AlanF

Joined

• started 104 topics
• posted 4,636 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by AlanF

• 
  19

  Big Announcement

  by sinis in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  special campaign october 16-november 12!

  1. the end of false religion is near!

  that is the titles of the kingdom news no.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  They've been doing this as far back as I can remember. I recall one such "big campaign" in the early 1970s. This is nothing but cheerleading for the JW troops.

  AlanF
• 
  23

  What is the reasoning that the seventh day of rest is 7000 years?

  by jwfacts in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i used to feel that the prophecy of the seven times ending in 1914 and that the 6,000 years were up in the 20th century was good proof that these are the last days.

  but i just started wondering why the wts says the day of rest would be 7000 years and can not find proof for this assertion.

  does anyone know why the wts says god would rest for a period of 7000 years?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Narkissos has it exactly right. The Society used the arguments that blondie mentioned to decide that in the decades before 1975 we were close to Armageddon, nearly 6,000 years into human history. Then it tacked on the 1,000 year reign of Christ and came up with a figure just shy of 7,000 years. Then it simply assumed -- no arguments needed since this was also Russell's assumption and a Watchtower tradition -- that the figure for the 7th day must have been exactly 7,000 years.

  I pointed out all this and then some in a 1972 letter to the Society. Their reply was that I was right, that the exact number was just a hopeful assumption. I hoped to see some correction of the matter appear in WTS literature, but it never did. Best to keep the cult member's busy with 1975, right? This all contributed to my gradual demise as a JW.

  Incidentally, Young-Earth Creationists have nicely tackled the argument that Hebrews indicates the length of the 7th day. References can be found in my thread on why the Society rejects Genesis from a couple of weeks ago.

  AlanF
• 
  92

  A True Scholar In Our Midst, Leolaia

  by Skoshi in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  her posts for a very long time were overflowing with an obvious scholarship.

  i have avidly read her posts and have tucked away as much as my much smaller brain could be forced to take in.

  i'm sure others have openly expressed their admiration and appreciation for her, but i would like to do so here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  I think that proplog2's problem is that he has an extreme inferiority complex. This results in extreme envy that blossoms when others get praise and he does not.

  Proplog2 also confuses the giving of praise by people who volunteer it, with a need to have it by those who receive it. The two things are unrelated.

  I recently completed an intensive technical class in certain fundamentals of electrical engineering. It was given by a prominent emeritus professor from Cal Tech, who has been traveling around the world giving these classes. The man is absolutely brilliant and has revolutionized certain aspects of the EE profession. He's an IEEE Fellow for Life and has a list of credentials and honors a mile long. But the man is friendly and down to earth. At age 77, he doesn't need praise from anyone -- he knows he's earned it. I was quite pleased to tell him to his face that I wished I had known the information he taught when I was beginning my career more than 20 years ago. Other students also praised his course. No one had any problem with giving such deserved praise. Why? Because no one had an inferiority complex. He accepted the praise gracefully, and that only increased my respect for the man. Why? Because I don't have an inferiority complex.

  AlanF
• 
  4

  607 website - part 4

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  part 4 in the series

  part 1: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118445/2082380/post.ashx#2082380.

  part 2: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118507/2083398/post.ashx#2083398.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Once again an excellent refutation.

  AlanF
• 
  2

  607 website - part 3

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is a continuation from part 1 at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118445/2082380/post.ashx#2082380 and part 2 at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118507/2083398/post.ashx#2083398.

  this section refers to the website starting from http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/mere_servitude.html.

  did the 70 years begin in neb's 1st year?.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  AlanF

  Excellent, as usual.

  AlanF
• 
  1380

  The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

  why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

  as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Why Luke 17 Proves that Parousia Must Be Translated as Presence in Matthew 24:3

  
  This is a continuation from my previous post # 4717 on page 52 of this thread.

  Beginning of Part II

  thirdwitless said:

  : And just in case you missed it here is
  :The final nail in the coffin of AlanF's and other opposition to JWs interpretation of parousia.
  
  : Luke 17 offers a parallel of Matthew 24. An examination of it will reveal the true meaning of parousia.

  Before I begin dismantling thirdwitless' claims, I need to establish some groundwork. Note that my treatment here is of necessity brief, as it would take a large book to give a comprehensive treatment.

  A comparison of the parallel accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and related passages in the rest of the New Testament, shows that whenever the word parousia was used in a theological context, it was virtually synonymous with "coming" or "arrival" or "appearing", as in "Second Coming". Many commentators in the 19th and 20th centuries have arrived at this conclusion, and some have even written extensive books about parousia. What are their arguments?

  A simple comparison of the accounts related to Christ's coming demonstrates that parousia is used virtually interchangeably with the Greek words for "revelation" (apokalupsis), "manifestation" (epiphaneia), and "coming" (eleusis).

  1 Thessalonians 4:15: 15 For this is what we tell you by the word of the Lord, that we the living who survive to the coming [parousia] of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death.

  2 Thessalonians 2:1: However, brothers, respecting the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him.

  2 Timothy 4:8: From this time on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me as a reward in that day, yet not only to me, but also to all those who have loved his manifestation [epiphaneia].

  Most of Paul's writings dealing with parousia occur in the context of the end-times judgment. For example, compare these two passages:

  1 Thessalonians 1:10: and to wait for his Son from the heavens, whom he raised up from the dead, namely, Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath which is coming.
  1 Thessalonians 2:19: For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation -- why, is it not in fact you? -- before our Lord Jesus at his coming [parousia]?

  Now compare several more passages:

  1 Thessalonians 3:13: to the end that he may make your hearts firm, unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones.
  1 Thessalonians 5:1-11, 23: Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know quite well that the Lord’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. 3 Whenever it is that they are saying: "Peace and security!" then sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them just as the pang of distress upon a pregnant woman; and they will by no means escape. 4 But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that that day should overtake you as it would thieves, 5 for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We belong neither to night nor to darkness. 6 So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses. 7 For those who sleep are accustomed to sleep at night, and those who get drunk are usually drunk at night. 8 But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and have on the breastplate of faith and love and as a helmet the hope of salvation; 9 because God assigned us, not to wrath, but to the acquiring of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10 He died for us, that, whether we stay awake or are asleep, we should live together with him. 11 Therefore keep comforting one another and building one another up, just as you are in fact doing. . . May the very God of peace sanctify you completely. And sound in every respect may the spirit and soul and body of you be preserved in a blameless manner at the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ.

  Judgment is associated with the tradition of the day of the Lord, and it incorporates the imagery of the Lord's mighty coming. In fact, Paul uses the terms parousia and "day of the Lord" in juxtaposition:

  1 Thessalonians 4:15: For this is what we tell you by the word of the Lord, that we the living who survive to the coming [parousia] of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death.
  1 Thessalonians 5:2: For you yourselves know quite well that the Lord’s day is coming [erkhetai] exactly as a thief in the night.

  In two other passages, Paul seems to join the two images:

  1 Corinthians 4:1-5: Let a man so appraise us as being subordinates of Christ and stewards of sacred secrets of God. 2 Besides, in this case, what is looked for in stewards is for a man to be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is a very trivial matter that I should be examined by you or by a human tribunal. Even I do not examine myself. 4 For I am not conscious of anything against myself. Yet by this I am not proved righteous, but he that examines me is the Lord. 5 Hence do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest, and then each one will have his praise come to him from God.
  Romans 13:11-12) 11 Do this, too, because you people know the season, that it is already the hour for you to awake from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than at the time when we became believers. 12 The night is well along; the day has drawn near.

  That parousia and "day of the Lord" are interchangeable in the Gospels is evident from these parallel passages:

  Matthew 24:27, 37, 39: For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be. . . For just as the days of Noah were, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be. . . and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be.

  Luke 17:24, 26, 30: For even as the lightning, by its flashing, shines from one part under heaven to another part under heaven, so the Son of man will be. . . Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days [hemera] of the Son of man. . . The same way it will be on that day [hemera] when the Son of man is to be revealed [apokalupsis].

  In these passages, Matthew employs phrases like parousia tou huiou tou anthrwpou (coming of-the Son of-the man), while Luke uses phrases like hemera tou huiou tou anthrwpou (day of-the Son of-the man). It is clear that these passages equate coming [parousia] and revealing [apokalupsis].

  The 5th-6th century Codex Bezae contains large portions of the New Testament, and it contains a variant reading of Luke 21:7 that indicates that native Greek speakers back then viewed parousia and eleusis as virtually interchangeable. Let's consider this passage in comparison with Matthew 24:3:

  Luke 21:7, Standard Text:
  Didaskale, pote oun tauta estai, kai ti to semeion hotan melle tauta ginesthai
  Teacher, when therefore these-(things) will-be, and what the sign whenver may-be-about these-(things) to-be-occurring?

  Luke 21:7, Codex Bezae:
  Didaskale, pote tauta estai, kai ti to semeion tes ses eleusews
  Teacher, when these-(things) will-be, and what the sign of-the your coming?

  Matthew 24:3, Standard text:
  Eimon hemin pote tauta estai, kai ti to semeion tes ses parousias kai sunteleias tou aiwnos.
  Say to-us when these-(things) will-be, and what the sign of-the your coming and of-conclusion of-the age.

  Clearly, Codex Bezae equates eleusis with parousia by comparing Luke 21:7 with Matthew 24:3, and it rolls these two texts into the standard text of Luke 21:7.

  
  Yet another comparison of three important passages proves that "presence" in Matthew 24:3 is impossible. These passages are:

  Revelation 10:7: In the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet.

  Mark 13:4: Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?

  Luke 21:7: "Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"

  The latter two passages are parallel to Matthew 24:3. Since it is obvious that all three are describing the same event, they must mean the same thing. A correct rendering of parousia results in consistent meaning:

  Matthew 24:3: Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the conclusion of the system of things?

  But the NWT's rendering with "presence" is inconsistent:

  Matthew 24:3: Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?

  The reason for the inconsistency is as follows: The question "when will these things happen?" is common to all three passages. Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 then pose the question, "what will be the sign that all these things are about to happen?" Applying this understanding to Matthew 24:3 immediately allows us to rephrase the 2nd question in the NWT: "what will be the sign that your presence and the conclusion of the system of things are about to take place?" But his means that the "sign" must occur in advance of the "presence" -- and this contradicts the Watchtower Society's doctrine that this "presence" began in 1914 and that the "sign" takes place beginning in 1914 and ending at "the great tribulation", whenever that might be. But the proper understanding, that Christ's coming has nothing to do with 1914, results in complete consistency: "what will be the sign that your coming and the conclusion of the system of things are about to take place?"

  
  Naturally, I don't expect that thirdwitless will even understand the above points, much less attempt to debunk them.

  
  With the above background in place, let's go on to debunk thirdwitless' claims about the meaning of Luke 17, 21, Mark 13 and Matthew 24.

  First, let's look at the full text of Luke 17:20-35:

  Luke 17:20-24: 20 "But on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them and said: "The kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness, 21 neither will people be saying, ‘See here!’ or, ‘There!’ For, look! the kingdom of God is in your midst." 22 Then he said to the disciples: "Days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man but you will not see it. 23 And people will say to you, ‘See there!’ or, ‘See here!’ Do not go out or chase after them. 24 For even as the lightning, by its flashing, shines from one part under heaven to another part under heaven, so the Son of man will be."

