Anna

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

to receive God’s Holy Spirit to dispense spiritual food with prayer and insight, given by GOD?

And yet there have been mistakes. This cannot be because GOD gave wrong insight can it? So it must be that GOD gives holy spirit, but it is up to the individual whether he actually follows it or not to get the correct insight!

I'm afraid JWI will find it difficult to find a good enough "sparring partner" who has enough knowledge on the subject to be able to stick to the issue at hand without resorting to attacks on the person's intentions instead of sticking to the subject. Facts and truth are facts and truth no matter who presents it. If we are not able to defend our view in a scholarly and scientific way, presenting counter evidence using available archeological material, then why even get involved in a discussion such as this?  I know I can't. I just don't have enough time to devote to research that is necessary to be able to argue with anything that JWI has touched on regarding the secular aspect relating to Bible chronology. In fact I don't even have much time to research the scriptures pertaining to this subject, never mind Babylonian astronomical diaries and such.  But I have been able to see some valid scriptural arguments being presented by JWI and I think it's OK to say "well, your reasoning might just be right". Is it going to change anything about how I view Jehovah, Jesus or our brotherhood? NO.

I am very well aware that casting doubts on 1914 automatically disqualifies 1919 and the appointment of the faithful slave. I am very well aware that a different interpretation regarding parousia, the sign, Generation etc. will automatically call into question whether we are really living in the last days. So what? I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over it. Does that change our commission to preach? It shouldn't because aren't we all hoping that Jehovah is going to step in and bring relief to mankind, whenever that may be? To preach about God's Kingdom which will do just that, it is our commission, and we don't stop until the Kingdom is ruling over the earth. Should any of this change our attitude and view of those who are in "charge" and call themselves the faithful slave? I don't see why it should. Someone has to be in charge, we can't all be chiefs. So far, this arrangement has worked pretty well. There are many more arguments I could go into, but I don't think that's necessary. All I know is that those who have left Jehovah's organization, (or if you just want to call it Jehovah's Witnesses) and still believe in God, they have reverted back/or adopted most of Christendoms ideas. That tells me a lot and enough to convince me that we are the true religion, with all our flaws and imperfections.

8 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

They get there “direction” from God himself. Where do you get your direction from, JWinsider, Anna, CompfortMyPeople, the librarian, TrueTomHarley, Etc?

In order to be able to answer that I would have to know what you mean by "They get there “direction” from God himself". Do you mean that Jehovah directly communicates with them through some supernatural way, or that they get their direction from His own word, the Bible? If it's the latter, then all true Christians get their direction from that source.

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

So, I can only say - the new way of looking at these dates is not the problem to me - it is the obsessiveness with it - which is.  It is as though this drives the person and all his social contacts....to this point of discussion. And what better place can one find than a forum like this?

I agree with most of your sentiments, especially about the obsessivenes. There are opposers who have blogs and websites and it seems they dedicate their whole life to "watching" the organization and reporting negatively on every single move with venom. It makes me wonder how such indivuduals can even live a normal life. You have experience with friends and relatives who have become apostate, so you know the general pattern, and I understand your concern. But I do not agree with your statement above in this case.  @TrueTomHarley  mentioned something with regard to expertise in certain fields and how writers and those who study a subject in depth often get misunderstood, whereas others who work with "tangable" things are appreciated. I love it when my friend comes and fixes my computer and shares his expertise with me.  But when it comes to analytical thought, which is expressed on "paper", and is shared with others, that just seems to be taboo. What better place to share this kind of thought but on a forum, where one can even receive feedback, whether it be recognition, or dissmisal. Where would one find a better place without upsetting the congregation and without "spreading contentious ideas" ? The title of this thread clearly shows the matter under discussion, so if someone would rather not read this kind of thing, they do not have to read it. So I do not see that talking about such things on a public forum means one is obsessively pushing one's ideas.

50 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

What is more important to Jehovah God: organizational unity or personal Bible-based conscience?

