The Watchtower's 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

It is considered proper etiquette to credit the author when posting content, especially when we lack permission to share a lengthy post that does not qualify as academic use. Failing to do so neglects the author's rights and goes against proper etiquette.

While this is sometimes true, there has been a lot of leeway given to what is considered "academic use" in terms of discussion forums. Especially if we are commenting on the contents. The Watchtower Society, for example, has both won and lost in different cases attempting to keep people from posting and/or discussing copyrighted content.

I think you are aware, however, that it neglects the author's rights even more to post their work without attribution, or to post it in such a way that it makes it appear the author said something they didn't. And this happens more often when the poster assumes something about the contents, but doesn't try to comment on the actual contents or the context. 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

This will help demonstrate that 1914 did not mark the end of the gentile times, especially considering that Palestine was still under the Ottoman Empire.

And then the Gentile British Empire up until about 1947. You can read in old Watchtowers that Rutherford thought Britain was the "disgusting thing standing where it ought not" because they were standing on soil intended for Zionists.

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, George88 said:

Your viewpoint on the conflict between Arabs and Jews, likening it to a biblical prophecy, introduces an interesting perspective.

Just to be clear then. I absolutely do NOT liken the conflict between Arabs and Jews to currently applicable Biblical prophecy. Jesus said "nation would fight against nation" but the end is not yet. In other words not even world wars were a sign of the end. All nations fighting other nations is just another sign that we are living in a world that cannot govern itself and needs Jehovah's Kingdom as the ONLY permanent solution. Conflicts between nations provide an opportunity for Christians to prove their neutrality and to prove that they do not sacrifice lives to the god of this world by supporting wars and divisive politics. But there is no specific spiritual significance to conflicts between natural, physical Jews today and any other nations. Biblical lessons, yes, specific currently applicable prophecy, no, imo.

13 hours ago, George88 said:

especially considering that you have been unable to disprove historical evidence.

And I hope I never try.

13 hours ago, George88 said:

Did he [Russell] examine Zionism, or the situation of the Jews as mentioned in the bible?

Good question. He definitely examined Zionism, repeatedly.

13 hours ago, George88 said:

I don't remember Pastor Russell being involved in politics or supporting the Jewish nation politically.

You should read the following book if you haven't aleady:

As far as Russell's general involvement in politics, I agree it wasn't as steeped as Rutherford's, but it was there. Did you read C.T.Russell's open letter to President McKinley (and openly racist, too) about how Japan should get the Philippine Islands because Filipinos are basically lazy, and the Japanese are industrious?

Anyway, here's the Watchtower's answer to your question in the 1975 Yearbook. The last paragraph is also my position on the prophetic angle you mentioned.

*** yb75 pp. 53-54 Part 1—United States of America ***
Then, again, it might have been New York city’s noted Hippodrome Theatre, where Russell addressed a large Jewish audience on Sunday, October 9, 1910. Regarding that discourse, the New York American of October 10, 1910, said, in part: “The unusual spectacle of 4,000 Hebrews enthusiastically applauding a Gentile preacher, after having listened to a sermon he addressed to them concerning their own religion, was presented at the Hippodrome yesterday afternoon, where Pastor Russell, the famous head of the Brooklyn Tabernacle, conducted a most unusual service.” Scores of rabbis and teachers were present. “There were no preliminaries,” said the newspaper. “Pastor Russell, tall, erect and white-bearded, walked across the stage without introduction, raised his hand, and his double quartette from the Brooklyn Tabernacle sang the hymn, ‘Zion’s Glad Day.’” As reported, eventually the audience ‘warmed up’ to the speaker. Next there was applause, finally enthusiastic response. The discourse over, Russell signaled again and the choir “raised the quaint, foreign-sounding strains of the Zion hymn, ‘Our Hope,’ one of the masterpieces of the eccentric East Side poet Imber.” The effect? This, according to the press account: “The unprecedented incident of Christian voices singing the Jewish anthem came as a tremendous surprise. For a moment the Hebrew auditors could scarcely believe their ears. Then, making sure it was their own hymn, they first cheered and clapped with such ardor that the music was drowned out, and then, with the second verse, joined in by hundreds. At the height of the enthusiasm over the dramatic surprise he prepared, Pastor Russell walked off the stage and the meeting ended with the end of the hymn.”
Times have changed, and so have Christian views of Biblical prophecies once thought to apply to natural Jews in our day. With increased light from God, his people have discerned that such words foretell good things for the spiritual “Israel of God,” Jesus Christ’s anointed followers. (Rom. 9:6-8, 30-33; 11:17-32; Gal. 6:16) But we have been reviewing the early twentieth century, and this is how things were in those days.
 

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, George88 said:

The truth is that 1914, regardless of attempts to rationalize modern perspectives on conflicts, is simply another sign that the time of the Gentiles ended in 1914 CE and that the true worship described in the bible as the faithful nation waiting for God's judgment began to rise, without actually using that specific term.