  So at first, everything having to do with the kingdom of God would be unnoticed by everyone -- even by the disciples -- but when the Son of man finally came, it would be as noticeable as lightning which strikes without warning and can be visible in the entire sky. This theme of the coming of the Son of man being without warning and coming in the midst of unknowing people is then emphasized:

  Luke 17:25-30: 25 "First, however, he must undergo many sufferings and be rejected by this generation. 26 Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. 29 But on the day that Lot came out of Sodom it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 The same way it will be on that day when the Son of man is to be revealed."

  So here we have three parallels: the days of the Son of man, the days of Noah and the days of Lot. In the days of Lot, there was no preaching, no message of a coming destruction, and everyone who was about to be destroyed had no inkling of what was about to come. At the end of these days, destruction came suddenly, without warning. The same with the days of Noah. Although Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness", there is no indication that in the days before the Flood he covered the entire world with a warning message. The passage is clear that this did not happen, because people were just going about their everyday lives. When the Flood came, it was suddenly and without warning. So it was to be in the days before the Son of man arrived. When he arrived, it would be suddenly and without warning.

  Luke 17:31-35: 31 "On that day let the person that is on the housetop but whose movable things are in the house not come down to pick these up, and the person out in the field, let him likewise not return to the things behind. 32 Remember the wife of Lot. 33 Whoever seeks to keep his soul safe for himself will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive. 34 I tell you, In that night two will be in one bed; the one will be taken along, but the other will be abandoned. 35 There will be two grinding at the same mill; the one will be taken along, but the other will be abandoned."

  Once again, the coming of the Son of man is described as extremely sudden, without warning.

  Now let's look at the somewhat parallel passage in Luke 21:20-36:

  Luke 21:20-24: 20 "Furthermore, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her; 22 because these are days for meting out justice, that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and the ones suckling a baby in those days! For there will be great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people; 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."

  This passage ends with the destruction wrought by the coming of the Son of man upon Jerusalem. It is largely parallel to Luke 17:31-35.

  Luke 21:25-27: 25 "Also, there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations, not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation, 26 while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory."

  This is Luke's description of the "sign" that the disciples asked about in Luke 21:7.

  Luke 21:28-31: 28 "But as these things start to occur, raise yourselves erect and lift your heads up, because your deliverance is getting near." 29 With that he spoke an illustration to them: "Note the fig tree and all the other trees: 30 When they are already in the bud, by observing it you know for yourselves that now the summer is near. 31 In this way you also, when you see these things occurring, know that the kingdom of God is near."

  Note that the illustration does not say that these signs show that the coming of the Son of man is near -- because that already occurred in verse 27 -- but that the kingdom of God is near.

  Luke 21:32: 32 "Truly I say to you, This generation will by no means pass away until all things occur."

  Obviously talking to the generation of people who actually heard Jesus speak. This clearly shows that all the things Jesus spoke about here would be fulfilled upon those people, and it was most certainly fulfilled when Jerusalem and the Jewish nation was destroyed in 70 A.D.

  Luke 21:33-36: 33 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away. 34 "But pay attention to yourselves that your hearts never become weighed down with overeating and heavy drinking and anxieties of life, and suddenly that day be instantly upon you 35 as a snare. For it will come in upon all those dwelling upon the face of all the earth. 36 Keep awake, then, all the time making supplication that you may succeed in escaping all these things that are about [mellw] to occur, and in standing before the Son of man."

  Once again, Jesus emphasizes the nearness of "all these things" with the expression "that are about to occur", and to watch out because "suddenly that day" could "be instantly upon yo as a snare".

  Now let's look at Mark 13:14-37.

  Mark 13:14-23: 14 "However, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation standing where it ought not (let the reader use discernment), then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains. 15 Let the man on the housetop not come down, nor go inside to take anything out of his house; 16 and let the man in the field not return to the things behind to pick up his outer garment. 17 Woe to the pregnant women and those suckling a baby in those days! 18 Keep praying that it may not occur in wintertime; 19 for those days will be days of a tribulation such as has not occurred from the beginning of the creation which God created until that time, and will not occur again. 20 In fact, unless the Lord had cut short the days, no flesh would be saved. But on account of the chosen ones whom he has chosen he has cut short the days. 21 "Then, too, if anyone says to you, ‘See! Here is the Christ,’ ‘See! There he is,’ do not believe it. 22 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, the chosen ones. 23 You, then, watch out; I have told you all things beforehand."

  This passage is largely parallel to Luke 17:22-24, 31-35; 21:20-24.

  Mark 13:24-26: 24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling out of heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory."

  This passage is largely a parallel with Luke 21:25-27.

  Mark 13:27-29: 27 "And then he will send forth the angels and will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from earth’s extremity to heaven’s extremity. 28 "Now from the fig tree learn the illustration: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 Likewise also you, when you see these things happening, know that he is near, at the doors."

  Parallel with Luke 21:28-31.

  Mark 13:30: "Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen."

  Parallel with Luke 21:32.

  Mark 13:31-37: 31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 32 Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father. 33 Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is. 34 It is like a man traveling abroad that left his house and gave the authority to his slaves, to each one his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to keep on the watch. 35 Therefore keep on the watch, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether late in the day or at midnight or at cockcrowing or early in the morning; 36 in order that when he arrives suddenly, he does not find you sleeping. 37 But what I say to you I say to all, Keep on the watch."

  Again largely parallel to Luke 21:33-36. Here again, the emphasis is on the suddenness of the coming of the Son of man, that no one other than the Father knows the day or the hour, the appointed time, and so Christians should always "keep on the watch".

  Finally, let's consider the parallel account in Matthew:15-51.

  Matthew 24:15-51: "Therefore, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) 16 then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains. 17 Let the man on the housetop not come down to take the goods out of his house; 18 and let the man in the field not return to the house to pick up his outer garment. 19 Woe to the pregnant women and those suckling a baby in those days! 20 Keep praying that your flight may not occur in wintertime, nor on the sabbath day; 21 for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. 22 In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short. 23 "Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned you. 26 Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together."

  The parallels with Luke and Mark are obvious. Note that verse 27 is quite clear that the parousia of the Son of man would be extremely visible, which thoroughly disproves a claim of an "invisible parousia".

  Matthew then describes "the sign" that the disciples asked about in Matthew 24:3:

  Matthew 24:29-31: 29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity."

  Again the parallels to Luke and Mark are obvious.

  Matthew 24:32-35: 32 "Now learn from the fig tree as an illustration this point: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and it puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 Likewise also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near at the doors. 34 Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away."

  Obvious parallels again.

  Now we come to the passage in question that thirdwitless claims is a serious problem for normal Christian understanding of the Gospel accounts. This is the paralled to Luke 17:25-30:

  Matthew 24:36-39: 36 "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be."

  Since thirdwitless will have largely forgotten what I wrote a few paragraphs above about the proper understanding of Luke 17:25-30 in context, let me repeat:

  So here we have three parallels: the days of the Son of man, the days of Noah and the days of Lot. In the days of Lot, there was no preaching, no message of a coming destruction, and everyone who was about to be destroyed had no inkling of what was about to come. At the end of these days, destruction came suddenly, without warning. The same with the days of Noah. Although Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness", there is no indication that in the days before the Flood he covered the entire world with a warning message. The passage is clear that this did not happen, because people were just going about their everyday lives. When the Flood came, it was suddenly and without warning. So it was to be in the days before the Son of man arrived. When he arrived, it would be suddenly and without warning.

  Note again that when parousia is improperly translated as "presence", the passage is rendered difficult to understand in the overall context of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 17, 21.

  Matthew 24:40-44: 40 "Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned; 41 two women will be grinding at the hand mill: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know one thing, that if the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account you too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that you do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming [erchetai].

  Again the parallels with Mark and Luke are obvious. Note clearly that Matthew uses erkhetai for "coming", so this word construction is parallel to his use of parousia for "coming" elsewhere.

  Incidentally, a proper understanding of these passages shows that the Watchtower Society's so-called "faithful and discreet slave" doctrine is bogus. Note the passage:

  Matthew 24:45-51: 45 "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings. 48 But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ 49 and should start to beat his fellow slaves and should eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, 50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, 51 and will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his part with the hypocrites. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be."

  This is clearly a simple parable that shows that each Christian must be completely faithful to the Master. There is nothing more to it than that.

  In terms of current Watchtower doctrine, its interpretation is easy to disprove as well. The Society admits that all of the events described in Matthew 24:40-44 have not yet taken place. It also admits that the events described in Matthew 24:48-51 have not yet taken place. How then, can the parable of Matthew 24:45-47 be sandwiched in between these, and claimed to have occurred in 1919? The answer is painfully obvious: the Society's claims are bogus.

  
  In view of the above, let's go on to thirdwitless' specific claims:

  : Luke 17:26 Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all.
  
  : Note that 'the days of Noah' = 'the days of the Son of man'.

  Right, but you've ignored that 'the days of Lot' = 'the days of the Son of man'. You've also neglected the obvious fact that the whole point of these passages is not to equate these periods, but to show the unexpectedness and suddenness of the events that came at the end of these periods.
  
  : The days of Noah was a time when people were carrying on the everyday affairs of life and took no note of their impending destruction. They took no note of what Noah was saying and doing.

  You've again ignored the extremely important fact that Noah could not possibly have preached about a coming Flood to the entire world. We know that the very same science that establishes that Exodus 20:11; 31:17 and Genesis 1:1-5 cannot mean that the universe was created in six literal days -- otherwise you should just chuck the Bible -- also establishes that mankind has been living on all continents but Antarctica for tens of thousands of years. The Aborigines reached Australia some 40,000 years ago. If mankind was as fecund as the Bible indicates in pre-Flood days, then the entire world must have been populated. It is physically impossible for a single family like Noah's to do this preaching, especially in the mere 120 years you claim below. Obviously, something is very wrong with the JW view of the history of mankind.
  
  : How long were the days of Noah when men were taking no note until the flood came? According to Genesis 6:3 Jehovah says of wicked mankind in the days of Noah: "... his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years." So the days of Noah before the flood, specified by Jehovah, when men were taking no note of Jehovah was at the very least 120 years. Quite an extended period of time.

  Nowhere near long enough to preach to an entire world.

  And how about the days of Lot? What preaching was done then? Remember that it is YOU who are claiming parallels here, so you have to prove your claims.
  
  : Enter Matthew 24:37: For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.

  : Lets compare this scripture to Luke 17:26,27.

  : Luke: Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, : Matt: For just as the days of Noah were

  : Luke:so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: : Matt:so the presence of the Son of man will be.

  : Luke: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, : Matt: For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and : women being given in marriage,

  : Luke: until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all. : Matt: 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away,

  All of these passages are completely understandable in the normal Christian way when the complete passages and context are considered, as I've shown above.
  
  : The sentences are virtually the same, almost identical with one notable exception. Luke says 'the days of the Son of man' but Matthew says 'presence of the Son of man'. What can we surmise from this?

  We can surmise that "presence" is a wrong translation.
  
  : The 'days of the Son of man' = the 'presence of the Son of man'.

  Not quite. Your claim is incomplete. See above.
  
  : And both equal the days of Noah when people were living their everyday life taking no note of what Jehovah's servants were doing and saying. Then the flood came and swept them all away. A time period that lasted over 100 years.

  Again you've missed the fact that the point of these passages had to do with the suddenness and unexpectedness of the coming of the Son of man or the coming of the Flood or the coming of the destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah at the end of the days.
  
