Anna

The topic itself is easy as pi. I did enjoy that movie, quirky though it was, or maybe I enjoyed it due to that reason.

… I sympathize with you, but being a cartoon dog, My dog dish somehow cleans itself.

To paraphrase from the first issue of the Watchtower the words of Charles Taze Russell, “if Satan himself tells you the truth, it’s still the truth.“
Which presumes if I trusted angel of light tells you a lie, it’s still a lie.
And a lot of mature wisdom is merely evidence of being too tired.

And brilliant humor is wasted on the willfully stupid who can be identified easily as they only take offense at being confused.
If there is any question about that, reread paragraph three.
 

I thought as much after I deliberated over it for a few days.
It was an interesting experiment. It made me realize that rather than the actual content, which I merely skimmed over like Tom, I was more concerned with the reputation or status of the person who wrote it. This was interesting because I see this mentality today. It's not only that we want to protect our belief system, but it goes deeper than that.  It highlighted that many times it's not what is said but who says it. Perhaps this explains why some of us embrace some beliefs which we don't really understand fully, (or cannot explain ourselves) without bothering to really understand them because ... ahem.....because we trust those who put forward these explanations. If 1914 had been explained by an Indian Guru, I doubt anyone of JWs would be interested. Or perhaps it would be adopted, but its origins would be buried, just like John Aquila Brown and others who made 1914 calculations.
So I hesitated, (although my instinct told me otherwise) because I know you like to dig deep but of late you also try not to stir the pot. My instincts told me you are trying to illustrate a point. The point that if we try hard enough, we can pick a few scriptures and make them fit something that we want support for. And if you have already built a certain reputation, especially trustworthiness, it will most likely convince others too. That just seems to be the rule as you say with people in general.
Tom was more on the ball, being suspicious that you would make a 180 turn. And Pudgy the old dog realist heard a ring of the "cat thesis" (which I did too actually, and I do know you have a wicked sense of humour).
My hubby and me have finished the one docu series and now we have started another Netflix one called the Family, this time about a Christian group (you've probably seen that too). It's amazing what people are capable of doing and believing. Of course when watching these documentaries I always compare our belief system, not so much the content but more the way we apply it, and thankfully, I always see how superior our application is to even so called Christians.
One thing that struck me and gave me an idea, although this is off topic here but I don't think it matters now because we have all veered off since your "experiment" is over.  Anyway, most will know that I am skeptical about Governments turning on religion, especially in the United States where it plays such an integral part of society and the constitution. Something that was said in the Family made me think of another angle. The journalist whose story this is, overhears Doug Coe, one of the leaders of the Family, saying to another member that "putting labels on religions such as "Muslim", "Christian" gets in the way of your prayers to Jesus .....organized religion detracts from Jesus...we've got to take Jesus out of the religious wrapping". This is IT! It's not that religion per say will be destroyed, but organized religion will be. One of the episodes is called One World Order. Arauna would be proud of me.
 