I guess this depends on the severity or importance of the matter in dispute with your conscience. If the matter it is so serious, that your Bible based conscience is seriously affected, then you must obey your conscience obviously. This does not mean you have to go and advertise YOUR opinion on a matter to others and in this way maybe cause them upset and disunity. It is between you and Jehovah in the end. If we see something that is grossly and seriously wrong, then we should communicate our concerns to those in charge of the congregation, there is nothing wrong with doing that. We can take it as far as we want but there is only so much we as individuals can do and we should be wise and accept that. For example, I know we are talking about doctrinal matters here, but I cannot think of anything that is SO doctrinally wrong that it would warrant drastic action,  so I will use the example of something bad going on in the congregation that you have been privy to. Lets assume it's to with an elder behaving inappropriately with a child and you have reasonable suspicions that the child is being sexually abused. Your conscience is telling you to report this to the other elders. You do so, but you notice that because the elder under suspicion is very popular, there does not seem any action that is being taken. You notice that nothing is changing, that the person in question is still able to access the child and from the child's behavior you become more and more convinced that the child is being sexually abused. You have several options, depending on how your conscience is directing you. You either leave it be, or you implore the elders again, or you go to the police. After that, you have exhausted all your options and there is nothing much else you can do but wait if the elders, or the police, can do something about it. Similarly with doctrinal matters, there is only so much you can do, when you have exhausted all your options, all you have left is to wait or leave.

50 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

For instance, let's say hypothetically after much Bible research I came to a differing view on a Watchtower doctrine. If my differing views were exposed, I would probably get disfellowshipped. However, what if that doctrine was later revised by the Governing Body and now agreed with my personal views? This has happened before. So, who is in the wrong in this situation? Should we just follow along with a direction even if it violates our own Bible-based conscience? What scriptural basis does the Governing Body have to be the special ones that are definitive interpreters of scripture?

I can understand your reasoning. But I really cannot think of anything so serious doctrinally where we would have to insist on a change because it affected our conscience so severely.  If we thought it so bad, then the obvious option would be to leave and find a religion that agrees with our interpretation. I do not think that just having your differing views exposed would get you disfellowshipped. It is your trying to convince others and pushing your views onto others that might get you removed as a Witness.

50 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

And furthermore, why does the GB get a free pass when they get things wrong? Because there is a history of that. Since the standards are pretty strict on rank-and-file JWs, it would seem like a double-standard if they didn't have consequences for teaching incorrect ideas to millions of others. Wouldn't they as suppliers of spiritual food be held to a much higher standard than anyone else? 

It might seem like they are getting a free pass when things go wrong, but have no fear, Jehovah sees everything, and in the end we will all stand and in front of him and  "each of us will render an account for himself to God".  "For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad". 

P.S. You say:  " For instance, let's say hypothetically after much Bible research I came to a differing view on a Watchtower doctrine. If my differing views were exposed, I would probably get disfellowshipped. However, what if that doctrine was later revised by the Governing Body and now agreed with my personal views"? Perhaps you can give an actual example. But please use a new topic if you can, because I do not want to hijack JWI's thread any more than I have already.

On 7/24/2017 at 0:29 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

My wife and I are planning to see the movie  "DUNKIRK" this weekend,

My hubby and I saw it last week. Very well done, like a lot of British movies are. I recommended it to a couple at the KH who asked about it.

14 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think it is an appeal that congregational unity is more important than individual opinion about doctrine.

Whenever the Governing Body issues direction on any doctrinal point, it may be that you, as a diligent student, noticed that point some time ago. If this was the world of churches, you would have gone out and started your own religion over it. How do you think there came to be so many sects and divisions among Christianity?

Instead, you essentially 'sit' on your opinion. Maybe the theocratic organization will come around to it someday. Maybe they will even in some way notice your expertise and seek you out on that account. At any rate, the responsibility is theirs, not yours.

It's a little dicey putting such opinion out there publicly because countless persons latch on whose only goal is to thwart Jehovah's Witnesses and what they stand for. Really - do you think the ones hostile would all be placated if the WBTS came around to a new opinion on just this one point? 

Still, as has been pointed out, not everyone with a different view of chronology has ill intent toward Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe there is something to be said for the fact that we, too, acknowledge different views exist and they are not categorically wrong just because we did not say it first.

None of this is to be harsh to JWI. He is smart regarding these matters of chronology and I am not. It is easy for me to say 'zip it' because I don't know anything. I don't think he is writing here to gain disciples for himself, as some have accused. I think, rather, that he does not want to see theocratic interests take it on the chin because of a wrong understanding. One can hardly say that the organization has never been wrong before. He is just exploring ideas and I like that. But I am not sure it does not stir up more dissension than it is worth, which is not good. Ultimately, publishing doctrinal light is the responsibility of someone else.