  : The days or presence of the Son of man is not just paralleled by the period when the flood actually swept them all away. The days or parousia of Jesus is paralleled by the days of Noah before the flood also when they were taking no note of what was to come upon them.

  This is nothing but an unsupported claim. Nor do any modern commentators agree with this view, except perhaps for Dispensationalists who believe in a "secret rapture".

  : The days that someone is present involves not only their arrival but the period of days that they remain after their arrival.

  Which is why the translation "presence" buggers one's understanding of Matthew, Mark, Luke and a host of other passages.
  
  : Likewise today, for the most part people are living their everyday lives not taking any note of the days or presence of the Son of man and that Jesus is gathering his people into one ark or organization for survival of the impending destruction to be brought upon this wicked system.

  This is a completely circular argument: "We know that Christ's presence began in 1914, and we take note of it, so others must not be taking note of it."

  You forget that another, far more reasonable explanation that people take no note of JW doctrine is that it flies in the face of the facts. You forget that absolutely nothing observable that C. T. Russell predicted came to pass. He expected that 1914 would bring Armageddon, and when that didn't happen, he changed his prediction to one where Armageddon was to come in 1918. He died expecting that. Very soon, his successors under J. F. Rutherford predicted that Armageddon would come in 1920, then 1925, and so forth. The "Millions Campaign" that was launched by a small lecture in 1918 completely failed. Russell's doctrine that the parousia came invisibly in 1874 was abandoned in 1931 and changed to 1914, along with a host of other changes demanded by the facts. Doctrine was transformed, not by better understanding of the Scriptures, but by necessity.

  An interesting comment on this transformation is made by Carl Sagan in Broca's Brain, pages 332-333:

  Doctrines that make no predictions are less compelling than those which make correct predictions; they are in turn more successful than doctrines that make false predictions.

  But not always. One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and -- while the events of that year were certainly of some importance -- the world does not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, "Oh, did we say `1914'? So sorry, we meant `2014.' A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvenienced in any way." But they did not. They could have said, "Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth." But they did not. Instead, they did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the face of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough-mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration were needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry. [Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain, Ballantine Books, New York, 1982, p. 332]

  : So in conclusion, this proves decisively that the presence or parousia or days of the Son of man is a specific extended time period that begins before the actual destruction of the wicked system when people are taking no note of God and his reigning King and what he is doing and taking no note of their impending destruction just like the days of Noah which lasted over 100 years.

  You still have a lot more work to do. But readers know very well that you're going to ignore at least 95% of everything in this post and my preceeding post, just as you ignored 99% of everything in my extensive post on earthquakes and "the composite sign". But please do keep up the good work, because you're showing lurkers how stupid and uncomprehending Jehovah's Witnesses really are about factual information that shows their bogus beliefs.
  
  : In view of this definitive and undeniable scriptural evidence,

  LOL!

  : parousia is no brief coming at the destruction of the wicked as many would have you believe. Not only that but parousia in Matthew 24 can accurately be translated by its root meaning presence and presence accurately depicts the entire meaning of parousia because the days or parousia of the Son of man covers many many years just as the days of Noah covered many many years.

  Readers who might not have tackled your seemingly "definitive and undeniable scriptural evidence" can now see why such a declaration on your part is insane. If they couldn't disprove your silly claims before, they can now.

  AlanF
• 
  1380

  The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

  why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

  as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  My response to thirdwitless' post # 305 on page 37 of this thread will be in two parts. First I will deal with his typical nonsense, then with his arguments about Luke 17 and Matthew 24.

  In his post # 305 on page 37 of this thread, thirdwitless wrote:

  : Look He's off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Oz. AlanF just keeps on making the same old tired, boring, and strawman arguments that have already been shown to be ridiculous. Another embarrassing display by AlanF.

  LOL! The only people who agree with you are the little groupies that tell you how wonderful you are on your own website. I remember one moron's comment about "AlanFs retarted website." That pretty much says it all. Do you really enjoy being a big fish in a pond of people whose intellect is on a par with jellyfish?

  Readers will note that, once again, thirdwitless completely ignored most of my post that he's giving a few comments on, including the devastating information from Adolph Deissmann that proves conclusively that "presence" is a wrong translation for parousia in Matthew 24:3.

  : So much so that your friends have begin to totally ignore the subject and write about other things.

  Really. Have you forgotten how many posts have been written on this subject already? The fact is that you simply ignore most arguments, and so they must be repeated.

  : But I will give him this: He is the master at ignoring the guidelines of this DB and coming forth with all sorts of name calling. Oh, but its justified because he is so patient with the posters who disagree with him until finally it comes to the point where the only thing to do is name call.

  Calling a demonstrated liar a liar is not name calling.

  On to the real stuff.
  
  :: thirdwitless continues to ignore 95% of the arguments in my posts, which he knows he cannot refute. Instead, he keeps repeating the same old nonsense
  
  : No, I just posted a rather substantial post comparing Matt 24 to Luke 17 showing that the days of Noah is like the days of the Son of man and the presence of the Son of man clearly showing just exactly what was meant by the use of the word parousia.

  I haven't tackled that, because several posters had already refuted your arguments. You, of course, ignored most of what they said.

  : But AlanF continues to ignore 100% of the arguments in my posts, which he knows he cannot refute. Instead, he keeps repeating the same old nonsense.

  Bullshit. I give excruciatingly detailed line by line refutations of your nonsense. I cite many source references and the Bible, and you ignore almost all of it. Indeed, there is another thread -- which I'm sure you've read -- that details a few of the many arguments from various posters that you've ignored in all threads. It would be tedious, but possible, to demonstrate just how many arguments, questions and challenges you've ignored in this thread alone.

  Let's take one example of your claim that I ignore 100% of the arguments in your posts. Even one exception proves that you're a liar. Here are several exceptions:

  In your post # 284 on page 28 you stated:

  "Jesus becomes the newly established king of God's kingdom in 1914 as testified by the world events and the 7 times."

  In my post # 4702 on page 33 of this thread, I replied (exception number 1):

  "Dead wrong. The Society claims that earthquakes, famine, pestilence and war suddenly became much worse problems for mankind in 1914. The facts say otherwise:"

  I then listed six points that refute your claim. In the next several posts, you completely ignored almost everything in my post, including the six points.

  I then reminded you about these points in my post # 4712 on page 39 of this thread.

  You soon responded to these points in your post # 310 on page 39 of this thread.

  As usual, I responded to each and every line of your post, in my post # 4716 on page 46 of this thread. I made 22 direct responses to your questions and challenges, not leaving even one out. All readers on this thread know very well that this is my normal posting style, and I normally respond to almost everything that you've claimed, and I dispove it.

  So when I call you a liar, it is not name calling -- it is a demonstrable fact.

  : The reason he cannot refute it is because he only relies on the Bible when it does not contradict him or what he believes the secular chronologists or secular sources are saying. The Bible plays 2nd or 3rd fiddle with AlanF.

  Indeed it does when it touches on secular facts, and for good reason -- it is demonstrably at odds with certain scientific facts.

  But you're a hypocrite when you claim this, because you also reject the Bible when it is at odds with scientific facts. I've given a number of examples in various threads in the last several months.

  For example, you completely ignore the fact that Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, in conjunction with Genesis 1:1-5, clearly state that in six days God made the heavens, the earth, the sea and everything that is in them. Therefore, according to the Bible itself, the entire universe was created on the first creative day. But this conflicts with scientific fact, and so you and the Society reject the Bible.

  The reason you refuse to deal with this is that the Society itself has never dealt with the fact that Exodus forces a specific interpretation upon Genesis 1. It has ignored this problem all the way back to Russell's day.

  Russell first published something about this in the December, 1881 issue of Zion's Watch Tower (pp. 1-2; pp. 299-300 Reprints). After dismissing the ideas that the creative days were literal 24-hour ones, or spanned millions of years, he spoke of the idea that they were 1,000 years long. He argued against this idea by invoking his gut feel for science:

  While we do not see evidence to warrant the need of such enormous periods as some geologists claim, yet we do think that six thousand years (a thousand years to each day) are altogether too short for the amount of change, development, &c., accomplished in the preparation of the earth for man. . .

  We have no knowledge of the time occupied in creating or evolving the untold myriads of Suns with their satellites; some of them so far away that light (moving 191,000 miles per second) takes millions of years to come to us; thus proving that they were flaming suns millions of years ago. . .

  Russell described his vision of some of events of "creation week", and with regard to the creation of coal beds on the 4th day, stated:

  This would seem to have taken a long time, and so we think it did, (In Nova Scotia no less than seventy-six successive forests have grown after and above each other,) . . .

  Russell then argued that the 7th creative day could be calculated to be 7,000 years long, and thus the other creative days were also 7,000 years each.

  The Watchtower Society has taught all these things, unchanged with but one exception, ever since. That exception began in the mid-1980s, when certain publications no longer argued that the creative days were 7,000 years long, but were some unspecified number of "millenniums" long. The last mention of 7,000-year creative days was in a 1987 Watchtower.

  The bottom line here is that if someone claims to rely exclusively on the Bible for his theology, yet rejects the Bible when solid science demands it, and then castigates others for making different reasonable choices about what to accept or reject in the Bible based on solid science, he is a hypocrite. And you and your Pharisaic religious leaders, thirdwitless, are such hyppcrites.

  
  :: You continue to ignore the simple fact that context determines the meaning in a given instance.
  
  : No, I gave scriptural and undeniable proof showing that the presence of Christ in Matt 24 is the same as the days of the Son of man in Luke 17 and that both are many years just like the days of Noah.

  As I said, other posters have already refuted your arguments, but since you insist that I do it, so be it.

  :: What you're doing is saying, "Lookie here! Parousia means presence. Therefore the NWT's translation as presence is right." But this ignores the fact that parousia has a variety of meanings. How do you choose which one is right in a given instance? You have no answer.
  
  : Wrong again, I compared Luke 17 with Matt 24 and gave a scriptural answer that cannot be refuted.

  You're so wrong it isn't even funny. You're so steeped in nonsensical Watchtower tradition that you can't read the Bible without your bent brain distorting the information before it even reaches what passes for your conscious mind.

  : What you're doing is saying, "Lookie here! Parousia can mean coming. Therefore the NWT's translation as presence is wrong."

  Yet another misrepresentation of my arguments. Don't you ever get tired of lying and trying to keep track of your lies? No, of course not. You forget what you've lied about -- via Orwellian doublethink -- and then think that you're in the clear. What a moron!

  I've carefully explained numerous times that when one takes into consideration all of the uses of parousia in the NT, and all of the parallel uses of words like epiphnaiea, hemera, eleusis and so on, as well as various passages like Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 that define what parousia means in Matthew 24;3, this overall context shows that parousia means "coming" in Matthew 24:3 and a number of other passages. Why do you fail to acknowledge this? Is it due to sheer stupidity? Or sheer stubborness?

  : But this ignores the fact that parousia of the Son of man has the same meaning as the days of the Son of man and are connected to the many years that covered the days of Noah. That is the true context. You have no answer.

  Of course I have an answer, and of course, you're completely wrong. You're wrong on one level because you don't think for yourself, but blindly apply Watchtower tradition that Russell came up with around 1880. See my second post for the proofs.
  
  :: You continue to ignore the fact that the NWT's slavishly and dumbly rendering parousia as "presence" in every instance results in nonsensical translations.
  
