually studied it quite a bit in the past, and still read a bit for fun almost every Tuesday and Wednesday for about a half-hour, but I don't get very far. My youngest son studied Latin on his own, and got a 5 on a Latin AP test (the highest grade) and, for fun, had translated several Wikipedia articles into Latin. I did study Greek (2 semesters, and a lot of self-study) and Hebrew (7 semesters). A lot of Aramaic is included at no extra cost when you can read Hebrew. But these are not levels that make me anything more than an amateur wannabe.
I don't see any reason to translate an indefinite article in John 1:1. But in each of these languages there can be several different reasons to translate an indefinite article. Sometimes an indefinite article is OK even if a form of the definite article is used. (We even have examples like this in English, in expressions like: "The spider has eight legs." In some contexts, what this really means is that "A spider has eight legs." There are even examples that can go in the other direction, too. Not everything in language is straightforward.
One of my research projects at Bethel was a paper on Philo back in 1980, which led me to discover a brand new German commentary on the book of John by Busse and Haenchen. A portion of this same information is found in the Watchtower.
*** w85 12/15 p. 25 “The Word Was With God, and the Word Was . . . ”? ***
It renders John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos.”—John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6. . . . When comparing Genesis 1:1 with the first verse of John’s Gospel, this commentary observes: “John 1:1, however, tells of something that was in existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not ‘God.’ . . . The Logos (we have no word in either German or English that corresponds to the range of meaning of the Greek term) is thereby elevated to such heights that it almost becomes offensive. The expression is made tolerable only by virtue of the continuation in ‘and the Logos was in the presence of God,’ viz., in intimate, personal union with God.” Does that sound as if scholar Haenchen discerned in the Greek some distinction between God and the Logos, or Word? The author’s following words focus on the fact that in the original language no definite article is used with the word the·osʹ, or god, in the final phrase. The author explains: “In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that θεός [the·osʹ] and ὁ θεός [ho the·osʹ] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the λόγος [Logos] means only θεός (‘divine’) and not ὁ θεός (‘God’) since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is ‘God,’ but only that the logos is ‘divine.’ In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other.”  

One day you (correctly) highlight the fact that it is the uneducated, unlettered and ordinary persons who can more easily see the wisdom of God's word, and at other times I see you touting someone's education, PhD's, and titles as proof that persons like COJ, for example, should be judged as unworthy of consideration.
Exactly! I believe you are exactly correct on this point. (Although I'm not sure why you brought it up.)
Exactly! Russell could NOT have predicted anything concerning 1874. As far as we know he was even disdainful of Second Adventist chronology until late in 1875 or early 1876. So whatever you meant by the question" "So contrary to an ex-Bethelite assurance in Watchtower knowledge?" you are right to point this out, just as I have, by the way.
A complete non sequitur. Just because I have pointed out the same thing you just did, you were forced to use a kind of "vagueness" about this supposed accusation involving an ex-Bethelite. I'm sure you knew that I have never ever even implied that Russell claimed the end of the world in 1874. So to answer your question about "who then makes a play on words" the answer is quite obvious. You just did! 
And it's this same kind of twisting of words and meanings about which many people have pretended that doctrinal issues have been answered. This is one of the bad things that happens to Witnesses when they have doctrinal questions or believe that they can see a contradiction in some of our traditional teachings that go back to the time of the Bible Students. If the question cannot be answered through bluster and wordplay, then the next step is to just dig in our heels and call the questionable doctrines "spirit directed truth" and associate all concerns and questions as "apostasy."
'Nuff said! Thanks. I didn't see myself, or you, or TTH, or anyone else here claiming to be well versed in English or commanding the language better than any other.

