Gentile Times

by Masterji 18 Replies latest jw friends

  • Masterji
    Masterji

    Here is a question from readers.
    This was in the days when they were truly from the public.

    In establishing the length of the seven times of the Gentiles, a time or year of 360 days is used, to give 2,520 days, which become 2,520 years when Ezekiel 4:6 is applied. Yet when we figure from 607 B.C. down to A.D. 1914, the 2,520 years are solar years of 365 1/4 days each, and not lunar years of 360 days each. Is this proper?—N. N., New Zealand.
    June-15-51 Watchtower page 383

    The Bible records ignore the solar year of 365 1/4 days as far as measuring natural time and prophetic time. The moon was used for fixing the months, and then the spring growing season for determining the beginning of the year in relation to the moon, making necessary 7 times every 19 years the addition of an intercalary month or Ve-Adar month, a thirteenth month. So since the length of the Jewish year was not stabilized to 365 days plus a leap year of 366 days, prophecy fixed a system of measurement of its time periods at 360 days for a year or time, calculating 30 full days to a month instead of the actual 29 1/2 days to a lunation. Genesis 7:11, 24; 8:3, 4 shows Noah calculated 30 days roughly to a month. Further confirmation of this unit as a prophetic norm of time is given us at Revelation 11:2, 3, where 42 months are run parallel with 1,260 days, making a year of 12 months equal 360 days. Note also that when Revelation 12:6, 14 parallels 3 1/2 years or times with 1,260 days it takes each time or symbolic year as equal to 360 days, and not 365 1/4 days by saying that the 3 1/2 times equal 1,278 and a fraction days. In 3 1/2 years or times there would be at least one and possibly two intercalary months, as explained by The Watchtower, March 15, 1948, pages 91, 92; yet Revelation ignored such intercalary months in giving the days of the 3 1/2 times. So we figure according to God’s Biblical way and are on firm foundation in saying that the symbolic seven times equal 2,520 years.

    And these 2,520 years should be counted as solar years, because the Jewish lunar years of 360 days, over long periods of time, kept pace with the solar years by means of the intercalary months added at set intervals, thereby always maintaining the necessary harmony between the year’s beginning and the seasons.
    That this method of calculating is correctly used to bring us to A.D. 1914 from 607 B.C. is confirmed for us by the physical facts that have become manifest from that year 1914 on, in fulfillment of Matthew 24 and 25, Mark 13, Luke 21, and other prophecies concerning Christ’s second presence, in the time of the end.

    There are some deep thinkers on this board and I would appreciate your commentary. Special attention to the last two paragraphs if you would please.
    Or, feel free to comment on any portion.

    Thanks,
    M

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    While the Society's comments might sound good to one ignorant of the Bible, authors such as Carl Jonsson (writing in The Gentile Times Reconsidered and The Sign of the Last Days: When?) have shown that these ad hoc methods are not really justified by the few places in the Bible where supposedly prophetic time periods are mentioned. Really, the Society follows many 19th-century authors of the Adventist tradition, or those who held similar apocalyptic views. When one looks carefully at how the Society actually justifies its claims, one finds that a little bit here and a little bit there are combined willy nilly into a prophetic whole.

    The Society has long justified its prophetic speculations by claiming that they're justified by real events, such as earthquakes, famine, war, pestilence, crime etc., since 1914. However, a careful examination of the evidence proves quite the opposite -- not one of these claims is true. Jonsson points out much evidence in Sign that disproves the Watchtower claims. The result is clear and conclusive:

    About the same number of people have died in earthquakes in the 20th century as in each of the preceding three centuries, so far as records tell. Because population has been steadily increasing, the risk of dying in a quake in the 20th century is at least four times lower than in the 18th century.

    Famine regularly killed millions of people -- even tens of millions -- at a crack before the 20th century. While several famines in the 20th century probably killed over ten million, such as in the Soviet Union in the 1930s and in China around 1960, these killed far less of a percentage of population than in earlier centuries. Furthermore, famine on the whole is much reduced. So as a percentage of population and in absolute numbers, famine is much less of a problem, because it no longer wipes out nearly entire populations.

    Pestilence is no longer nearly the problem it once was. Diseases like smallpox have been eradicated or greatly reduced. No longer are virtually entire populations wiped out by pestilence. The Society uses the great Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918 to "prove" its claim, but even this killed far less percentage of population than previous massive epidemics. Even today's huge AIDS problem is not nearly as great as, say, the Black Plague of the mid-14th century, which killed about 1/3 of the population of Europe and probably at least that much in many other parts of the world, in just a few years.