I thought as much after I deliberated over it for a few days.
It was an interesting experiment. It made me realize that rather than the actual content, which I merely skimmed over like Tom, I was more concerned with the reputation or status of the person who wrote it. This was interesting because I see this mentality today. It's not only that we want to protect our belief system, but it goes deeper than that.  It highlighted that many times it's not what is said but who says it. Perhaps this explains why some of us embrace some beliefs which we don't really understand fully, (or cannot explain ourselves) without bothering to really understand them because ... ahem.....because we trust those who put forward these explanations. If 1914 had been explained by an Indian Guru, I doubt anyone of JWs would be interested. Or perhaps it would be adopted, but its origins would be buried, just like John Aquila Brown and others who made 1914 calculations.
So I hesitated, (although my instinct told me otherwise) because I know you like to dig deep but of late you also try not to stir the pot. My instincts told me you are trying to illustrate a point. The point that if we try hard enough, we can pick a few scriptures and make them fit something that we want support for. And if you have already built a certain reputation, especially trustworthiness, it will most likely convince others too. That just seems to be the rule as you say with people in general.
Tom was more on the ball, being suspicious that you would make a 180 turn. And Pudgy the old dog realist heard a ring of the "cat thesis" (which I did too actually, and I do know you have a wicked sense of humour).
My hubby and me have finished the one docu series and now we have started another Netflix one called the Family, this time about a Christian group (you've probably seen that too). It's amazing what people are capable of doing and believing. Of course when watching these documentaries I always compare our belief system, not so much the content but more the way we apply it, and thankfully, I always see how superior our application is to even so called Christians.
One thing that struck me and gave me an idea, although this is off topic here but I don't think it matters now because we have all veered off since your "experiment" is over.  Anyway, most will know that I am skeptical about Governments turning on religion, especially in the United States where it plays such an integral part of society and the constitution. Something that was said in the Family made me think of another angle. The journalist whose story this is, overhears Doug Coe, one of the leaders of the Family, saying to another member that "putting labels on religions such as "Muslim", "Christian" gets in the way of your prayers to Jesus .....organized religion detracts from Jesus...we've got to take Jesus out of the religious wrapping". This is IT! It's not that religion per say will be destroyed, but organized religion will be. One of the episodes is called One World Order. Arauna would be proud of me.
 

I thought as much after I deliberated over it for a few days.
It was an interesting experiment. It made me realize that rather than the actual content, which I merely skimmed over like Tom, I was more concerned with the reputation or status of the person who wrote it. This was interesting because I see this mentality today. It's not only that we want to protect our belief system, but it goes deeper than that.  It highlighted that many times it's not what is said but who says it. Perhaps this explains why some of us embrace some beliefs which we don't really understand fully, (or cannot explain ourselves) without bothering to really understand them because ... ahem.....because we trust those who put forward these explanations. If 1914 had been explained by an Indian Guru, I doubt anyone of JWs would be interested. Or perhaps it would be adopted, but its origins would be buried, just like John Aquila Brown and others who made 1914 calculations.
So I hesitated, (although my instinct told me otherwise) because I know you like to dig deep but of late you also try not to stir the pot. My instincts told me you are trying to illustrate a point. The point that if we try hard enough, we can pick a few scriptures and make them fit something that we want support for. And if you have already built a certain reputation, especially trustworthiness, it will most likely convince others too. That just seems to be the rule as you say with people in general.
Tom was more on the ball, being suspicious that you would make a 180 turn. And Pudgy the old dog realist heard a ring of the "cat thesis" (which I did too actually, and I do know you have a wicked sense of humour).
My hubby and me have finished the one docu series and now we have started another Netflix one called the Family, this time about a Christian group (you've probably seen that too). It's amazing what people are capable of doing and believing. Of course when watching these documentaries I always compare our belief system, not so much the content but more the way we apply it, and thankfully, I always see how superior our application is to even so called Christians.
One thing that struck me and gave me an idea, although this is off topic here but I don't think it matters now because we have all veered off since your "experiment" is over.  Anyway, most will know that I am skeptical about Governments turning on religion, especially in the United States where it plays such an integral part of society and the constitution. Something that was said in the Family made me think of another angle. The journalist whose story this is, overhears Doug Coe, one of the leaders of the Family, saying to another member that "putting labels on religions such as "Muslim", "Christian" gets in the way of your prayers to Jesus .....organized religion detracts from Jesus...we've got to take Jesus out of the religious wrapping". This is IT! It's not that religion per say will be destroyed, but organized religion will be. One of the episodes is called One World Order. Arauna would be proud of me.
 