It sounds like you are saying that A.C. did not depart due to the uncommon traits that Witnesses are known for, but instead that A.C. departed for the common traits that Witnesses are known for, which you admit to be "doctrinal errors" and that such doctrinal errors have been perceived even by our own skeptics. These doctrinal errors area pushed constantly you say by JWI and others, and have caused others to stumble.
I can guess that you probably intended to say something else a little different from the above. But in any case, as the accusation of causing stumbling has been proposed, I would like to offer a more likely alternative about what causes this type of stumbling among us.
What you refer to as doctrinal error that I have proposed, might very well be doctrinal error. It is after all being proposed by an imperfect human with faults common to many of us. And the persons from whom I first learned of such doctrinal alternatives were also imperfect humans with faults common to many of us. However, what I have presented is nothing new, and has been presented for hundreds of years by Bible students and Bible commentators. More specifically, several of the most damaging points to some of our doctrines that I have presented were actually made by Russell himself and Rutherford himself. And of course the absolutely most damaging evidence against some of these doctrinal points was made thousands of years ago, because I have always tried to highlight where these points were made in the Bible itself. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is the point that causes the most problems, as evidenced by the fact that you had no Biblical answers to even one of the points of Biblical evidence.
I could turn around and say that it doesn't even matter who among us presents the Bible evidence for or against a certain belief. It could just as well have been presented as a question about who might have a Bible answer for the information that is presented over on some discussion site by Simon [forgot last name], or a blog by Doug Mason or a book by Carl Jonsson. These are points that we are all going to have to face head-on from the next generation of converts. And we are going to have to face the problem of many younger Witnesses who already know that a couple of the doctrines are on very problematic. "Fortunately" for the Watchtower Society, most current Witnesses and even most current converts don't care to concern themselves with the Scriptural evidence or lack thereof for certain doctrines. But unfortunately this means that the bulk of our publishers are also completely unable to explain the issue or even act like they ever noticed the problem. This will result in an unnecessary stagnation. I see some evidence of it already starting in several countries. 
So what really causes "stumbling" is not the person pointing out a potential problem, which is already pointed out in a hundred other places, going all the way back to the Bible writers themselves, but it's the dogmatic requirement of acceptance of some doctrines that cannot be defended by any of us. Here, on this forum, we have a chance to see if anyone can defend these, or see if are we destined to just accept without evidence. The latter is a dangerous position to be in. But it's also a self-inflicted injury. We need not teach any indefensible doctrines as dogma, we only need to teach them as a possibility that currently makes sense to many people, based on the secular world conditions which at least form a kind of parallel to the expectations that appear to be predicted Biblically. 

This is why I LIKE being a comedian on this forum ... no shortage of comedic "Straight Men".

And don't forget, 1914 was when Edgar Rice Burroughs published  his famous book "Tarzan of the Apes", which was such a magnificent piece of literature (seriously), that the little town North of Los Angeles, California where Burroughs lived was renamed Tarzana, California!

So you just haven't done the research?
the-gentile-times-reconsidered.pdf
nope, you claim it's true, you claim god chose them and it's his organization then you have the prove it plain and simple.
Bahahahahahahaha wait you think that's evidence. 

NOPE
None of those ideas ever occurred to me, and since I am the one who created the edited graphic.... I ought to know.
I made it as a reaction to the tens of thousands of Bethel Layoffs and Special Pioneers being "shown the door" in the "Red October" Meltdown of 2015, after many years, and sometimes a lifetime of faithful service to the Corporation.
 