  : Sorry but I haven't yet seen the nonsensicalness of translating parousia as presence.

  Of course not. You're heavy into Orwellian crimestop. Let me remind you what that is:

  Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

  In line with this crimestop mentality, you continue to avoid even acknowledging the fact that 1 John 2:28 in the NWT is simply nonsensical: "at his presence". Whereas it makes complete sense in normal translations: "at his coming". Until you deal with this, you're going to continue to be lying to yourself and others.

  : You continue to ignore the fact that the NWT's rendering parousia as "presence" in every instance and especially in Matt 24 is an honest thing to do so that the reader can use his own judgment

  Yet another lie. I have explicitly explained why blindly rendering parousia as "presence" every time results in nonsensical renderings at times, and misleading renderings at other times.

  Just because you ignore my postings on these subjects does not mean that I ignore yours. Do you really want me to go back and find the specific post numbers where I've done this? Naah. In any case it would be a waste of time because just as you do with everything you've had your nose rubbed in, you ignore it.

  : just as they translate soul, sheol, and hades each time they are found in the scriptures so that the reader can use his discernment.

  You're comparing apples and oranges. Need I explain?

  : You continue to ignore the fact that your insistance on rendering parousia as "coming" in Matt 24 ignores the context as shown by the parallel account in Luke 17 and you merely base your insistance on your obsession to discredit JWs and support the belief of Christendom of a 2nd Coming of Christ only at the time of Armageddon.

  Again, we will see about these passages in my next post. But my goal to discredit JWs has nothing to do with wanting to support that imaginary beast JWs call "Christendom". It has everything to do with the fact that JWs are a dangerous and destructive cult that has killed thousands of people and destroyed tens of thousands of lives and had an adverse impact on millions of lives.

  : By the way, you are failing miserably in discrediting JWs on everything you embark upon.

  LOL! Frank75 is a witness against you on that. He was once a rabid JW defender, but I made him think, and that, in conjunction with an ongoing sense that something was very wrong with the JW culture, made him come to his senses.

  I will comment that your moronic groupies on your website can be discounted. "Your retarted!" LOL!
  
  :: Does this mean that it can have the primary meaning of presence? Yes.Of course, you twit. I have never said different.
  
  : Thanks for that admission. AGAIN!

  There's no "admission" about this, you moron. It's a simple fact, which I have pointed out again and again.

  : Now when will you start believing it

  Yet another deliberate misrepresentation. I ought to start keeping tabs on the number of lies you put in your posts.

  : and stop this foolish notion of yours that the NWT committee has translated parousia as presence because the translators were evil and sinisterly dishonest.

  They were relying on the fact that Nelson Barbour's prediction of "the end" for 1873/74 failed, and that his followers came up with the "invisible parousia" notion to salvage that failure by making Jesus' coming in 1874 invisible. Russell adopted it and that was that.
  
  : Since I refuted your claim in that post, your repeating it shows one of two things (so what else is new?): You're stupid, you're a liar, or both.
  
  : You refuted nothing about my comparison of Matt 24 with Luke 17.

  I never said I did. I haven't tackled that issue until this set of posts. So here again we find you lying.

  : You refuted nothing about parousia being translated as presence.

  Of course I did. See the above comments about Orwellian crimestop.

  : You only supported the fact that parousia could rightly be translated as presence with all the scholars you used.

  Yet another lie. I showed clearly that certain authorities in Greek translation specifically gave Matthew 24:3 as an example where parousia is properly rendered "coming", e.g., Bauer's Lexicon.

  : Dare I throw this comment back at you for fear I might have my posting priviledges limited for disobeying the guidelines of the board:

  : Since I refuted your claim in that post, your repeating it shows one of two things (so what else is new?): You're stupid, you're a liar, or both? No I want do that. I will refrain from calling you stupid or liar or both.

  Since you haven't refuted anything, your hypocritical comments are moot.
  
  :: Suppose we use the thirdwitless rule that root meanings of words can always be properly used in rendering Bible passages, and apply it to 2 Peter 1:12.
  
  : Strawman.

  Not at all. A strawman argument is one that does not represent what the opponent claims. You claim that it is proper to render parousia as "presence" in all instances in the NT, even when the immediate context shows that it makes the rendering nonsensical. I showed a counterexample with the word mellw, where the NWT made a proper translation rather than rendering it "consistently" by the single English verb "be about to" wherever it occurs in the NT.

  : Thirdwitless, as you say, has never made such a rule nor has the WTS nor did the NWT follow such a rule.

  Yet another lie! You yourself have made a big deal out of the NWT's consistently rendering parousia as "presence", claiming that this is what ought to be done to "let the reader decide". Such reasoning is stupid on its face, but the point is that both you and the Society have adhered to this rule selectively, whether it's stated as a rule or not.

  : It was only in the case of certain words that the NWT consistently translated the words literally so all could see and use their own discernment.

  Exactly the point! And in every one of these cases, doctrinal considerations -- not grammatical or contextual -- were the deciding factor in how Freddie Franz handled it.

  But one thing you're ignoring: Suppose some JW decided that Freddie was wrong about the translation "presence" and presented his arguments to the Society. What would he be told? You know perfectly well: "Shut up and 'wait on Jehovah' or we'll disfellowship you." So your argument is a red herring.

  : Such words as soul, sheol, hades, and presence to name a few. Rather than showing dishonesy as you try to say, this shows honesty and allows the reader to reach the correct conclusions on the meaning of the text.

  Like I said, a fine red herring.
  
  :: when immediate context is of no help, global understanding of the context of the Bible book in question, or of several Bible books, can help decide.
  
  : By 'global understanding of the context of the Bible' do you mean the beliefs of Christendom should come into play when translating parousia?

  I mean that everything that can possibly be brought to bear on the subject should be considered.

  : Should we apply the same rule to the Trinity and hellfire doctrine?

  Of course.

  : When comparing Matt 24 to Luke 17 and all the other points that I have previously made, the context is quite apparent and presence is the correct translation.

  Once again, I will show that you're completely wrong, in my next post.
  
  :: Josephus states:
  
  : Another straw man. How do you come up with these ridiculous arguments?

  You seem to like this term, but as with most JW defenders, you have no idea what it really means. A better term, given what you appear to be trying to say, is "red herring". I could give you the definitions, but you're real good at looking up words in online dictionaries, aren't you.

  For the record, I showed that Josephus states:

  "My narrative will proceed to tell of the second invasion of our country by Titus -- the condition to which civil war had reduced the city on his arrival [pareimi]."

  Suppose we dance the Watchtower sidestep and just stick in the root meaning of parousia. We get nonsense:

  "My narrative will proceed to tell of the second invasion of our country by Titus -- the condition to which civil war had reduced the city on his presence [pareimi]."

  This proves that trying to be "consistent" by using "presence" for parousia or its cousin pareimi in all instances results in nonsense in some renderings.

  : As the WT points out:

  Examples from Josephus: At Mount Sinai lightning and thunder "declared God to be there present [pa·rou·si´a]." The miraculous manifestation in the tabernacle "showed the presence [pa·rou·si´a] of God." By showing Elisha’s servant the encircling chariots, God made "manifest to his servant his power and presence [pa·rou·si´a]." When Roman official Petronius tried to appease the Jews, Josephus claimed that ‘God did show his presence [pa·rou·si´a] to Petronius’ by sending rain. Josephus did not apply pa·rou·si´a to a mere approach or momentary arrival. It meant an ongoing, even invisible, presence. (Exodus 20:18-21; 25:22; Leviticus 16:2; 2 Kings 6:15-17) -- Compare Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, chapter 5, paragraph 2 [80]; chapter 8, paragraph 5 [203]; Book 9, chapter 4, paragraph 3 [55]; Book 18, chapter 8, paragraph 6 [284].

  Good job! I'm glad you finally managed to sort of answer the question I've asked you about half a dozen times now:

  "Do you believe that the Society's reference to Josephus' use of parousia in the footnote for paragraph 11 on page 11 of the August 15, 1996 Watchtower fairly represents Josephus' actual use of the word? If so, why? If not, why not?"

  Because you're citing the Watchtower reference, you obviously believe that it's a fair representation of Josephus' use of parousia, because you'd never cite something that really didn't show what you claimed, right? Well, right? But I'm disappointed that you didn't answer my questions "Why?"

  However, the facts prove that the Society's citations of Josephus are a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The fact is that Josephus used parousia 32 times in his writings, out of which he used it to mean strictly "presence" 5 times, strictly "arrival" or "coming" or the like 9 times, and "arrival with subsequent presence" 18 times. Since the Society's writer deliberately selected four of the five instances where parousia means strictly "presence", and failed to inform readers about the 27 instances that would have defeated his argument, it is clear what his intent was: to deceive readers about this source reference. This is a good example of the Watchtower Society's scholastic dishonesty.

  In the following material, I present the context of every instance in which Josephus uses parousia to mean strictly "arrival", based on the listing in Rengstorf’s Concordance to Josephus. The first part of each instance is an English translation from the Loeb Classical Library. The second part is from William Whiston's translation. The works of Josephus we are concerned with here are: The Life of Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews.

  Each instance is marked with the name of the work in which Josephus used parousia, the number of the book (e.g., Antiquities contains ‘books’ numbered from 1 through 20), and the section number used in the Loeb Library. Modern printings of Whiston's translation, which are widely available, include these section numbers, so it is easy for readers not having access to the Loeb collection to follow along.

  Instances in Josephus Where Parousia Means Arrival Only

  This section contains quotations where parousia takes on the meaning of "arrival" only. In these, note that the words translated from parousia cannot sensibly be rendered in English by words having only the meaning of "presence" or "arrival with a subsequent presence." In some cases there is a parallel phrase showing clearly that the focus of parousia is on "arrival," "coming" or "advent."

  Antiquities 6, 102

  Saul waited awhile as the prophet had enjoined upon him; then, however, he would observe his command no longer, but when he saw that the prophet tarried and that his own soldiers were deserting him he took the victims and performed the sacrifice himself. Then, hearing that Samuel was approaching, he went out to meet him. But the prophet told him that he had not done rightly in disobeying his injunctions and anticipating his advent [parousian]: he was paying that visit in accordance with the will of the Deity. . .

  He waited, as the prophet sent to him to do; yet did not he, however, observe the command that was given him, but when he saw that the prophet tarried longer than he expected, and that he was deserted by the soldiers, he took the sacrifices and offered them; and when he heard that Samuel was come, he went out to meet him. But the prophet said he had not done well in disobeying the injunctions he had sent to him, and had not staid till his coming [parousian], which being appointed according to the will of God. . .

  Note the phrase where Saul "went out to meet" Samuel. It means that Samuel was not yet present, but was on his way -- he was coming and about to arrive.

  Antiquities 8, 325

  She reproached the prophet for having come [parousias] to her to convict her of sin.

  [She] complained to him that he had come [parousias] to her to reproach her for her sins.

  Antiquities 11, 328: The setting is that Alexander the Great is approaching Jerusalem:

  When the high priest Jaddus heard this, he was in an agony of fear. . . He therefore ordered the people to make supplication, and offering sacrifice to God together with them, besought Him to shield the nation and deliver them. . . But, when he had gone to sleep after the sacrifice, God spoke oracularly to him in his sleep, telling him to take courage and adorn the city with wreaths and open the gates. . . and that they should not look to suffer any harm, for God was watching over them. Thereupon he rose from his sleep, greatly rejoicing to himself, and announced to all the revelation that had been made to him, and, after doing all the things that he had been told to do, awaited the coming [parousian] of the king.