I haven't figured this out yet. I probably will not succeed in doing so.

 

 

 

Thank you Tom. I like your thoughts on this, and you raise many valid points  (it's one of your few posts where you are actually being dead pan serious, not that I don't enjoy your tongue in cheek humour).

The reason I posted that question was because I am very aware that if one doesn't happen to be on the same wavelength, its easy to misunderstand what the other person is actually saying. I understood it to mean that "how dare we even try interpreting the Bible, if that is the exclusive privilege of the FDS". Judging by @Noble Berean's answer, it looks like he understood it similarly. Your interpretation sounds perfectly reasonable though. I like this point "I think it is an appeal that congregational unity is more important than individual opinion about doctrine" it kind of puts it in a nutshell. Also this observation is very valid "Whenever the Governing Body issues direction on any doctrinal point, it may be that you, as a diligent student, noticed that point some time ago. If this was the world of churches, you would have gone out and started your own religion over it. How do you think there came to be so many sects and divisions among Christianity"? I know I'm not the only one who has noticed points ahead of when the GB has adjusted their view. (I mentioned this on here a little while ago referring to Babylonian captivity, in the spiritual sense). Some things may not be important enough to warrant starting a new religion over, but your point is perfectly apt!

I don't think JWI is trying to gain disciples for himself either, and as you mention in your following post it kind of sucks that in the minds of many people a carpenter who has expertise is never judged the same way as a writer or scholar who has expertise. This brings to mind an instance a few years ago, which actually involved you (yes, really, lol) when I was reading your stories in "Sheep and goats" and someone criticized it asking why on earth would anyone want to write about stuff like that and I replied that you were sharing your "creation" just like a composer won't forever just play his music for himself, but will want to share it with others. Jehovah created us to be this way.

P.S. Apologies to @JW Insiderfor causing a break in the thread. Maybe this should be posted as a new subject....

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

We expect the Governing Body to show the humility of the faithful discreet slave, not the idea that they should push ahead and claim things that they do not have knowledge of yet. As Arauna said, we (including the slave) must recognize Jehovah and the true channel, which is Christ the Head, our Exemplar, along with his Word and spirit so that we may have the same spirit and attitude of Christ Jesus. Jesus could have cleared up all questions of Law, but instead he focused on love, justice, and kindness. As long as everyone recognizes that this is the true channel, we will be blessed with more of Jehovah's spirit, stay connected with him, and stay in the truth. 

I agree with you wholeheartedly and that is why I find reasoning such as this one from the Nov. 2016 study WT a little disconcerting p.16, par. 9:

"Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?’ "

I am misunderstanding what it's saying there? Anyone care to analyze this as they understand it?  And sorry, I know it's a little off topic.

11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The other way to look at it is that everyone writes about what they know best. I do. You, presumably, would be with your book. It seems silly that only JW writers should not be able to write about their topic of expertise. 

@AraunaJust look at the amount of works Rolf Furuli wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Furuli

On 8/5/2017 at 8:06 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

If there is one thing I would gingerly suggest we do wrong, it is the frequently repeated admonition to stay away from any 'apostate reasoning' because it is like poison. I see why they do it - because the scriptures state they should - and yet it leads to almost a superstition among some of us that mere ideas are poisonous. In fact, the ideas are not poisonous; what is poisonous is many of the people who are pushing them.

True that! Also, unfortunately the way us humans are, we tend to "sensationalize" and ADD to things that are not there.

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

It has nothing to do with being smart or scholarly or even being RIGHT - it has to do with recognizing Jehovah and the channel he is using to preach the Kingdom as the only hope for mankind.

I find this remark to be quite curious, especially about being right. If we are not right about one thing we might be wrong about another one too, and that's fine. Surely what is important though is that we be  be RIGHT in areas where it matters.

I noticed JWI reply to this, saying he hopes someone didn't misunderstand this....it looks like I am misunderstanding it?

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

OK.. done. I have read it again. As always, I deeply appreciate the good research that has gone into the Insight book. When this book first came out under the name "Aid to Bible Understanding" I was just as amazed, especially at the "Chronology" section. It took me nearly four years of scratching out an hour or so each day to completely read the Aid book while still at Bethel. I have never completed the Insight book yet, although I recognize that most of the old entries have remained intact, verbatim, from the older Aid book.