Not exactly a joke, TTH, and, yes, Anna, it was something a little more akin to an experiment. Not so much about gullibility, but about human nature and the way we protect our belief systems. But I think this "experiment" was inadvertently conducted already, especially between 1907 and 1917:
In 1917 Rutherford wrote the following in the October 15, 1917 Watchtower, p.317:


So, this was not my personal opinion, but was supposed to have once been an interpretation of prophecy handed down to Rutherford through the Holy Spirit -- or "made known to us by the Spirit" as the article says. I merely copied the same idea and numbers that the Watchtower used:
When you multiply the 11 years by 360, you get 3,960. 2045 BCE + 3,960 years brings us to the year 1915.
Although the Bible doesn't say both birds were young, the Spirit evidently made J.F.Rutherford assume both were one year old. It was actually C.T.Russell who printed this idea first in 1907, considering it credible, of course, but not trying to present it as absolute "inspired" truth. Here are some snippets from the March 1, 1907 Watchtower which included:



But even if Russell only published this idea presented as a "remarkable coincidence" it still took on a life of its own. If something got printed in the Watchtower and, of course, because C.T.Russell considered himself and the Watchtower as "God's mouthpiece" it was still taken very seriously. In fact, Brother Woodworth (co-author of The Finished Mystery) immediately (in 1907) added this idea to the Berean Bible Teachers' Manual as one of the: "Twenty Time Proofs -- That the Reign of Evil Will Cease and the Earthly Phase of the Kingdom of God Be Established in 1914-1915."   So it was there in time to bind into the KJV Bibles that the Watchtower Society produced in 1907 and the 1908 edition, too. According to the current Proclaimers book, p.606: ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993037 )
Four years later, in 1907, the Bible Students Edition of the King James Version was published. The “Berean Bible Teachers’ Manual” was bound with it, as an appendix. This included concise comments on verses from all parts of the Bible, along with references to Watch Tower publications for fuller explanation.
These already contained Genesis 15:9 as one of those "PROOFS" of 1914/1915.
 

Also, the Bible promises all our hearts desires will be fulfilled...
Of course these desires can only be pure. I doubt someone would get away with desiring 70 virgins. But surely wanting to see our beloved pet is a pure desire.....?

I bet you're fun at parties! 

Huh! This new guy doesn’t like JWI. Who would have thunk it?

Wow! Well here's me fussing over whether the "slave" has all the scriptures interpreted correctly and all the while we had a prophet among us! 
Of course Tom has to make a joke of all this lest he was struck down by lightning if he admitted that this is ingenious. 
Seriously though, I will have to re-read this properly tomorrow!

No sorrow means the “New Scrolls” that are opened will explain. 
Perhaps the New System is ALSO the Rainbow Bridge, and God never mentioned it before, because dogs get in free.
Just a guess……

Here I know I will garner Pudgy’s sincere sympathy—one dog lover to another—when I reveal my own friend took that route not three weeks ago: 

It was the young birds counting as one year each that cracked me up ….
A truly magnificent piece of almost real, almost believable.

Me too. But then I remembered JWI said he was trying to be good. Would he really create a whole post showing himself to be "bad" I wondered...Or is he just bored...
This is funny, here we are debating the intentions of the writer instead of the contents, lol.
But you must admit, the title of the post sounds a bit tongue in cheek....

I know where I’d like to point your A…..

Wow! Well here's me fussing over whether the "slave" has all the scriptures interpreted correctly and all the while we had a prophet among us! 
Of course Tom has to make a joke of all this lest he was struck down by lightning if he admitted that this is ingenious. 
Seriously though, I will have to re-read this properly tomorrow!