  Jaddua the high priest, when he heard that, was in an agony, and under terror. . . He therefore ordained that the people should make supplications, and should join with him in offering sacrifices to God, whom he besought to protect that nation, and to deliver them. . . whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates. . . without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced; and declared to all the warning he had received from God according to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming [parousian] of the king.

  Since the king was not yet present, parousia must mean "coming."

  Antiquities 12, 86

  Eleazar, the high priest, after dedicating [the gifts] to God and honouring the bearers, gave them gifts to take to the king, and sent them back to the king. And when they came [paragenomenon; paraginomai] to Alexandria, and Ptolemy heard of their arrival [parousian] and of the coming [eleluthotas; erkhomai] of the seventy elders. . .

  When Eleazar the high priest had devoted [the gifts] to God, and had paid due respect to those that brought them, and had given them presents to be carried to the king, he dismissed them. And when they were come to Alexandria, and Ptolemy heard that they were come [parousian], and that the seventy elders were come also. . .

  The word paraginomai means "to be by the side of, to come, approach, arrive" (Matt. 2:1: "astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem), or "appear, make a public appearance" (Matt. 3:1: "John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness"); Josephus went or came (paraginomai) to Tiberias; he arrived and became present (parousia), and the deserters became aware of his being there. The word erkhomai means "to come or go, arrive" (Matt. 24:30: "they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds"; Matt. 25:10: "the bridegroom arrived"). Here we find three parallel uses of words that illustrate their use as synonyms: the gift bearers came (paraginomai) to Alexandria; Ptolemy heard of their arrival (parousia); the seventy elders came (erkhomai) at the same time. Note that while parousia and paraginomai by themselves could conceivably mean "presence" here, the parallel use of erkhomai with respect to the seventy elders forces the meaning of "arrival."

  Antiquities 12, 93

  [The king] promised, moreover, that he would make a special occasion of the day on which they had come [epiphane; epiphaino] to him and would celebrate it every year so long as he lived, for, he said, the day of their coming [parousias] happened to be same as that of the victory which he had gained over Antigonus in a naval battle.

  [The king} promised, however, that he would make this day on which they came to him remarkable and eminent every year through the whole course of his life; for their coming [parousias] to him, and the victory which he gained over Antigonus by sea, proved to be on the very same day.

  Again note the virtually synonymous use of epiphaino (epiphaneia) and parousia. Again we note the parallel use of a word which cannot mean "presence" along with parousia, forcing the latter to mean "coming." The parousia of the visitors was their epiphaneia.

  Antiquities 12, 352

  This reverse befell them because they disobeyed the instructions of Judas not to engage anyone in battle before his arrival [parousias].

  This misfortune befell them by their disobedience to what injunctions Judas had given them, not to fight with anyone before his return [parousias].

  Using something like "before his presence" would be awkward and inconsistent with the overall context.

  Antiquities 13, 266

  The praetor Fannius should give them money from the public treasury for their return [epanelthoien; epanerkhomai] home. Accordingly Fannius dismissed the Jewish envoys in this manner, giving them money from the public treasury and a decree of the Senate to those who were to conduct them on their way and furnish them a safe return [parousian] home.

  Their praetor Fanius should give them money out of the public treasury to bear their expenses home. And thus did Fanius dismiss the Jewish ambassadors, and gave them money out of the public treasury; and gave the decree of the senate to those that were to conduct them, and to take care that they should return [parousian] home in safety.

  The word epanerkhomai means "to come back, return" (Luke 10:35: "I will repay you when I come back here"; Luke 19:15 "when he got back after having secured the kingly power"). Here again we find the parallel use of an unambiguous word determining the precise meaning of parousia -- which is here "return."

  Antiquities 20, 30-32

  [Helena entreated the nobles] to defer their decision about putting the brothers to death until after Izates had arrived [paragenomenos; paraginomai] and given his approval. Failing to persuade her to put the brothers to death as they advised, they, for their own safety, admonished her at least to keep them in custody until his arrival [paraousias]. . . Helena . . . set up Monobazus, her eldest son, as king . . . she exhorted him to administer the kingdom until his brother's arrival [parousias]. The latter, on hearing of his father's death, quickly arrived [heke; heko] and succeeded his brother.

  Helena replied to this . . . [that the nobles] would however defer the execution of this slaughter of Izates's brethren till he should be there himself, and give his approbation to it. So since these men had not prevailed with her when they advised her to slay them, they exhorted her at least to keep them in bonds till he should come [parousias], and that for their own security. . . Helena . . . set up Monobazus, the eldest son, to be king . . . and exhorted him to administer the affairs of the kingdom till his brother should come [parousias]; who came suddenly upon hearing that his father was dead, and succeeded his brother.

  We have already seen that paraginomai can mean "be by the side of, come, approach, arrive." The context alone shows that it and the two instances of parousia mean "arrival." The meaning is paralleled by another word, heko, which means "to be come, have arrived." Vine’s Expository Dictionary comments on the difference between erkhomai and heko: "erchomai . . . signifies the act, in contrast with heko . . . which stresses the arrival, as, e.g., ‘I am come [exerkhomai; "to come out"] and am here [heko],’ John 8:42 and Heb. 10:9." ("I am come (heko) to do your will"). Again we find an unambiguous word, heko, determining the sense of two others, so that parousia here means "arrival."

  Life, 90

  I mustered two hundred men and marched all night long, sending a courier in advance to inform the people of Tiberias that I was coming [parousian].

  I took two hundred men along with me, and traveled all night, having sent before a messenger to let the people of Tiberias know that I was coming [parousian] to them.

  Since he had not yet arrived, he could not yet be present. This is an extremely clear example.

  At this point it is evident that the Watchtower writer has selected an unrepresentative set of examples from Josephus to support his implication that parousia means mainly "presence." Josephus’ use of parousia is varied, and consistent with its use in other ancient Greek literature including the New Testament. Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon (p. 1343) gives a number of instances in secular literature where strictly "arrival" is meant, and Bauer’s Lexicon gives many instances where the meaning is "coming, advent as in the first stage of presence."

  Other points:

  The Greek Septuagint version’s only use of parousia is in a way that does not allow the meaning of "presence." Neh 2:6 reads, "for how long will thy journey be, and when wilt thou return [poreia: form of parousia]?" Bauer’s Lexicon lists four instances in the Apocrypha, all under the meaning "coming, advent." These read:

  News of her coming [parousia] had already spread through the tents. (Judith 10:18; New Jerusalem Bible)

  Judas . . . imparted unto those that were with him that the army was at hand [parousia]. (2 Maccabees 8:12; Brenton)

  Maccabeus seeing the coming [parousia] of the multitude. . . (2 Maccabees 15:21; Brenton)

  To outward appearance [parousia] they received us willingly; but belied that appearance by their deeds. (3 Maccabees 3:17; Brenton)

  So we find that a variety of ancient Greek literature shows that parousia can be used in many ways, and is certainly not restricted only to "presence." It is therefore astonishing that the Watchtower writer continues his exposition thus, in paragraph 12:

  The meaning "presence" is clearly borne out by ancient literature,

  By now the reader can see that this is a gross misrepresentation of the ancient literature. The word has many meanings, from "arrival" to "presence", with a focus on every state in between.

  Clearly then, the examples that the Watchtower writer used are selectively chosen to exclude any that show the flavor of "arrival." This is gross scholastic dishonesty.

  Continuing with this post:
  
  :: You're simply too stupid to understand what I've said, or too dishonest to admit that you understand it. I think that even a medium-sized child could understand what I've written above.
  
  : The argument you keep bringing up essentially saying, "Parousia can too be translated as coming." is quite childish and embarrassing for those who hold you in such high esteem.

  Once again we find you misrepresenting my argument.

  : Especially when so many scholars have said that parousia primarily means presence and is like a visit from a king. Here is another scholar in your long list of scholars who agree.

  : A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament by E. W. Bullinger shows that pa·rou·si´a means ‘the being or becoming present, hence, presence, arrival; a coming which includes the idea of a permanent dwelling from that coming onwards.’

  Oh, please! Bullinger simply agrees with everything I've cited.

  : And just in case you missed it here is
  :The final nail in the coffin of AlanF's and other opposition to JWs interpretation of parousia.
  
  : Luke 17 offers a parallel of Matthew 24. An examination of it will reveal the true meaning of parousia.

  End of Part I

  I will continue this response in another post.

  AlanF
• 
  1380

  The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

  why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

  as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Thirdwitless actually managed a response where he addressed each point I brought up. In his post # 310 in response to my post # 4712 (p. 39 of this thread), he launches into one of his multiple personalities, but predictably begins by misrepresenting the arguments presented by various JW critics:

  : Where is this promised presence of his? Why paraousia doesn't even mean presence.

  This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what various critics have said. I, for example, have posted definitions for parousia from a number of sources, which include "presence" as one of them.

  Proceeding with this misrepresentation, thirdwitless builds a strawman argument:

  : How can there be a presence when paraousia doesn't even mean presence. Indeed where oh where is this promised presence. Why look things are as they always were, no they are better.

  Straw men are the only things that the thirdwitlesses can knock down.

  : AlanF's contention:

  :: Dead wrong. The Society claims that earthquakes, famine, pestilence and war suddenly became much worse problems for mankind in 1914. The facts say otherwise:

  Thirdwitless then posted a couple of charts:

  "Largest earthquakes by magnitude"

  "Deadliest earthquakes on record"

  He referred to the United States Geological Survey website ( http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqsmosde.html ) as a source for these figures, but failed to give links to the actual databases.

  It's not entirely clear where thirdwitless got the data for his first list (perhaps http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/historical.php ), but the second list appears to be from here: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/most_destructive.php . In any case, the information was selectively edited, as anyone can see by just looking at these links.