    War in the 20th century kills about the long-term average number of people as a percentage of population.

    Crime is no worse, and in many cases, much better than in previous centuries in much of the world.

    Given the above facts, the Society's claim that "things are much worse in the 20th century" is seen to be hogwash.

    The Watchtower doesn't even manage to get the interpretation of Matthew 24, 25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 correct. A careful reading of these passages shows that Jesus is actually telling his listeners precisely the opposite of what the WTS claims -- that listeners should not interpret everyday disasters like famines, quakes, pestilences and wars as "signs" of anything, precisely because they are everyday events. Doing so is as nonsensical predicting that some major event will happen when the grass grows green, the sky is blue and young men lust after young women.

    Again, Jonsson and others have pointed these things out repeatedly, but because for JW leaders to acknowledge error would mean a huge loss of prestige and followers, they don't. At this point, many JWs simply don't pay any attention to such prophetic speculative nonsense and remain JWs purely for cultural reasons -- "I was born a JW and I'll die a JW" -- exactly what JWs used to condemn members of other religions for.

    AlanF

  • Masterji
    Masterji

    AlanF,
    When I mentioned deep thinkers, I was thinking of you. Am happy that
    such a top-notch mind resopnded with such insight. Carl Jonsson has
    covered it well.

    Your comments on the lunar and the solar years. If you please.

    Really, you are on the edge of being a genius.
    I know, it takes one to know one.

    Best to you AlanF,
    M

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Hi all,

    This may be a simplistic way to interpret the facts, but it is known that the globe's population has increased about four-fold since the turn of the last century (i.e. 1900), or from about 1.5 billion to something just over 6 million. Prior thereto, there were several centuries of relative stagnation in the growth of the human population.

    One possible reason for the burgeoning population would seem to be the diminishing influences of war, famine and pestilence as inhibitors of population growth.

    One does well to ask whether he/she would prefer to have been born 100, 200 or more years ago in preference to the present time?

    Of course, serious, virtually intractable problems afflict humanity today, and it would be folly to minimize them. Nonetheless it would seem still that a compelling case can be made for the argument that the basic quality of life has never been better for a larger proportion of the globe's inhabitants than it is right now. Untold millions of humans beings enjoy a level of comfort, well-being and convenience undreamt of even by royalty even 60 or 70 years ago.

  • IslandWoman
    IslandWoman

    Masterji,

    I have a question for you, I would appreciate your thoughts on it.

    It has been found quite interesting by some that Luke, when writing his Gospel placed some parallel prophecies which are included in Matthew 24 not in Luke 21, which is the parallel account to Matthew 24, but in Luke 17.

    For instance: Luke 17:30,31 "The same way it will be on that day when the Son of man is to be REVEALED. On that day....." (caps mine) Notice that Luke is not referring to the "Presence" of Jesus but his Revealing! The verses following verse 30 describe the events which Luke places in the time of Jesus' "Revealing".

    Please note verses 34 and 35 of Luke 17, "I tell you. In that night two men will be in one bed; the one will be taken along, but the other will be abandoned. There will be two women grinding at the same mill; the one will be taken along, but the other will be abandoned."

    Now notice Matthew 24:39-41 "and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the PRESENCE of the Son of man will be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned; two women will be grinding at the hand mill: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned." (caps mine)

    Luke and Matthew are both speaking of urgency, something that will come quickly, yet Luke is speaking about the REVEALING of the Son of Man while Matthew calls it "the PRESENCE of the Son of man".

    Why?

    Again please note verse 37 of Luke 17, "So in response they said to him: 'Where, Lord?' He said to them: 'Where the body is, there also the eagles will be gathered together.'" Remember this statement by Luke is placed after the words: in verses 30 and 31 "The same way it will be on that day when the Son of is to be revealed. On that
    day..." Whereas again at Matthew 24:27,28 they are to occur during the Presence of the Son of man not his Revealing.

    It is thought by some that the explanation for this seeming discrepancy is that the Presence and Revealing of Jesus are one and the same.

    Any thoughts on that?

    IW

  • Masterji
    Masterji

    Room215

    Striving for the connection.

    Please look at the original post and give me your thoughts on the
    last two paragraphs.