It's not that simple. I believe that if persons completely agree with the doctrines of a religion, that they wouldn't be at all concerned that a "governing body" was helping to guide the decisions of that religion. Therefore, I'm sure that most people who speak out against the concept among Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily speaking out against the doctrines that are promoted through this governing body.
So I do believe that the Jerusalem Council acted in a very similar capacity to the Governing Body in several of its current activities and services.  
I don't favor the terms "governing body" or even "elder body"/"body of elders". I don't believe there is any "body" within the "body of Christ" which is his whole congregation. And "governors" is pretty much the opposite of the idea at 2 Cor 1:24
(2 Corinthians 1:24) 24 Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing. That said, I cannot say that I find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders who handle matters for the entire worldwide congregation, any more than I would find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders in any local congregation. (Or even an ad hoc committee of elders from multiple congregations if a situation warrants that.) As a large group performing a worldwide activity, we will always find ourselves in need of decisions that no one person could easily make, especially because that one person might not be in a position to hear input from everyone. Remember Jethro's counsel to Moses about appointing capable men as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.
One brother at Bethel, who was defending the leadership style of Rutherford at the time, likened it to picking a carpet color for the Kingdom Hall. If everyone showed perfect love and humility, then everyone would want to unselfishly defer that decision to someone else, and no one would decide. But there are always some who are willing to just decide. These may not come across as the most loving and humble, but they are necessary to the efficient running of a large enterprise among an association of persons.
In Jerusalem, I think it was initially a local problem, a problem started by the Jerusalem congregation, so that made it appropriate for the Jerusalem congregation to decide what they ought to do to fix their own mess. They discussed it and asked for the holy spirit to guide them. It was a body of respected elders, associated with, but not equal to, the apostles who had recently devoted themselves to matters of teaching and studying. This is surely a useful model for something like the group we call the "governing body." Questions come up on a wide scale and centralized direction on these issues is a welcome service.
The problem, of course, is not the idea of "service" but with the "authority." This is surely what Jesus meant when he said:
(Matthew 23:10-12) 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Of course, Paul wanted to make sure that no one thought these particular men in Jerusalem had some kind of "authority" such that he was commissioned by them, or took assignments just because of them, or accepted their word as law. But he showed respect and followed their counsel to the extent that he could. (See Galatians & 1st and 2nd Corinthians, in general.) I don't think he would have gone to such lengths to diminish the appearance of authority of the Jerusalem council if there wasn't some kind of "appearance of authority" that seemed obvious and even correct to most Christians at the time.
In 2013 the NWT changed the word "tutor" to "guardian" in a few places, and the GB began describing their own role as "guardians of doctrine" with its ill-advised acronym. And this resulted in 1 Cor 4:15-17 offering the following idea:
(1 Corinthians 4:15-17) 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation. Paul saw himself as a kind of "father" in spite of Jesus words that no one is to be called "father" as a title of authority. So he clearly didn't mean it as a title but as a reminder of his love and concern and guidance. But just as important is that the Law had been a guardian or tutor leading to Christ, but now there were at least 10,000 Christians in the overall "world-wide" organization of the time, and all of them were guardians. (Based on the number of baptisms mentioned in Acts.)
Paul looked for a way to get his methods and teaching spread, not just for initial conversion to Christianity, but to remind current Christians in each and every congregation of the proper methods and teaching. But note that all Christians were guardians of each other, or tutors of each other. The role of guardian is not therefore a position of "authority." But there is a "service" that such a committee of elders can provide. For the most part I see them trying to fill this role. I also think they try, at present, to go beyond that role into a role of governing or authority.

That's really the crux of all the problems with the organization. Rank-and-file JWs do not have the right to question any doctrines--even with Biblical support. Only the GB can correctly interpret the Bible. Only the GB can make "refinements" in doctrine. If we have a disagreement with a doctrine, we must quietly wait with the hope that it might get changed someday.
A Governing Body taking the lead is not a bad thing. It keeps our organization...organized. But the Governing Body has no external auditor to scrutinize its ideas. The Bible should be that external auditor, but the Bible and the GB are intertwined. The Bible can't stand apart from the GB. Only the GB's interpretations of Scriptures are correct. Therefore, they can always discern the Bible in a way that supports the status quo.
I believe that's the case with the "two overlapping generations" theory. For decades, the organization said the generation was one group that saw Jesus' presence in 1914--it was apostasy to suggest otherwise. It's clear now that that idea was wrong. I guess a combination of ego and a fear of losing credibility means the GB won't let go of 1914 and the generation. So, they force the square peg in a round hole. They use weak Biblical evidence to make the old idea "work" while maintaining a sense of urgency (the second group is older now so we must be close!!). It's not about a Bible interpretation that makes the most sense anymore. It's about maintaining the facade that the org knows what it's doing and that we are still on the threshold of the new system. No doubt in a few decades (if this system persists) another "refinement" will come along that will have the same purpose (wash, rinse, repeat). If you type random numbers in a keypad it may eventually unlock, and eventually this system will end. So, if the org exists at that time of the end maybe they can say they were right to keep us on the edge--even if the evidence was incorrect. (I believe they use this justification currently in God's Kingdom Rules! paraphrasing from memory: "We were wrong on this but it kept everyone zealous at that time.")