  As far as thirdwitless' first link goes, a more instructive way to present the data is by date order. By looking at the "Significant Earthquake Database Search" website ( http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/sig_srch_idb.shtml ) of the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC; a division of NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration)), one can search a database containing some 5,000 unique earthquakes going back to 2150 B.C.: "Catalog of Significant Earthquakes 2150 B.C. to the present". The search engine is easy to use and allows one to search on many different criteria. I did a search on quakes of Richter magnitude 8.5 and up. After eliminating duplicate entries, I found the following data:
  

  _DATE___________PLACE________________MAGNITUDE
  _869/7/13_______JAPAN___________________8.6
  _887/8/26_______JAPAN___________________8.6
  1498/9/20_______JAPAN___________________8.6
  1513____________PERU____________________8.7
  1575/12/16______CHILE___________________8.5
  1586/7/10_______PERU____________________8.6
  1604/11/23______CHILE___________________8.5
  1609/10/20______PERU____________________8.6
  1615/9/16_______CHILE___________________8.8
  1619/2/14_______PERU____________________8.6
  1647/5/14_______CHILE___________________8.5
  1655/11/13______PERU____________________8.8
  1687/10/20______PERU____________________9.0
  1716/2/6________PERU____________________8.8
  1716/2/11_______PERU____________________8.6
  1730/7/8________CHILE___________________8.5
  1751/3/25_______CHILE___________________8.5
  1811/12/16______ARKANSAS________________8.5
  1812/2/7________MISSOURI________________8.8
  1819/4/12_______CHILE___________________8.5
  1822/11/20______CHILE___________________8.5
  1827/11/16______ECUADOR_________________9.7
  1837/11/7_______CHILE___________________8.5
  1855/7/25_______SWITZERLAND_____________8.5
  1868/8/13_______CHILE___________________8.5
  1897/6/12_______INDIA___________________8.7
  1897/8/5________JAPAN___________________8.7
  1897/9/20_______PHILIPPINES_____________8.6
  1898/6/5________JAPAN___________________8.7
  1899/9/10_______ALASKA__________________8.6
  1902/8/22_______CHINA___________________8.6
  1905/4/4________INDIA___________________8.6
  1906/1/31_______ECUADOR_________________9.0
  1906/8/17_______CHILE___________________8.6
  1907/11/16______PERU____________________8.7
  1910/6/16_______VANUATU ISLANDS_________8.6
  1911/1/3________KAZAKHSTAN______________8.7
  1911/6/15_______JAPAN___________________8.7
  1914/11/24______JAPAN___________________8.7
  1917/5/1________KERMADEC ISLANDS________8.6
  1918/8/15_______PHILIPPINES_____________8.5
  1920/12/16______CHINA___________________8.5
  1922/11/11______CHILE___________________8.5
  1938/2/1________INDONESIA_______________8.5
  1939/10/11______PERU____________________8.5
  1939/12/21______INDONESIA_______________8.6
  1950/3/7________BRAZIL__________________8.6
  1950/8/15_______INDIA-CHINA_____________8.6
  1952/11/4_______RUSSIA__________________9.0
  1957/3/9________ALASKA__________________9.1
  1960/5/22_______CHILE___________________9.5
  1963/10/13______RUSSIA__________________9.0
  1964/3/28_______ALASKA__________________9.2
  1965/2/4________ALASKA__________________8.7
  2004/12/26______INDONESIA_______________9.0
  2005/3/28_______INDONESIA_______________8.7
  
  Note that 38 out of 56 (68%) occurred before 1914. When one includes complete data from the Catalog, one finds an even bigger discrepancy between the data and thirdwitless' percentage figures.

  Data such as the above must be viewed with the understanding that scientists only began systematically recording earthquakes around 1900, when the seismograph was invented. Prior to that, records were kept locally. Many significant quakes were never recorded at all because of several factors. People might not have made a record. Records might have been lost. A quake might have occurred where no one lived to record it.

  A good example of the latter is a huge earthquake of about magnitude 9.0 that occurred in January, 1700 off the coasts of Oregon and Washington. This was similar in magnitude and scope to the December, 2004 Indonesian quake. Parts the coasts of these states rose or fell up to 10 meters, leaving sea bottom exposed in some areas and drowning coastal forests in others. In the 1990s, geologists investigating the quake took tree ring samples from drowned trees and found that the quake had occurred within a couple of years of 1700. Then they found a record in Japan of a huge tsunami that had occurred on the day after the quake. They also found some American Indian legends about the quake and tsunami that hit the American coast (for details, see here: http://www.oregongeology.com/sub/earthquakes/Coastal/japanrecords.htm ). This quake is not listed in the above-mentioned catalog of significant earthquakes.

  Thus, complete earthquake data is simply not available for much of the world before about 1900. What is available certainly gives some information, but no one should think that records are by any means complete.

  Regarding the incompleteness of quake information, and the fact that instrumentation has rapidly gotten better, the US Geological survey posts the following information (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php ):

  Are Earthquakes Really on the Increase?
  
  

  We continue to be asked by many people throughout the world if earthquakes are on the increase. Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant.

  A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications. In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more that 8,000 stations and the data now comes in rapidly from these stations by electronic mail, internet and satellite. This increase in the number of stations and the more timely receipt of data has allowed us and other seismological centers to locate earthquakes more rapidly and to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier years. The NEIC now locates about 20,000 earthquakes each year or approximately 50 per day. Also, because of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in the environment and natural disasters, the public now learns about more earthquakes.

  According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 17 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year.

  They post this because a great many Fundmentalists expecting the rapture claim a huge increase in earthquakes since 1948.

  The introductory material for the above-mentioned "Catalog of Significant Earthquakes" is a good deal stronger in its statement about using such data to claim a huge increase in earthquakes. It gave the following caveat ( http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/sigintro.shtml#caveat ):

  Caveat
  
  

  Erroneous statistical conclusions can be drawn from the numbers of earthquakes taken from Catalog of Significant Earthquakes, 2150 B.C. to the present. The reporting of large or destructive earthquakes is not homogeneous in space or time, particularly for periods prior to the 1900s. Because this publication mainly lists those earthquakes that have caused death or damage, the number of earthquake reports is dependent on the written history available for a particular region, as well as on the rate of development of population centers and related structures. Therefore, it is misleading to use the numbers of significant earthquakes in that publication to suggest statistically that there has been an increase in worldwide seismic activity since 1900 or for any time period. that "apparent" increase in activity:

  Instrumental seismology is a young science. The first calibrated instruments to measure seismic waves traveling through the earth did not appear until the late 1800s. At that time, seismologists became aware of the vast numbers of earthquakes occurring throughout the world, but because of the insensitivity of their instruments they were able to locate only the large magnitude events.

  The 1960s saw two major advances. First, a network of seismological observatories, the Worldwide Standardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN), was installed by the United States Government, principally to monitor underground nuclear tests. These sensitive instruments could detect and identify earthquakes anywhere in the world from about magnitude 4.5.

  Second computers became available in the late 1960s. Computers allowed seismologists to leave inaccurate and cumbersome graphical methods of locating earthquakes, and to process the increasing volume of new network data more rapidly than ever before. Prior to 1962, only hundreds of earthquake epicenters were determined each year by Government and academic institutions, but the number increased to the thousands using computerized location methods. In some special local studies, more than 100,000 earthquakes per year were identified and located.

  In summary, using the data in Catalog of Significant Earthquakes, 2150 B.C. to the present to suggest that there has been an increase in worldwide earthquake activity is misleading and erroneous. The above observations and reporting factors must also be considered when making statistical studies based on that historical data report.

  For thirdwitless' second link, the USGS list contains 23 earthquakes with 50,000 or more deaths, out of which 11 were post-1914.

  : 9 out of 14 of greatest magnitude since 1914. Over half with greatest casualities since 1914.

  See above as to why these figures are a gross distortion of the facts. A careful compilation of earthquake deaths from the above-mentioned NGDC catalog shows the following

  Century Population Average Number of Deaths Average Number of

  Deaths per Million

  per Year

  1500-1599 450-504 974,223 20.4

  1600-1699 510-575 871,121 16.0

  1700-1799 580-885 1,796,980 26.5

  1800-1899 906-1544 1,073,800 8.7

  1900-1999 1595-5621 1,804,315 7.1
  
  

  The above data is extremely significant. It shows that the 18th century had virtually the same number of deaths overall as the 20th century did -- and this with incomplete data! The 20th century, with three times the average population of the 19th, had less than twice the number of deaths. This data proves incontrovertibly that the 20th century is no worse than previous centuries in terms of overall deaths, and a lot better in terms of per capita deaths.

  : What you fail to understand is this coupled with all the other parts of the sign show we are in the last days.

  Nonsense. As I carefully explained, since every one of these "other parts of the sign" are either better or no worse than pre-1914, there is no such sign.

  If all you're claiming is that these things exist, but have not changed a good deal for the worse since 1914, then there is no way to distinguish between pre and post 1914 times based on a supposed "sign".

  :: (2) The risk of dying in an earthquake in the 20th century was a bit less than in the 19th century, and less than one third of that in the 18th century.

  : Big deal even if this is true. Not what Jesus said at all.

  The Society has traditionally disagreed with you:

  Reasoning From the Scriptures p. 236
  Has there actually been a significant number of major earthquakes since 1914? With data obtained from the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, supplemented by a number of standard reference works, a tabulation was made in 1984 that included only earthquakes that measured 7.5 or more on the Richter scale, or that resulted in destruction of five million dollars (U.S.) or more in property, or that caused 100 or more deaths. It was calculated that there had been 856 of such earthquakes during the 2,000 years before 1914. The same tabulation showed that in just 69 years following 1914 there were 605 of such quakes. That means that, in comparison with the previous 2,000 years, the average per year has been 20 times as great since 1914.

  Life-How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? p. 225
  On the average, about ten times as many have died each year from earthquakes since 1914 as in previous centuries.

  Tract T-19 Will This World Survive? pp. 4-5
  On the average, about ten times as many have died each year from earthquakes since 1914 as in previous centuries.

  The Watchtower, 1967, 5/1 p. 262
  The yearly toll in lives lost from earthquakes since 1914 has been ten times what it was before that year.

  w92 3/15 p. 6 What God’s Kingdom Can Mean to You
  Jesus foretold that this would take place within the generation of those who would witness an extraordinary upheaval in human affairs. Concerning his "presence," Jesus gave a composite "sign" involving such developments as unparalleled warfare, earthquakes, famines, pestilences.
  
  g74 5/8 p. 18 Can Earthquakes Be Predicted?
  The "great earthquakes," those occurring since 1914 in "one place after another," verify the accuracy of this understanding of Jesus’ words. But some persons reason, ‘There have been "great earthquakes" in the past. Could not Jesus’ prediction of earthquakes be correctly interpreted as coming true in any generation?’

  No. For one thing, as noted above, Jesus’ prediction of earthquakes occurs along with other woes, forming a composite "sign." Further, the great earthquakes of the past were generally isolated events occurring years, even centuries, apart. There were not many of them in a single generation.

  w84 4/15 p. 5 Do You Recognize the Sign?
  In What Way Different?

  None of these things are unique to our century. So if they were to identify "the conclusion of the system of things" they would, in some way, have to differ from like conditions in previous times. In what ways?

  First, every feature of the sign would have to be observed by one generation. Jesus said: "This generation will by no means pass away until all things occur."-Luke 21:32.

  Second, the effects of the sign would have to be felt worldwide. Jesus spoke about "all the inhabited earth" and about "all the nations."-Matthew 24:9, 14, 30, 31 and 25:32.

  Third, the combined conditions or symptoms would have to grow progressively worse during this period. "All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress," Jesus said.-Matthew 24:8.
  
  Note clearly what is being said here: All of these things, including earthquakes. "would have to grow progressively worse" during the 20th century. There is no claim that these things simply exist -- because that is obviously a stupid way to identify a time period.

  Why do you think the Society has made these claims? Obviously because they've traditionally claimed that a huge increase in number of deaths fulfilled Jesus' "prophecy". But Jesus actually made no prophecies about these imaginary signs. Indeed, careful exegesis proves that he actually warned against seeing such traditional Jewish apocalyptic signs as meaning anything. Who is a better source of information about earthquakes than the U.S. National Earthquake Information Center? As you've obviously discovered, it's easy these days to get on their various websites and download information that proves that earthquakes have had no discernable trend up or down in the 20th century. That downloadable information indicates that earthquake magnitude and frequency has not increased in the 20th century compared to previous centuries. So, according to the United States Geological Survey and the National Geophysical Data Center, no significant change in earthquake magnitude or frequency has taken place, and deaths have decreased dramatically since 1500. The Society more or less admitted part of this in 1993:

  w93 12/1 6 Natural Disasters-Is God Responsible?
  