    The lunar and the solar connection.

    Thanks,
    M

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    To Masterji:

    For a detailed discussion of the entire prophetic speculative nonsense about using "a day for a year" and such, please refer to Jonsson's books. He does a far better job of it than I could.

    I see the problem with the solar/lunar year business as one of consistency. If the WTS wants to use one or the other, then let them be consistent. This willy-nilly usage of one or the other might in principle be possible, but so are any number of other ways to interpret what's said in the Bible. In the 19th century, just about every year from 1800 to 2099 was assigned to have some prophetic significance based on this sort of speculative nonsense.

    I can't possibly disprove the WTS's interpretation based solely on the Bible. Why? Because the stuff they're cobbling together can be cobbled together in any number of equally 'consistent' (or rather, inconsistent) ways, as the literature of the 19th-century prophetic speculators proves.

    In the end, as the WTS admits, the proof is in the pudding. If the "events of 1914" had been predicted in advance by Russell and his buddies, and if "the events of 1914" were exactly as the WTS today describes, then that would be good justification for their interpretations. But the complete failure of Russell's predictions, along with the complete failure of today's Watchtower Society to tell the truth about the state of the 20th century versus that of previous centuries, is proof that their interpretations are false.

    My best to you, too, Masterji!

    To Room215:

    : One possible reason for the burgeoning population would seem to be the diminishing influences of war, famine and pestilence as inhibitors of population growth.

    : One does well to ask whether he/she would prefer to have been born 100, 200 or more years ago in preference to the present time?

    Precisely!

    To IslandWoman:

    Excellent comments! I had completely forgotten about Luke 17 until you mentioned it.

    I think you're quite right, that the "presence", as the New World Translation puts it, mentioned in Matthew is exactly the same as the 'revealing' of Luke 17, the "coming" of Matthew 24:42-44, Mark 13:26, 35, Luke 21:27 and other scriptures, and the 'arriving' of Matthew 24:46 and Mark 13:36.

    The problem for the WTS lies in its outdated and wrong translation of the Greek parousia as "presence". While the word certainly can mean that, it can also take on other shades of meaning, such as "arrival", "coming", "advent" and so forth. The word is often used in koiné Greek to focus only on the "presence" part of the meaning, or only on the "arrival" part of the meaning, or on both equally, or on both with one or the other somewhat emphasized. Josephus, for example, uses the word close to 35 times in his collected works. In only five cases does he use it to mean "presence" only, while in the rest he uses it to mean "arrival" or "arrival with consequent presence" and so forth. The WTS published an article in the August 15, 1996 Watchtower that discussed the word parousia, and it claimed that the "presence only" or "presence emphasized" meanings were the only meanings. In fact, in a classic case of Watchtower lying, it quoted only the five passages from Josephus where parousia is used to mean exclusively "presence". This, even though the article acknowledged that "visit of a ruler" and "a presence extending from the arrival onward" are possible meanings.

    C. T. Russell picked up the incorrect translation of parousia as "presence" from Nelson Barbour in 1876. Barbour had predicted that "the end of the world" would come in 1873, and then 1874. When that failed, he and his few remaining followers tried and tried to figure out where they had calculated wrong. Finally one of them read Matthew 24:3 in Benjamin Wilson's The Emphatic Diaglott, in which parousia had been translated "presence". "Aha!" they thought. Here was a chance to salvage the failed prediction. How? By claiming that their calculations had been right after all, but that they applied not to a literal, observable return or "coming" of Christ, but to an invisible return in 1874 followed by an invisible parousia or presence. Thus, the Watchtower Society latched onto the incorrect translation in order to salvage a failed prediction by a Second Adventist preacher, one that they taught as Gospel for another 60 years. During the 1920s and 1930s, the Watchtower Society gradually transferred most of its teachings about 1874 to 1914, especially the notion that an "invisible presence" of Christ began then. This was as convenient for them in 1925 as it was for Russell in 1885, to claim that an invisible event had occurred, which salvaged a failed prediction, and that if no one payed attention to it, that was their lookout.