That said, I would love to comment on many items of interest that I found in the "Chronology" article in Insight including everything I agree with and appreciated. First, I will try to limit my comments to those that are relevant to this discussion and the statements you have made above.

So here goes . . .

First, you said: "And -"NO"- the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronologies are NOT firmly established! ... There is too little reliable evidence for that."

I can say that you have understood very well the basic premise of the the first half of the Chronology article. It is clearly intended to make us us think that the Babylonian Chronology is not firmly established, when it really is, as I said above, one of the MOST firmly established of all ancient timelines. By mixing the Neo-Babylonian in with the Sumerian and Assyrian chronologies, especially by mentioning the much earlier mythical portions of those chronologies, we can easily get confused into thinking the Neo-Babylonian is just like the others. It's always easy to think that if something is wrong with part of something then something must also be wrong with the whole. But we should keep in mind that the Watch Tower publications are so sure of the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology, hat they take ONE of the dates from it (539) and for many years called it an ABSOLUTE date, and used that date as an anchor for the 1914 doctrine that has been repeated over 6,000 times, according to the current updated WT-Library CD. In fact scholars refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as ABSOLUTE dates, therefore the Watch Tower publications now only refer to 539 as a "pivotal" or "assured" date, rather than an absolute date..

*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
The histories of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical.

A true statement "in the main" especially about their "earlier periods" but we are interested ONLY in the Neo-Babylonian period.

*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period.

Notice that all these nations have still been mixed together, rather than marvel at the amazing completeness of the Neo-Babylonian period, based on literally THOUSANDS of interrelated, interlocking, dated tablets and monuments. It's true that it has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information. This is as we should expect, and it turns out that all these THOUSANDS of bits of information support the "accepted chronology." And we should note that the Watch Tower publications do refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as the "accepted chronology" -- not because one man named Carl Olof Jonsson accepts it, but because ALL the known Neo-Babylonian scholars accept the overwhelming evidence.  Obviously, these experts don't accept it just because it supports the Bible's timeline, yet it is easy to show that it really does.  And these same scholars are the ones that the Insight book relies upon for the 539 date. These THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence actually support the Bible's timeline much better than the Watch Tower's timeline.

*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.

This doesn't mean that the Watch Tower accepts the "accepted chronology," of course, but the reasons that the Watch Tower gives are not real reasons. It is very easy to show that they are just pretend reasons. The Insight book inadvertently admits that these are just pretend reasons, if you look at it closely enough.

*** it-1 pp. 448-449 Chronology ***
While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms.

Notice the contradictory reasoning here. TENS OF THOUSANDS of clay tablets bearing inscriptions are supposedly minimized for being religious texts or mundane business documents. Notice what is left out, however: they are EACH ONE DATED to the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Also, by throwing some Egyptian papyrus scrolls into the mix, it's possible to imply that many of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents might be religious documents -- and this very likely makes us think they are reduced in value in determining a chronology. We are also supposed to get the idea that the historical writings are reduced in value because they glorify their emperors and military campaigns. We are supposed to think if "myth" and "exaggeration" here. These are the bad apples that are supposed to spoil the whole bushel.

*** it-1 p. 449 Chronology ***
Engraved in stone or inscribed in clay, some ancient pagan documents may seem very impressive, but this does not ensure their correctness and their freedom from falsehood. Not the material written on, but the writer, his purpose, his respect for truth, his devotion to righteous principles—these are the important factors that give sound basis for confidence, in chronological as well as other matters. The great age of the secular documents is certainly outweighed by the vastly inferior quality of their contents . . .

Yes, these contemporary documents will never be the Bible. But let's at least admit to what they are. In fact, these TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents about mundane matters do not contain any of "myth" or "religion" or "exaggeration" and they are all dated. Not only that, but these dates are interconnected not just through the year of each king, but they include a second name, the name of the current "company president" always including who his father was, and sometimes even who his son was who would become the next president when his father died or retired. In addition to a complete timeline of the kings, you can also double-check it with a complete timeline of the firm's presidents and their sons, grandsons, great grandsons, etc. Thousands of the tablets come from the largest "financial firm" of that time, which handled real estate, banking, loans, and commerce contracts.