The point of the thread is the self-imposed 20-year gap in the Watchtower's chronology schema. This discussion about 1914 is definitely related even if it looks out of place. I think it's good to see just how far one needs to stretch things to make it look like SOMETHING happened in 1914 that might be visible to the world AND that supposedly gives the WTS bragging rights for having predicted it in advance. 

The only thing we have left of all the predictions that Russell made is not about the War, but simply the expression he used: that it would be "The End of the Gentile Times." To Russell that meant what it said: the complete and final end of the national (gentile) governments. Originally that they would be brought to nothing, and no nations or governments would exist after October 1914 because the ONLY legitimate government on earth after 1914 would be a Jewish government out of Palestine. The timeframe kept slipping and the WTS gave up on that idea completely around 1929/30. 

Now the entire expression "End of the Gentile Times" has drifted so far away from its original meaning that it has nothing to do with Gentiles vs Jews at all. And the Gentiles don't stop ruling after all. There are more Gentile nations now than ever! And they are more powerful now than ever! And the "Jews" are now identified spiritually as the remnant of spiritual Israel, and yet they somehow get trampled and made captives after 1914 (especially 1918-1919). Some are even killed and put in prison, especially in the 1940's.

So all that's left of that expression now is empty: the nations still rule even though their "time" has ended, but they have lost their "lease" to rule, but they aren't even aware of that. 

[JW Insider]

1 minute ago, George88 said:

For some people, it may appear that way at first, but once you delve into his perspective, it becomes clear that his support for the Jews was rooted in biblical conviction, not political motives.

That I agree with. I don't think his motives were political. I do agree that his motives were based on Biblical convictions.

[Srecko Sostar]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The details show that there has continued to be trampling and subjugation by other nations over Israel and Jerusalem. History tells us that not just a few, but MILLIONS fell by the sword, and Jerusalem continues to be trampled on by the nations. Israel is little more than a client of the US and sometimes Britain. A supposedly "safe," non-democratic national military base, weapons testers and purchasers of US manufacturers, and an appeasement to religiously fanatic Zionists and Christian fundamentalists.

So tell me again how this was fulfilled in 1914:

(Luke 21:24) . . .And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

It is quite possible that George, like a good number of JWs, is influenced by the idea that the "New Jerusalem" (or one of several types of "Jerusalem" in WTJWorg theology) is presented in a "new form and new dwelling place".

So "that Jerusalem that is no longer trampled on" is located in HQ Brooklyn, now Warwick or wherever in the state of New York.

lol

[Pudgy]

very simple …. 

The Bible says that Christ’s Kingdom will be established by destroying all competing governments at Armageddon.

LOOK OUT THE WINDOW AND DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES!

… it’s THAT simple.

Zero evidence that 1914 mattered to God.

[Pudgy]

When you see giant golden arrows embedded in burning military equipment globally ….

text me.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, George88 said:

It is fascinating to explore the functioning of the mind when confronted with a seemingly irrational notion. The idea of trampling on the heavenly Jerusalem, Srecko, may seem nonsensical indeed. However, it raises intriguing questions about how mere mortals could potentially bring about its destruction. What is particularly captivating is the assumption that you have become a deity, with the power to bring about such an event. Yet, it leaves me pondering what makes you believe that a higher power, like God, wouldn't eventually eliminate all false gods.

When making a claim, it is important to support it with scripture. This principle applies to any claim, not just religious ones. However, there seems to be an issue here where people often make false assumptions without providing any evidence. The burden of proof does not lie with the other person; it is your responsibility to prove your claim. If you disagree with the dates of 1914 and 607, then make a compelling case supported by scripture and historical events to challenge those dates. Otherwise, all you are doing is demonstrating dishonesty and deceit.

Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 3:12, Revelation 3:12. 

There is no biblical statement that anything happened in 607 BCE or 1914 CE. Go to search tool and you will not find any of this dates (numbers) in the Bible. That is my evidence.

Your evidence comes from the calculation of the biblical text. So you have no proof, just an interpretation.

lol

[Pudgy]

…

[JW Insider]

29 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

After reading through this thread, I thought for sure that AI and MISINFORMATION would be neck and neck.

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, George88 said:

I just looked at my library. If the book you reference is the same author as this book, then I'm correct, I'm not interested.

I just looked at "my library," too, and it has exactly the same book with the exact same bar code number from "School of Theology at Claremont"

And in fact, this book, and this book, and this book . . . maybe 1,000 books all have a very similar "School of Theology at Claremont" sticker on them:

 

It is quite a good library. And I point this out again even though I have already provided links to this library at archive.org a couple of times in this very thread. Many books are available for free to read, or at least free to check out for an hour at a time. But more and more in the last two years, especially, there has been a copyright crackdown and some books can only be read online if you have "print disabilities." I don't know exactly what that means. I guess it's for people allergic to paper or who get some kind of headaches or dizziness or epileptic seizures reading books. I had never heard of it before. 

[Pudgy]

Just as an aside ….

when George said my library, I understood it to be his personal library, which I knew PROBABLY was not true. I tried to verify.

When JWI stated “my library”, I understood it correctly.