    Wilson's translation was somewhat justifiable until a huge number of fragments of koiné Greek writings and fragments became available in the late 19th century. The findings of many scholars were summed up in the 1908 book by Adolph Deissmann Light from the East. Concerning parousia he wrote:

    "Yet another of the central ideas of the oldest Christian worship receives light from the new texts, viz. parousia [parousia], `advent, coming,' a word expressive of the most ardent hopes of a St. Paul. We now may say that the best interpretation of the Primitive Christian hope of the Parousia is the old Advent text, `Behold, thy King cometh unto thee.' [Matthew 21:5] From the Ptolemaic period down into the 2nd cent. A.D. we are able to trace the word in the east as a technical expression for the arrival or the visit of the king or the emperor."

    Along with Deissmann, there is a general consensus among modern scholars that parousia in the New Testament, when used of the 'second coming' of Christ, is used in its technical sense of a royal visitation. Such a visitation of course results in a subsequent presence, but the emphasis is on the arrival.

    Of course, we all know that if the Watchtower Society acknowledged the truth of the above, its entire authority structure would collapse because its most basic teaching on chronology would be history. Without 1914, there's nothing to hang the "appointment of the faithful slave over all Christ's belongings in 1919" doctrine on.

    Oddly enough, the Society has already all but given in on many of the basic points. The keepers of the internal doctrine are simply too stupid to realize it. Or perhaps they simply don't want to face the consequences. They've already taught, from 1993 onward, that Matthew 24:15-44, 48-51; 25:1-46 have a future fulfillment. But they don't want to acknowledge that verses 45-47 must therefore apply also to the future, continuing to teach that they were fulfilled in 1919 and earlier. The reason is obvious: these verses are the foundation for the claim of Watchtower leaders to be spirit-directed "spiritual shepherds" over "God's house" today by virtue of having been appointed "the faithful and discreet slave over all Christ's belongings" in 1919.

    AlanF

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    JW's currently maintain that Christ returned invisibly in the year 1914. They believe this to be so based upon their understanding of the fourth chapter of Daniel. Their understanding maintains that Nebuchadnezzar was removed from Babylon's throne for 7 years. And that those 7 years were "prophetic years" of 360 days each, totaling 2,520 days. And they say that each of those 2,520 days was meant to picture an ordinary "non-prophetic" solar year of 365.2425 days each. And they say that this prophecy was meant to indicate that the time of Christ's return can be determined by counting forward in time 2,520 solar years from the time of Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon, which they say occurred in the year 607 B.C.E.

    As you can see, this understanding is based on a series of assumptions. And if any one of those assumptions is wrong, then so is the whole interpretation. So then, let's examine those assumptions, one at a time.

    First, the history of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is very well documented in the scriptures and in extrabiblical sources. A thorough review of all of this information shows that it is impossible to find a period of 7 years within his reign of 43 years when Nebuchadnezzar was absent from his throne or inactive as ruler. With this in mind, it seems unlikely that the "7 times" could have referred to a period of 7 years.

    Second, the idea that the "times" referred to "prophetic years" of 360 days each is based on the belief that the "1260 days" spoken of in Rev. 12:6 are equated with the "3 1/2 times" spoken of in Rev. 12:14. This is not necessarily so. ( For instance, the 1260 days in Rev. 12:6 may possibly refer to the time when Christianity was protected after the time of Christ's ascension and before the time the Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles in 36 AD. Then, when the good news began to be preached to all national groups Christianity took off, as though it had wings of eagles, and was thereafter protected for a second longer period of time. This second period of protection was the "3 1/2 times" spoken of in Rev. 12:14. This "3 1/2 times" would then be understood to be the period of time from 36 AD until the time of Christ's return.) Since some interpretations of Rev. 12, such as this one, say that the "1260 days" and the "3 1/2 times" spoken of in Rev. 12 do not refer to the same period of time, it is only an assumption and quite possibly a wrong one, that the concept of a 360 day "prophetic year" even exists in the Bible.

    Third, it seems contradictory that each of the 360 days in each of these 7 "prophetic years" was meant to picture a solar year containing 365.2425 days, even if we were on sound footing so far which we are not. For if days were meant to be understood as years, then it would follow that days in prophetic years ought to be understood as an equal number of 360 day "prophetic years," not an equal number of 365 day solar years.

    Fourth, the idea that this whole period of time was meant to be counted from the time of Jerusalem's desolation is highly questionable for several reasons which space here does not permit me to go into.

    Fifth, the historical and biblical evidence is overwhelming that Jerusalem was not destroyed by Babylon in 607 B.C.E. Rather, as all history books tell us, that event took place in 587/6 B.C.E.