It's as if you had a great-grandmother you never met who claimed to live to be 120 years old, and then you went into an attic and found that she had left 10,000 checkbook receipts, loan receipts, deeds, etc., which are not only dated with the day and month, but she also added the year of each U.S. President to each check, so that they would say for example: Lincoln's 3rd year, Johnson's 1st year, Grant's 2nd year. But they also had the name of the bank president, and the bank president's son. So now you could see how long each U.S president served and even synchronize it with how long each bank president served. But the main thing is that she had several checks for each and every year of each president. And you would have no trouble putting them in order because she also had a memo on each check where you could double-check the father and son currently running the bank in every year, too. This way if there were two presidents named Johnson (Andrew and Lyndon) in her check receipts, you could know which was which.

But there is one more thing about the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents -- not mentioned. There are enough of them to show exactly what month of the year a given king died, because whenever a king was living the month and day and year of that king's reign was inscribed, but when he died the new king was shown sometimes in tablets of the same month just days after the new king was inaugurated, and the new king would be inscribed as being in his "0" year, or "accession" year.

There is one more point that is just as important. Some of these tablets match up with customer's names on preceding tablets, or some tablets refer to transactions that cut across the time period of two kings. This could be a loan made in the time of one king, but paid off three years later in the time of another king. Or it could be a payment for an item during the last months of one king, and another for the delivery of those items in the early months of another king.

In every case, we not only have tablets for every year of the timeline, but there is no way to claim the kings are in the wrong order, or that one might refer ambiguously to a different king of the same name. (This actually comes close to happening when some usurpers named Nebuchadnezzar show up, but their attempts lasted only a few months at a time, and happened long after the dates we are concerned about between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.)

Without mentioning any of these facts, the Insight book goes on with a quote from Ceran "The Secret of the Hittites." If you have the book you will know the true context of the quote.

*** it-1 pp. 449-450 Chronology ***
Well illustrating why secular histories do not qualify as the standard of accuracy by which to judge Bible chronology is this statement by archaeological writer C. W. Ceram, commenting on the modern science of historical dating:  ". . .For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men.” —The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134.

There are so many things wrong with this type of quotation when you realize that it is almost all geared toward accepting 539 (capture of Babylon) and not accepting 587 (destruction of Jerusalem). Yet both dates are from the same experts. Also there is no conflict between the Neo-Babylonian dating and the Bible, the only conflict is the Watchtower's interpretation -- which was only found necessary as a way to reach the 1914 date. But this book is talking about the Hittites. In fact, in just the next couple of paragraphs he uses an example of King Menes in Egypt from 2900 BCE! The purpose appears to be in order to mix up the problems of the early Egyptian timeline with the Neo-Babylonian. But it also leaves out the very next paragraph after King Menes. In fact, back in a Watchtower article that tried to bolster more faith in the predictions made about the 1975 time period, it actually used this same book to say that 539 was "assured."

*** w68 5/1 pp. 270-271 pars. 2-3 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
" . . . the book The Secret of the Hittites, by C. W. Ceram, in the chapter entitled “The Science of Historical Dating,” states:  . . . “But as we go even deeper into the subject, our respect for the achievements of historical detective work returns. We learn that the scholars have been careful to distinguish between ‘assured’ and ‘assumed’ dates. And we discover that the chronological framework of ancient history rests upon at least a few firm points. Certain key dates, around which other dates are mustered, can be determined almost without error. They are ‘assured.’”
³ Hence, outside the Bible’s timetable, most dates set by historians are unreliable. Only a few “assured,” or absolute, dates, such as 539 B.C.E., . . .

Ceram didn't mention 539 here, the Watchtower added that. As far as the Egyptian chronology goes, note that the Watch Tower is only pushing for about a 100 year difference through much of it, and only a 20 year difference by the time of Josiah.

*** it-1 p. 450 Chronology ***
The difference between the above dates and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to as much as a century or more for the Exodus and then narrows down to about 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time. The following information shows why we prefer to hold to the chronology based on the Biblical reckoning.

That 20-year difference was necessary in order to make Jerusalem's fall change from 587 (accepted date) to 607 (the date required for 1914 to work). It's not that there is any evidence for it. There is none. But what is extremely ironic is that the entire discussion of why the Egyptian dates are not accepted is almost a precise description of the same exact reasoning about why 587 is not accepted. But here's the real irony: every one of these factors that supposedly weakens the unaccepted dates are exactly the factors that were used in order to get the 539 date. In other words the Watch Tower Society doesn't really think these are weakening factors at all; we accept them all perfectly for 539, and even call 539 an ASSURED date because of the same factors. This is how we know that the reasons given are only "pretend" reasons.