So here in Genesis 15 we have a verse of the Bible, which in context is about the Abrahamic Covenant and is also a very clear discussion of chronology. It points out the time, the actual number of years, when the heirs of Abraham would inherit the land promised to him and his seed. It not only speaks to the chronology in years, but mentions the number of generations that would overlap until the time had reached its full measure!
Note first of all that the number of years of age of each animal is mentioned, so it must be important. 3 years + 3 years + 3 years. The age of the birds is not so specified, but the word "young" is mentioned indicating that they are about 1 year old each. So we have 3 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 11 years of age total. 11 times 360 prophetic days in each year is a total of 3,960 days, therefore 3,960 years.
So when did this covenant with Abraham's go into effect? The Insight book gives us the starting point:
*** it-1 p. 29 Abraham ***
Sojourn in Canaan. Now 75 years old, Abraham began to move his household out of Haran to the land of Canaan, where he lived out the remaining hundred years of his life in tents as an alien and migratory resident. (Ge 12:4) It was following the death of his father Terah that Abraham went out from Haran in 1943 B.C.E. and crossed the Euphrates River, evidently on the 14th day of the month that later became known as Nisan. (Ge 11:32; Ex 12:40-43, LXX) It was at that time that the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham went into effect, and the 430-year period of temporary residence until the making of the Law covenant with Israel began.—Ex 12:40-42; Ga 3:17.
So we start with the year 1943 BCE. But we also make a necessary adjustment, the same one made by C.T.Russell, as mentioned in our book "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached!" (ka):
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 206-208 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
THE CORRECTING OF A MISUNDERSTANDING
…  The above chronology followed the suggestion that was made in Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, in its footnote on Acts 13:20, which verse read: “And after these things, he gave Judges about four hundred and fifty years, till Samuel the prophet.” The footnote on this reading of the verse said:
A difficulty occurs here which has very much puzzled Biblical chronologists. The date given here is at variance with the statement found in 1 Kings 6:1. There have been many solutions offered, but only one which seems entirely satisfactory, i.e., that the text in 1 Kings 6:1 has been corrupted, by substituting the Hebrew character daleth (4) for hay (5) which is very similar in form. This would make 580 years (instead of 480) from the exode to the building of the temple, and exactly agree with Paul’s chronology.
51 Accordingly, on page 53 of the book entitled “The Time Is at Hand,” author C. T. Russell wrote, referring to 1 Kings 6:1:
It evidently should read the five-hundred-and-eightieth year, and was possibly an error in transcribing; for if to Solomon’s four years we add David’s forty, and Saul’s space of forty, and the forty-six years from leaving Egypt to the division of the land, we have one hundred and thirty years, which deducted from four hundred and eighty would leave only three hundred and fifty years for the period of the Judges, instead of the four hundred and fifty years mentioned in the Book of Judges, and by Paul, as heretofore shown. The Hebrew character “daleth” (4) very much resembles the character “hay” (5), and it is supposed that in this way the error has occurred, possibly the mistake of a transcriber. I Kings 6:1, then, should read five hundred and eighty, and thus be in perfect harmony with the other statements.
Thus, by inserting 100 years into the Bible chronology during the period of the Judges, man’s creation was pushed back 100 years . . .
So there we have it: 1945 BCE + 100 years = 2045 BCE. 3,960 years from 2045 = 1915 and since there was no zero year, that brings us exactly to 1914.
Please let me know what you think. Let me know if I have made any mistakes or false assumptions.

I tried to follow all of that, but my eyes glazed over, and my fur caught on fire.

WHAT!!?? After I have overhauled my entire theology?!
Thanks a lot, bub! I’m sending Pudgy over to pee on your leg.

Good points, but it was a slow day at the Archive, and I was in a frivolous mood for some topic we all had not beaten to death.
And who knows?
Somebody through reason and logic might have been able to shed some insight on the idea, that I strongly suspect the Apostle Paul already had the answer to when he spoke about the various “levels” of Heaven.
I see this “Archive” as light entertainment, something to explore new ideas, or confirm old ones by actual test by real adversaries, either inductively, or deductively.
And perhaps have some fun along the way.
I am too old to surf or skydive.
 

It's next to the third tesseract on the left.

It is “outside” your scope of reference - yours and mine. While we all may know the answers to such questions at some future point in time, at this point I would say it’s just grounds for endless speculation. Better to focus on getting there in the first place. 
(I’m not trying to be sarcastic or self-righteous here. It’s an interesting enough question. Right now though, you and I have some immediate and pressing survival challenges that demand our focus and attention). The question to me isn’t whether we will ever get a definitive answer to those types of questions - I expect we will. But rather, will we be there to hear them?