    Sixth, this interpretation of Daniel 4 is internally inconsistent with both Daniel and Revelation. The Watchtower's interpretation of Daniel 4 tells us that its "seven times" = 2,520 years. We are told that the cryptic word "times" clearly indicates a greater meaning than just "seven years." But when the term "3 and 1/2 times" (half of seven times) is used in both Daniel and Revelation (Dan. 8:25; Rev.12:14) the Watchtower does not say those "3 and 1/2 times" = 1,260 years, half of 2,520 years. To do so would certainly be consistent with their Daniel 4 interpretation. But the Watchtower Society tells us that when the term "3 and 1/2 times" appears in the Bible it simply means 3 and 1/2 years and nothing more.

    Another important point that should be made is that Daniel chapter 4 even does not need any interpretation by us today. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream and asked Daniel to interpret it, which he did quite well in verses 20-28. The interpretation Daniel gave seemed quite thorough, and it said nothing about the year 1914. Neither is there any place else in the Bible which indicates that Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream was either incorrect or incomplete. Thus, there exists no reason to believe that God intended for us to understand Nebuchadnezzar's dream any differently than Daniel interpreted it.

    This it not to say that a secondary, larger fulfillment of Nebuchadnezzar's dream may not be possible. But if there really is a secondary, larger fulfillment of Daniel 4, the correct understanding of it might be totally different from the one JW's have suggested. And since Daniel himself interpreted the dream and he did not indicate that there existed a then unexplained secondary, larger fulfillment of that dream, how can we say for sure that there is one? And even if there is one, how can we say for sure what it is?

    Now JW's all say the larger fulfillment seems obvious to them. But I believe that if it does, it is only because their thinking has been conditioned to understand Daniel 4 in the way they now do. To illustrate this point, let's try to think of some other possibilities that might be the real "greater fulfillment" of Daniel 4, if indeed there is one. Some suggestions follow.

    1) Jesus himself was pictured by the tree. He was anointed as king of Israel at his baptism. Shortly thereafter he rode triumphantly into Jerusalem and was hailed as king by many. He later confirmed this appointment as king by saying, "All authority in heaven and earth has been granted me." (Matt. 28:18) His death ended his earthly reign as king. The tree in Daniel 4 was cut down and banded for "seven times" until Christ's return to again rule earth as its king, 2,520 years later. (using the JW's understanding of "times") Then, in the year 2553 A.D. Jesus Christ will again take up his role as earth's king and bring peace to all the earth. ( If this old world is still around in 2553 this interpretation could become quite popular.)

    2) God's perfect rule over all mankind was pictured by the tree. It was cut down when Adam and Eve rebelled in Eden. Each "time" is to be understood as being 1,000 years. At the time of mankind's rebellion in Eden God purposed to restore His perfect rule, along with paradise conditions, to earth after exactly 7,000 years had passed. Then, at the end of Christ's 1,000 year reign, after Satan is destroyed forever, God will again "walk with men" just as He did with Adam and Eve in Eden. (Gen. 3:8, Rev. 21:3) Allowing for Christ's 1,000 year reign to fill the last part of these 7,000 years, using the JW 4026 BC date for Adam's creation and allowing Adam a biblical "40 years" alone in the garden before "falling" for Eve, according to this interpretation, we can expect Christ's return in the year 2015. : )

    3) Satan the devil was pictured by that tree. Like that Daniel 4 tree, Satan's rule and influence fills the whole earth. And like that tree, the Bible tells us that Satan's rule and influence will one day be cut down and bound. The tree in Daniel 4 was bound with metal bands. Revelation speaks of Satan being bound with metal chains. That Nebuchadnezzar was used to play the small scale role of Satan seems quite fitting. Nebuchadnezzar was, after all, a king who had persecuted and enslaved God's people. The tree was banded for "7 times." Satan will be chained for 1,000 years. How do "7 times" equal 1,000 years? Again we will speculate that it is God's intention to restore earth to a paradise 7,000 years after Adam's rebellion in Eden. So, everything in this speculative interpretation is based on this speculative 7,000 year period of time. Since "seven times" ( 7 X ) 1,000 years = 7,000 years, the "7 times" spoken of in Daniel chapter 4 should be understood to equal 1,000 years. After those 1,000 years have passed Satan will be released from his chains just as the tree was unbanded. Then, just as Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged God's sovereignty after 7 times had passed over him, Satan will be forced to bend his knee to God before he is finally destroyed. For as the Bible says, "Every knee will bow." (In the initial small "scale fulfillment" of this interpretation of Daniel 4 Nebuchadnezzar was removed from his throne for 1,000 days, a day for each year of the "large scale" fulfillment. History does allow Nebuchadnezzar a 1,000 day absence from his throne but not a seven year absence.)