  Can we hold God responsible for the increased havoc and devastation that have resulted from natural disasters in recent times? To answer this question, we must first consider whether there is evidence that the forces of nature have recently become dramatically more violent, perhaps even out of control.
  
  

  In this regard, note what the book Natural Disasters-Acts of God or Acts of Man? has to say: "There is no evidence that the climatological mechanisms associated with droughts, floods and cyclones are changing. And no geologist is claiming that the earth movements associated with earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami (earthquake waves) are becoming more violent." Similarly, the book Earthshock observes: "The rocks of every continent contain a record of innumerable major and minor geological events, every one of which would be a catastrophic disaster to mankind if they occurred today-and it is scientifically certain that such events will occur again and again in the future." In other words, the earth and its dynamic forces have more or less remained the same throughout the ages. Hence, whether or not some statistics indicate an increase of some forms of geologic or other activity, the earth has not become uncontrollably violent in recent times.

  The Society admitted this more directly in 2002:

  g02 3/22 p. 9 Earthquakes, Bible Prophecy, and You

  Earthquakes, Bible Prophecy, and You

  BEFORE his death, Jesus foretold events and situations that would give evidence that this world had entered "the conclusion of the system of things." That period, he said, would be marked by such things as pestilences, food shortages, and large-scale warfare. He also mentioned "great earthquakes" that would occur "in one place after another." (Matthew 24:3, 7; Luke 21:10, 11) Was Jesus referring to our day?

  Many say no. They assert that the number of earthquakes has not substantially increased in recent decades. In fact, the U.S. National Earthquake Information Center reports that earthquakes of 7.0 magnitude and greater remained "fairly constant" throughout the 20th century. [Footnote: Some say that any reports of an increase in the number of earthquakes are simply due to advances in technology, which enable more seismic events to be detected.]

  Note, though, that the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy does not require an increase in the number or power of earthquakes. All Jesus said was that there would be great earthquakes in one place after another. Furthermore, he stated that these events would mark the "beginning of pangs of distress." (Matthew 24:8) Distress is measured, not by the number of earthquakes or how they rate on the Richter scale, but by the effect that they have upon people.

  The last paragraph above is an admission that everything the Society published about earthquakes since about 1923 is a lie. Earthquakes are not more significant in magnitude or frequency than in previous years. Quakes kill fewer people on average than ever before.

  Clearly then, the Society is now left with the ridiculous claim: "Jesus said we would see earthquakes after 1914. We see earthquakes after 1914. Therefore we're in the last days." : (3) On a per capita basis, famine killed far fewer people in the 20th century than in previous ones. Indeed, today the number of overweight people in the world exceeds the number of malnourished.

  : Key words: per capita.

  Per capita basis is the only significant measure. Why? Because it directly measures the effect it has on individuals. I'll repeat what I said to saki2fifty: Suppose you lived in a city of 10 million people where the risk of being killed by a random gunshot was one in ten thousand per year. That means that, on average, 1,000 people a year were killed by gunshot. Now suppose you contemplated moving to a small town of 5,000 where the risk of being killed by a random gunshot was one in ten, so that on average, 500 people a year were killed by gunshot. Which one would you rather your family lived in? Which one has the greater crime? The answer is obvious, and when you think about it sufficiently, and apply it to natural disasters of all sorts, you'll see that the only proper measure of destructiveness is per capita risk.

  Think of this stuff another way. Let's suppose, for sake of argument, that the population of some country could grow at a rate of 5% per year for a hundred years in the absence of earthquakes. Suppose that this country started with a population of 1,000 people. At the end of 100 years, the country would contain 1.05^100 x 1,000 = about 131,500 people. Now let's introduce earthquake deaths and suppose that earthquakes killed people at a rate exactly proportional to the population density, say, 1% per year were killed by earthquakes. Then the rate of growth would be reduced to 5% - 1% = 4%, and at the end of 100 years the population would be 1.04^100 x 1000 = about 50,000.
  
  

  The key question is: Can you identify any point within the 100 years under consideration where the number of deaths due to earthquakes exceeded some critical level? If so, then present your argument.

  But I have no doubt that you cannot present such an argument, so assuming that you cannot, then answer the following: Since you cannot identify a point in the 100 year timespan where earthquakes exceeded a critical level, how can you possibly think that, in the 2,000 years since Jesus' death, you can identify a critical level above which you can confidently claim that a claimed prediction by Jesus about earthquakes was really fulfilled? And if you can answer that, then what is that critical level, and when was it reached in the past 2,000 years? If you can answer these questions, what objective evidence can you put forth to prove your claims?

  But of course, thirdwitless, readers know that you won't tackle these challenges.

  : Again not what Jesus said.

  What did he say, then? You've failed to tell us this about any of the points I've brought up. The Society has traditionally disagreed with you:

  w55 2/15 p. 103 How Does Christ Come the Second Time?
  
  In answer to his apostles’ question as to the sign of his second parousia or presence Jesus did not tell them to look in the sky but gave them a composite sign by which they could tell he was present. All the physical facts indicate that this sign has been seen since 1914. Has it not been since that year that we have seen warfare, earthquakes, pestilences and famine to an unprecedented extent?

  : Millions die from famine. More than ever in any other 92 year period.

  You continue to neglect the fact that the population of the 20th century was more than three times that of the 19th century, on average. So even if famine remained the same on a per capita basis, the mere increase in population would increase the number of deaths due to famine. Once again, there is nothing in such figures that indicates that any date whatsoever is significant.

  But the rate at which people have died in the 20th century by famine is actually a good deal lower than in previous centuries in most countries. For example, take China:

  1333-1337: 4 million in Kiang province alone.
  1810, 1811, 1846, 1849: At least 45 million.
  1849: 14 million.
  1854-1864: 20 million.
  1878-9: Between 9 and 13 million.
  Total for the 19th century: Some 100 million.

  Compare this to the 20th century: 1928-1929: 3 million.
  
  1958-1961: 8 to 30 million due to famine, malnutrition and child mortality. Obviously, the 20th century is no worse than the 19th in China in absolute numbers, but on a per capita basis it's a lot better. How about deaths due to famine in other countries?
  India:

  1022 and 1052: whole provinces depopulated.
  1555 and 1596: violent famine resulted in cannibalism.
  1630: Many population centers depopulated.
  1769-1770: Tens of millions, up to one third the entire population.
  Early 1800s: half the population of Madras, Mysore and Hyderabad died.
  1865-1866: 3 million.
  1876-1868: 5 million.
  1896-1898: 5 million.
  1899-1900: 3.25 million. Compare this to the 20th century: 1908-1942: No major famines.
  1943: 1.5 million.
  1974: several hundred thousand. The same kind of statistics can be compiled for most other countries. So the facts prove that the 20th century is actually better, in terms of absolute numbers and on a per capita basis, in deaths due to famine.
  
  : (4) On a per capita basis, pestilence killed far fewer people in the 20th century than in previous ones. Indeed, some historically major killers, such as smallpox, have been virtually wiped out. : Key words: per capita.
  Key words: the only significant measure of affect on humans.

  : Again not what Jesus said. What did he say? Again the Society has traditionally disagreed with you:

  w81 4/1 p. 24 Grateful for Our Happy Hope
  Jesus foretold that his presence would be marked by a composite sign involving unusual wars, earthquakes, food shortages and other things that have clearly been in evidence since the World War I year of 1914.

  : Spanish flu of 1918-19 unparalleled in human history. Not true. This pestilence killed some 15 to 25 million. What about pre-1914 pestilences?
  Roman empire:
  165 A.D.: 1/4 to 1/3 the population died in affected places.
  251-543: 50% reduction in population.
  China:
  310-312: 98-99% of the population killed in the northern provinces.
  322: 20-30% of the population killed over a wider region.
  762: more than half the population of Shantung province killed.
  806 more than half the population of Chekiang province killed.
  1331: 90% of the population of Hopei province killed.
  1353-1354: 2/3 of the population in eight different provinces killed.
  India:
  ca. 1340-1346: whole territories completely depopulated.
  Egypt:1347-1349: 1/3 of the population killed.
  Japan:
  808: 50% of the population killed.
  994-995: 50% of the population killed.
  Byzantine empire:542-543: Plague of Justinian kills 100 million.
  Italy:
  1346-1350: More than 50% of the population killed.
  Poland:1347-1350: 3/4 of the population killed.
  England:1348-1350: 50% of the population killed.
  Iceland:1348-1350: 50% of the population killed.
  
  Norway:
  1349-1350: 2/3 of the population killed.
  
  Denmark:
  1349-1350: 40% of the population killed.
  
  Sweden:
  1348-1350: 1/3 of the population killed.
  France:1346-1350: between 1/3 and 3/4 of the population killed.
  
  In 1347-1350 the Black Death killed 25 to 40 million people in Europe alone -- at least 35-40% of the population. At least another 50 million died in China, India and the Middle East. Some estimates put the world death toll at 1/3 of the entire world's population -- far more than 100 million people.
  
  Estimates are that syphilis killed some 100 million people per century from the 16th to the early 20th, when medical breakthroughs reduced the deaths drastically. Beginning in the 16th century, smallpox and related European diseases killed at least 50 million American Indians. In the 18th century, smallpox killed some 60 million Europeans. I could list a lot more deaths, but the point is made.
  
  : Millions die from pestilence. More than ever in any 92 year period.
  
  The above figures prove you grossly wrong. : (5) On a per capita basis, war has killed about the same number of people in the 20th century as in all preceding centuries for which we have good historical data.
  
  : Per capita again.
  
  Yep. Same reason again.
  
  : Not what Jesus said.
  
  What did he say? The Society has traditionally disagreed with you:

  w85 2/1 p. 15 Seeing the "Sign" With Understanding

  True, there had been wars, food shortages, earthquakes, and pestilences down through the centuries of our Common Era until 1914. (Luke 21:11) Nevertheless, there had been nothing to compare with what has taken place since the Gentile Times ended in that momentous year. The international strife that was surprisingly stirred up in the summer of 1914 grew into a military engagement in which 28 nations eventually took part. Along with that human upheaval came natural earthquakes. There were food shortages, or famines, and in the final year of that world war there came the thieflike pestilence called the Spanish influenza that took the lives of more than 20,000,000 humans. All of this was not just a continuation of the previously occurring pattern of things. It was the start of a series of events making up a "sign" that this system of things is in its foretold "time of the end."

  : Nation rising against nation in the 20th/21st century is unparalleled in human history.
  
  Only in terms of World War II. And WWII did not kill anywhere near the percentage of population as some previous wars killed. For example, the "Thirty Years War" in Europe (1618-1648) involved 10 nations and killed a huge number of people. Some 2-3 million soldiers were killed, along with more than 10 million civilians. In Germany alone, some 30-40% of the population was killed, some 7-8 million people. See below for more figures.
  
  And note this fact: Despite the many troubles the world has experienced since 1946, many historians view the sixty years since then as among the most peaceful and prosperous in human history. Why? Because they know how much war has occurred in previous times. : Why do you think world war 1 was at first called 'The GREAT War'?
  
  Because people have short memories, and by that time the media had learned that bad news sells. Remember that WWI was largely a European war, in the sense that most of the fighting was done in Europe or European colonies. This situation had a number of precedents:
  The War of the Spanish Succession, 1702-1713:
  France, Britain, Holland, Austria, and their colonists in North America duked it out in the power vacuum left by the death of the Spanish Habsburg king, Charles II. In North America the conflict became known to the English colonists as Queen Anne's War. At least 2 million died.
  