Under Assyrian Chronology no attempt is made to synchronize:

*** it-1 p. 452 Chronology ***
The information above points to the conclusion that Assyrian historiography either is not correctly understood by modern historians or is of very low caliber. In either case, we do not feel compelled to attempt to coordinate the Biblical chronology with history as presented in the Assyrian records.

For now, we can leave it at that because nothing there is critical to the points of discussion under Babylonian chronology. Twice as much space is devoted to the Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronologies and the issues surrounding their accuracy. This is the most interesting to this discussion, so I will continue some comments for discussion in the next post.

There are some very valid arguments you raise here JWI.  I am not qualified to make any worthwhile and detailed comments on Bible chronology, especially that which pertains to 1914 because I have never studied any of it in depth, and as @Araunaremarked: " NONE of you have taken the time to really study the entire sections on Chronology as set out in the Insight book" . Well  I am one of those people, I have neither studied the Insight book's Chronology, nor COJ's Chronology nor other secular study of Bible chronology and to be honest, who of the 8 or so million regular Witnesses have?? (not counting Rolf Furuli and those in the writing department who were assigned to do this) I have only know one brother to date. He was not brought up as one of JWs but came into the truth later. He had already been used to studying as he had a university degree. He was the scholarly type. I remember he had a library full of secular books on Bible history and chronology. I remember once when we stayed at his house (my mum is good friends with his wife) he mentioned this one particular secular book on something or other to do with Bible history or chronology and how extremely interesting it was. I don't remember any details about what he said, I just remember my negative feelings at the time. It was funny, but it was almost an aversion to even the thought of someone reading something BESIDES our literature. Feelings of distrust and suspicion, that anything else is tantamount to the Devil's work. Funnily enough, these feelings could not have emanated from my mother, since she herself is an educated and well read woman, and has read many secular books and strongly believes in education. These feelings came from the "general" air of suspicion derived from our meetings and our own literature, including the general opinion of brothers and sisters sharing the suspicion among each other.  It is actually understandable, since our attitude (and quite rightly so) regarding the world is that it is lying in the power of the wicked one, and thus logically, he, Satan, will want to promote anything to weaken man’s trust in the Bible as being from God.  But statements by the WT such as “Secular experts have repeatedly questioned the Bible’s accuracy” is a broad brush which automatically taints anyone (besides us) who tries to interpret Bible chronology, as being probably, if not obviously,  WRONG. Unless of course they agree with us. Truly, on the whole, secular scholars are responsible for giving themselves this reputation in our eyes because of their adherence to the theory of evolution and other theories discrediting God.  It is understandable that many of the things these scholars write will be tainted with their supposition that God does not exist. HOWEVER, and this is a most important part, in my opinion, what does the date of Jerusalem’s destruction have anything to do with whether a scholar is a believer in God and the Bible’s veracity or not? What possible reason would a secular scholar have for not agreeing with Watchtower’s 607? Most scholars (as opposed to JW haters and opposers) have no hidden agenda and have nothing against Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I believe COJ had no hidden agenda either. He merely reported on the evidence that’s out there. On the other hand, we, Jehovah’s Witnesses, base a large part of our belief on 1914. We would have a lot more to “lose” were we to agree with the secular date.  I can’t even imagine the commotion if we retracted 1914.  BUT we have to remember; “we do not serve God because of a date” as was bought out in the video at the convention regarding 1975. How much does our personal relationship with Jehovah depend on a date? Do we serve God just because “the end is just around the corner” And to take it even further, how much of our personal relationship depends on the Governing Body?  IF the Governing Body were all to become apostate tomorrow, where would we stand?

Out of interest, when I was studying “what does the Bible really teach” with my student, a biologist (the ex atheist I already mentioned on here before) when we came to the appendix about 1914 I also gave her the two articles in the WT “When was Ancient Jerusalem destroyed” part 1 and 2. She found the articles interesting but unconvincing. We never went into any detail of those two articles, as both of us agreed that it was more important to go back to the Bible and see what it had to say on what God expects from us, and how to live our life to please him. 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

She's nuts. IBID is the radicalized version of ISIS. I don't like them.

You're nuts Tom! Lol

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

They will of course refuse to have the DNA tested.   There is a new way whereby DNA can be obtained.... but most paleontologists refuse because then the true age of the specimen can be determined. It does not suit the agenda...