If I remember right, is it  those Bible discussions that eventually led to the "dissidency"? I don't think it was just reading and discussing the Bible, but it was coming up with another interpretation, which they liked better than the official JW teaching.....

Ummmm...I hate to sound critical, but I will ask the obvious question, what about those teachings that weren't actually true and we taught them as truth, until we found out otherwise. Are you hereby saying Jesus was lying?

I don't quite understand what you mean by this
I agree with you
I don't really see that when Jesus told people to drink his blood and eat his flesh is an example of something that wasn't true but later was. This is just a case of interpretation. The people interpreted that to be taken literally (false premise), but Jesus meant it symbolically (correct understanding). Using your example of drinking Jesus' blood and eating his flesh, it's like if we had taught that this was literal, but later, we correctly discerned it was symbolic. According to your argument Jesus would be guiding this thinking when we thought it literal?
The thing is, these bumps in the road are our own making. We create the bumps.They are nothing to do with Jesus. The changes made by the Chariot are because WE had got thing wrong. If we had got them right the Chariot wouldn't need to change at all. It shows Jesus' and Jehovah's purpose does not change but sometimes has to take a detour to go around a wrong teaching (the bump) and get back on the correct path (when we finally get it right). Who knows, the chariot might be taking a big detour right now around 1914. It had to take that detour several times because of a wrong date. It took one around the 1925 teaching until 1925 passed, and the Chariot could get back on track....

It wasn't the 70 who filled the shoes of Moses, it was Jesus. This is why the example of Korah is so important. It is a lesson about how men want their own authority over others, when it was only Jesus Christ who we should accept as Head of the congregations. There are no others who should be treated as leaders.
(Acts 3:20-22) . . .and he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus. 21 Heaven must hold this one within itself until the times of restoration of all things of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets of old. 22 In fact, Moses said: ‘Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. (Acts 7:37) 37 “This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel: ‘God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me.’ (1 Corinthians 10:2-4) 2 and all got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant the Christ. (Hebrews 3:1, 2) . . .Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, just as Moses also was in all the house of that One. And of course:
(Matthew 23:10) 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. So clearly Hebrews 13 means that we follow the lead of elders in their examples of faith and the lead they take in encouraging fine works.
(Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near. (Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
 

Call me a skeptic, but how can Jehovah God honestly expect JWs to put GB and Moses on the same level?
Moses was a prophet, the GB is not. God spoke to Moses and his face glowed like the sun. God has never spoken to the GB. God used Moses to perform miracles. He parted the Red Sea with God's holy spirit. He healed the sick with the bronze serpent. There was a cloud pillar representing God that followed the Jews in the wilderness. Their souls never wore out. God left no doubt in the mind of the Jews that Moses was divinely appointed and had authority. Dissent was ridiculous. What do we have? The GB has a history of missteps in direction, yet they continue to expect unquestioned loyalty.

Hi @bruceq with the greatest respect...is the attitude of always accepting everything the organization says in harmony with the Bible? Didn't the leaders of God's chosen nation of Israel do bad things? Were the Israelites given a free pass when their leaders gave incorrect direction? Or were they punished along with the leaders? Isn't there evidence that God expects individuals to discern what's right/wrong on their own and not just follow along with the group?