  The Seven Years' War, 1756-1763:
  Prussia, Austria, Britain, Franc, Russia, Sweden, Spain and most of the German States of the Holy Roman Empire duked it out over a variety of issues including control of North American. It was fought on four continents and three oceans. Britain came out the winner. Several million died.
  
  The War of American Independence and its successor wars, 1775-1783:The American colonists, Britain, France, Spain, Russia, Denmark, Sweden, Holland and Prussia fought among themselves in Europe and the Americas. Several million died.
  
  The Napoleonic Wars, 1792-1815:
  Most of Europe was embroiled in this, and it spread to four continents. The U.S. attempted a conquest of Canada in 1812, for example. The "War of 1812" between Britain and the U.S. was part of this. 5-6 million died.
  
  Other notable wars that killed huge numbers of people:
  
  The Manchu-Chinese War, 1644-1647: 25-30 million killed.
  
  The Taiping Rebellion in China, 1850-1864: 20-40 million killed.
  
  Once again I could list a lot more statistics, but the point is made.
  
  I should note that much of the above statistical information on war, famine and pestilence is taken from Carl Jonsson's book The Sign of the Last Days: When? It's available from the Freeminds website and directly from Commentary Press.
  
  
  
  
  
  : Foolish reasoning and Not what Jesus said. In view of the above quotations from Watchtower literature, the Society has traditionally taught that war, famine, pestilence and earthquakes would become much worse after 1914, and would grow progressively worse as the 20th century progressed. Therefore, my reasoning is sound, because if these traditional massive killers truly were doing what the Socity claims -- killing far more people than ever before -- then the conclusion is inescapable that world population would have to decrease, not experience an explosion. Furthermore, it is the Watchtower Society itself that has claimed that Jesus' words meant these things.

  : Jesus said people would be living their everyday lives as if nothing was happening. Precisely the point! That's why it's ridiculous to claim that Jesus gave a special sign of various disasters in Matthew 24:4-14, Mark 13:5-13 and Luke 21:8-19. Jesus warned against viewing these things as signs, precisely because they were the very things that have plagued mankind since time immemorial. Jewish apocalyptics had long used these things as signs of "things to come", and so Jesus warned his followers not to pay attention to them.

  : What you are looking for is world troubles so bad that no one can live a normal life.
  
  I am not looking for such things -- the Watchtower Society has directly made this claim. See the above quotations. Do you need more?
  
  : But thats not what Jesus said.
  
  I agree, but it's what the Society claims Jesus said.
  
  : All the many things Jesus predicted make up the one sign of his parousia. Even you and your friends saying, "Where is the promised presence of his? Why, all thing are continuing....."
  
  This passage fragment from 2 Peter 3:4 is yet another reason that the "composite sign" is a myth. To see this, let's look at two Bible passages.
  
  Peter clearly believed that Jesus' followers were in "the last days" mentioned by the prophet Joel:

  (Acts 2:14-21) 14 But Peter stood up with the eleven and raised his voice and made this utterance to them: "Men of Ju·de´a and all YOU inhabitants of Jerusalem, let this be known to YOU and give ear to my sayings. 15 These [people] are, in fact, not drunk, as YOU suppose, for it is the third hour of the day. 16 On the contrary, this is what was said through the prophet Joel, 17 ‘"And in the last days," God says, "I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh, and YOUR sons and YOUR daughters will prophesy and YOUR young men will see visions and YOUR old men will dream dreams; 18 and even upon my men slaves and upon my women slaves I will pour out some of my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. 19 And I will give portents in heaven above and signs on earth below, blood and fire and smoke mist; 20 the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and illustrious day of Jehovah arrives. 21 And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved."’

  Speaking of these same "last days", Peter admonished the Chistians he wrote to:

  (2 Peter 3:3-7) For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: "Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep [in death], all things are continuing exactly as from creation’s beginning." 5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.

  Peter's entire point here was that it was the very lack of an outward "composite sign" that allowed ridiculers to dismiss Jesus' predicted parousia. Peter's point was that it was the unnoticed mundane things, the "heavens" and the "earth", that God used to destroy the world in Noah's Flood, and that it would be those same unnoticed mundane things that God would once again use to destroy people on "the day of judgment".
  
  Incidentally, this passage is a good example of why the Society's use of "presence" for parousia is wrong. It makes the passage more difficult to understand, whereas use of "coming" makes it all clear.
  
  AlanF
• 
  92

  A True Scholar In Our Midst, Leolaia

  by Skoshi in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  her posts for a very long time were overflowing with an obvious scholarship.

  i have avidly read her posts and have tucked away as much as my much smaller brain could be forced to take in.

  i'm sure others have openly expressed their admiration and appreciation for her, but i would like to do so here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Leolaia is a true scholar in both senses of the word. She has earned an official Ph.D. from Stanford University, which by definition makes her a scholar, and she has earned a Ph.D. in the School of Hard Knocks of Life via disentangling herself from the JW cult many years ago, and has published on this board many writings which mark her as a scholar. Anyone who has not met this outstanding woman in the flesh and criticizes her for credentials or motivation or writings is an asshole, in my not so humble opinion. The people who have criticized Leoalia on this thread aren't worth shit. and they know it. They have an inferiority complex -- nothing new to longtime posters on this board.

  Narkissos is another true scholar, a man not only with some official credentials, but who puts his money where his mouth is and is dead nuts on all the time.

  I personally have no official credentials in terms of religious discussion, but I think that my posting record on this board and others going back some 15 years speaks for itself in terms of my qualifications to critique the cult of Jehovah's Witnesses. The same goes for Blondie, going back some six years. Blondie is among the most intelligent and generally astute women I've ever met, and I count it an honor to have met her in the flesh.

  Amateurs both, we are. But remember that amateurs first discovered the comet fragments that smacked into Jupiter in 1994 which nearly revolutionized solar system astronomy. The term "amateur" merely means that someone heavily into a field does not get paid for it. It has no relation to the person's actual expertise in the field. How many people are paid, professional JW critics?

  Proplog2 is one of those Monday morning quarterback critics of everything that accomplished JW-critics do, who does almost nothing at all himself but nevertheless sometimes has very good insights on this board, but for some reason is jealous of anyone other than himself who, in his opinion, rises to a measure of prominence because of demonstrably good posting skills. One wonders what sort of emotional defect is at the base of this poster.

  AlanF
• 
  1380

  The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

  why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

  as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  saki2fifty said:

  : I would assume that the destructiveness of a natural disaster, namely earthquakes, is ultimately measured in casualties.

  Not necessarily. This is easily illustrated. Suppose you lived in a city of 10 million people where the risk of being killed by a random gunshot was one in ten thousand per year. That means that, on average, 1,000 people a year were killed by gunshot. Now suppose you contemplated moving to a small town of 5,000 where the risk of being killed by a random gunshot was one in ten, so that on average, 500 people a year were killed by gunshot. Which one would you rather your family lived in? Which one has the greater crime?

  The answer is obvious, and when you think about it sufficiently, and apply it to natural disasters of all sorts, you'll see that the only proper measure of destructiveness is per capita risk.

  Think of this stuff another way. Let's suppose, for sake of argument, that the population of some country could grow at a rate of 5% per year for a hundred years in the absence of earthquakes. Suppose that this country started with a population of 1,000 people. At the end of 100 years, the country would contain 1.05^100 x 1,000 = about 131,500 people. Now let's introduce earthquake deaths and suppose that earthquakes killed people at a rate exactly proportional to the population density, say, 1% per year were killed by earthquakes. Then the rate of growth would be reduced to 5% - 1% = 4%, and at the end of 100 years the population would be 1.04^100 x 1000 = about 50,000.

  The key question is: Can you identify any point within the 100 years under consideration where the number of deaths due to earthquakes exceeded some critical level? If so, then present your argument.

  But I have no doubt that you cannot present such an argument, so assuming that you cannot, then answer the following: Since you cannot identify a point in the 100 year timespan where earthquakes exceeded a critical level, how can you possibly think that, in the 2,000 years since Jesus' death, you can identify a critical level above which you can confidently claim that a claimed prediction by Jesus was really fulfilled? And if you can answer that, then what is that critical level, and when was it reached in the past 2,000 years? If you can answer these questions, what objective evidence can you put forth to prove your claims?

  : Regardless what the measure of a disaster is based on, whether its Per Capita or not, if it kills more people... then wouldn't it be easily classified as being more destructive/worse?

  No. See above.

  : On a per capita basis the facts may say otherwise. If since 1914 the percentages/per capita has remained the same, but deaths have risen considerably, then I'd say the problem has worsened.

  You're wrong. See above, and answer my questions.

  : However, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php shows that the increase of Earthquakes may not be on the rise, but may appear to be for the fact that they are now able to locate them easier.

  I'm impressed! You underrate your abilities to look into things. Extremely few JWs would think to look for information about earthquakes on that website.

  :: Auldsoul: He said there would be an increase in the number of earthquakes.

  :: Where does it say this?

  : Matthew 24: 3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" 4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[a]' and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

  : Verse 6 "You will hear..." Verse 7 "There will be famines and earthquakes in various places". So maybe it simply means that you will hear of these things more frequently.

  So you can't find a scripture that states clearly that earthquakes would ever be on the increase. Why? Because this would be meaningless. Suppose that I told you that I would meet you at Alvin's Steak House in Denver when you see that the grass is green. Would that mean anything to you? Would you have gotten any information at all from me about when you should show up in Denver? Obviouly not. How about if Denver experienced several years of wet weather. Would that help you? Obviously not.

  The same goes for claiming that earthquakes are some kind of sign. The website from the United States Geological Survey that you astutely posted a link to, with the article "Are Earthquakes Really on the Increase?", clearly shows that earthquakes are statistically no different today than before 1914. If anyone claims different, let him post data that show a breakpoint at 1914. If anyone doesn't know what a "breakpoint" is, let him or her PM me and I'll explain.

  See if you can start thinking out of the box, saki2fifty. Read Matthew 24 and 25, along with Mark 13 and Luke 21, with fresh eyes. Compare what you read in the New World Translation with what you read in a variety of others. You'll see some things clearly. Jesus' disciples asked him for a sign that that "the end" was about to occur. But rather than immediately telling them about this sign, he warned them of things not to be disturbed about that would occur before "the end" would come. These things are precisely what Jewish apocalypic commentators, for several hundreds years, had been warning about the coming of whatever "end" they had in mind. Such things included famines, pestilences, earthquakes and great wars. So, in contrast to these false apocayptic 'prophets', Jesus' followers should never be worried about the things that Jewish apocalyptic commentators were very worried about, because they were nothing more than what uninspired wishful thinkers were publishing for several hundred years before Jesus came on the scene.

  Today the Watchtower Society continues in that same old tradition of attempting to discern the time of Jesus' Coming. They claim that since 1914, a great many horrible things have occurred that are far worse than anything mankind has ever experienced. While many horrible things have occurred, they are not exactly unprecedented. War, famine, pestilence and earthquakes have been part of human existence since time immemorial. There is no evidence that these horrible things have been any worse since 1914 than before that date. Gainsayers are welcome to post their rebuttals, but since readers already know that potential rebutters have no data at their disposal, it would be a wasted exercise.

  AlanF