Are you sure about that, that they refuse?

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

...and we all know that secular dates are more shaky than Biblical dates.   

In order to figure out Biblical dates don't we have to rely on secular dates? As far as I am aware the Bible does not give any dates, it merely gives reignal years of kings, i.e 19th year etc. and in order to find out the actual year in history one has to consult ancient secular chronicles and calendars etc....

9 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

every fly begins a very small fly, and becomes a larger fly.

This is a very funny statement because a fly starts as an egg, that hatches into a maggot which grows bigger and then becomes a pupa. The fly hatches out of the pupa and stays the same size until it dies. Perhaps it's a typo and he meant fry as in fish 

1 hour ago, TiagoBelager said:

that we remain in harmony in preaching a message that is not garbled iwith discordant "notes" that are off key, but remains a message that is a clarion call for all hearing it that they should be spiritually ready for the great day of God the Almighty.

That's just it. I personally do not think that 1914 really is that important with regard to being spiritually ready or not. Not only that, but who of us uses 1914 as part of the preaching message to be honest? Who of us has recently "explained" it to someone at the door, or even to a study? In view of that, I do not think that putting forward "alternate" views regarding 1914 on this forum necessarily garbles our message, because our message is not about 1914, but about being ready because we do not know when the end will come. Refinements to our scriptural understanding are being made usually after we discern that our past application has become obsolete due to the passage of time. But notice our core beliefs have never had to be adjusted since about 1935. We still believe the same about the soul, what happens when we die, who go to heaven, what is hell, the identity of God, the identity of Jesus, God's kingdom, the good news, moral standards etc.etc. So all the other stuff is interesting, but irrelevant to our salvation in the grand scheme of things. I doubt Jehovah is going to judge someone as not worthy of life just because they have reservations about 1914 or some other chronological aspect.

1 minute ago, The Librarian said:

@Anna You can log in any way you like... you don't have to link it to your FB.

I tried logging in with the same email and pass word I use on here, but it doesn't work....

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I log into the "comments area" with my Facebook user name and password.

Thanks JTR.

But I don't want to log in with my FB.That has my whole name, and I don't want to use that here

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Okay, @The Librarian, I have worked through today's backlog.

FROM NOW ON I WILL CONFORM - MORE OR LESS - TO YOUR NEW IMPROVED SYSTEM. You can even blow this comment to smithereens if you want.

DO YOU HEAR THAT, BIG BOY? @James Thomas Rook Jr.LET'S TAKE IT OUT ON THE STREET! YOU AND ME, BIG FELLA! NO MORE PUBLIC FIGHTING! Let the poor librarian repair her busted furniture, tape up spines on the damaged books, put the 33 rpm records away that you have hurled at me as frisbees, and start afresh!

Well I won't be making any comments down there since I have no idea how to log in. I seems I have to create another account? I am not doing that, I have enough accounts. @The Librarian I use firefox as my browser....

1 hour ago, SuziQ1513 said:

Oh that would be awesome!   I would guess this was something positive that came out of the ARC interrogations. 

Yes, you are correct. Here are the results  abuse policy 2016.docx

and  Letter to elders 2016_us.pdf

By the way @The Librarian I found the threaded reply, but it is asking me to sign up if I want to comment. I am already signed up on here.....

22 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

Hmm that's peculiar. So are Rutherford or Knorr considered the FDS? I am aware that the Governing Body as we know it today was established in the 1970s so that leaves a pretty big gap.

If I'm not mistaken, both Rutherford and Knorr were considered the FDS, after all, this was after 1918, when the supposed appointment was made, as you yourself mention. But I think this appointment was seen in retrospect. (years later). JWInsider will probably know more about this. I believe all of the anointed were thought to be the FDS and then the WT of July 2013 clarified that it only applied to the anointed in the GB, the article was: "feeding many at the hands of a few"

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/jesus-feeds-many/

P.S I think Br. Russell is viewed as one who "prepared the way" and as the "rattling of the bones" as per Ezekiel 37:1-14

1 minute ago, Noble Berean said:

Oh that's news to me about Russell. I thought according to JW doctrine Jesus Christ appointed his faithful slave in 1918?

Brother Russell died in 1916

Just now, SuziQ1513 said:

Interesting article but bewilderment on solution is evident.

It is, isn't it! This is why the whole situation is not so cut and dry as opposers would have us believe.....