    4) .....Need I go on? The point is, with a little imagination, we can come up with several different possible "larger" fulfillments of Daniel chapter 4. And any one of them would make as much or more sense as the Watchtower's interpretation of Daniel 4. But since Daniel already gave us the correct interpretation of the prophecy, and since nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that there is, in fact, another correct interpretation of it, we cannot say for sure that there is one, or if there is one, what exactly it is.

  • sleepy
    sleepy

    This is the first thing that made be click and realise the society was wrong about the gentile times.
    I was reading a book about how humans came to measure years and how they did so through out history .
    "The Calendar. By David Ewing Duncan"
    In the watchtower it says,
    "In establishing the length of the seven times of the Gentiles, a time or year of 360 days is used, to give 2,520 days,"
    But for some reason these are special years as they are not a year at all but 360 days. This is an important point.
    So they call this a prophetic year because of course it isn't a year in the sense we mean it.
    This is because there are different types of year according to what you mean.
    Lunar Year
    Solar Year
    Calendar year
    Tropical Year
    All have slightly different lengths.
    Although over a short period of time this doesn’t make much difference , over thousands of years the differences will be great.
    Now back in Bible times no one knew how long a real year was which is the time it takes the earth to go round the sun once, so they had different ways to estimate a year , most nations including Israel and Babylon used lunar calendars .It was 354 days for Israel 360 for Babylon although this changed later in history.
    Oh yes Babylon had 360 but wait a minute ,you ended up running behind real years ( likewise with Israel) so you needed lots of leap years to catch up otherwise the seasons started advancing. These of course had a different number of days than the “normal” year. That meant you were unlikely to have 7 years of 360 days in a row.

    The society says that after you change 7 times into 7 years of 360 days you most now change a day into a year. But of what length are those years?
    The society assumes 365 1/4 days as per our year, but the Jews or the Babylonians never knew a year of this length, it's totally a modern calculation. This is based on the Georgian calendar.
    When we measure from 2001 back to 607 we use the Georgian calendar.

    So we a year of 360 days then a day for a year but this year is 3651/4 days even though no one used that back then.
    What basis is there for all these different types of years being used in a single prophecy?
    I see the problem in the use of the word year.
    Although we know it as the time it takes the Earth to circle the Sun it has not been a constant standard over history. So to take an ancient persons idea of a year and to replace it with our own does not seam logical.
    Just a small amount of difference would put different standards out when used over millenniums.
    To use an ancient calculation of a year and a modern and to interpose them on top of each other does not make sense to me.
    It requires acrobatic thinking , but one without any solid basis.
    This applies to the prophecy of the coming of the messiah too.
    How could the Jews work out the time of his coming if that prophecy is based on the modern calendar: 455bc-29ad are not dates they could have used as they didn't exist back then.
    The point is there has never been a standard year until recent history so lengths of years have varied greatly in the past therefore it is not logical to concluded that you can change an ancient year of 360 days for one of 365 1/4 without any solid reason to do so.

  • ballistic
    ballistic

    It is purely my opinion, but having read about the early history of the bible students, I believe Rusell and some other start ups of the day were obssessed with finding a hidden "code" woven into the bible predicting the future.
    His interest in pyramidology and using maths to work out the future confirms this.
    The fact is, you could cross reference as many passages, dates and numbers as you like, and come up with just about any date. Rusell got lucky and something big did happen in 1914, but it wasn't the end of the world as he predicted. The war ended, things moved on, and the beliefs were adjusted accordingly.
    But my point here is that something important has been missed: the bible condemns "searching for portents and omens". The bible condemns "false prophesy" and "adding to scripture".
    All of this is part of the process whereby the society down to today draw their conclusions and make predictions.

    Read the revelation climax book. This is basically a verse by verse "commentary", and in effect, a re-write of the bible book itself. Try coming to the same conclusions they did just by reading the bible, and ask yourself why their bible does not contain the books content in the NWT bible itself. (Rev 22: 18,19)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit