Yep, exactly the same story got as far as NZ.
JW's have always overstated their impact on 'the whole inhabited earth'. It's as true as the snope about the two big guys protecting the sister from the rapist.
bigmouth
JoinedPosts by bigmouth
-
33
John Lennon and JW... (...a credible source)
by Confucious inok.... of course john lennon's would be 70th birthday was yesterday.. so just a discussion - and please - no hate'in... just some discussion.. but i personally know of a very high ranking jw member (think highest you can basically get...) who related this story to me how some jw's talked to john lennon shortly before he wrote "imagine.".
when he told me - he did preface it by saying it was "hearsay..." that he couldn't prove it.. but listening to the song tonight - i could see how it could be possible.. thoughts?.
confucious.
-
-
-
33
John Lennon and JW... (...a credible source)
by Confucious inok.... of course john lennon's would be 70th birthday was yesterday.. so just a discussion - and please - no hate'in... just some discussion.. but i personally know of a very high ranking jw member (think highest you can basically get...) who related this story to me how some jw's talked to john lennon shortly before he wrote "imagine.".
when he told me - he did preface it by saying it was "hearsay..." that he couldn't prove it.. but listening to the song tonight - i could see how it could be possible.. thoughts?.
confucious.
-
-
-
36
586/7 vs. 607 (another one) Critique my letter please....
by bigmouth insince moving back to another town i've met up with an elder i knew from way back.
(i met him coming out of a salvation army shop.).
he visited me at home a few weeks ago, and as i seem to be getting more comfortable at fading i invited him in and told him i was very concerned over the 607 bce.
-
-
bigmouth
Wow! AnnOmaly. That is a killer quote! That will have to be the Ace up the sleeve for any debate re. Furuli's authority.
-
36
586/7 vs. 607 (another one) Critique my letter please....
by bigmouth insince moving back to another town i've met up with an elder i knew from way back.
(i met him coming out of a salvation army shop.).
he visited me at home a few weeks ago, and as i seem to be getting more comfortable at fading i invited him in and told him i was very concerned over the 607 bce.
-
-
bigmouth
Hi Debator, thanks for your thoughts. As IsaacAustin notes, I was aware Rolf Furuli was a Witness. During my research I noticed he got into a furious argument with C. O. Jonsson over the latters criticism of the others methodology. I'm inclined not to quote either with the elder I originally mentioned as neither fits the bill as a neutral authority.
You commented - "For the record witnesses say and I agree that any interpretation of Bible prophecy is only a "Ccurrent understanding" prophecy is subjective. We have to research the Bible and correlate that with fulfillment in the world around us so it is not an exact science (nor is it meant to be) but unitydemands we have to be in agreement with each other as Christians and I think the "times" prophecy is a solid one.""
- You are certainly a 'team player' by your honest comment above. But I do see how the Society has found itself in a position where they are stuck with a critical teaching that allows no wiggle room. There surely are many who are aware of this but keep silent for the sake of 'unity'.
Thanks to all for input,
Pete
-
36
586/7 vs. 607 (another one) Critique my letter please....
by bigmouth insince moving back to another town i've met up with an elder i knew from way back.
(i met him coming out of a salvation army shop.).
he visited me at home a few weeks ago, and as i seem to be getting more comfortable at fading i invited him in and told him i was very concerned over the 607 bce.
-
-
bigmouth
Found an answer to my question here : http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/104230
A reply to the posted question by TD;
Was the 7 times prophecy from Daniel used before or after the Watchtower used the pyramids to predict 1914/1915?
John Aquila Brown wrote a two volume work in 1823 entitled The Even-Tide; or, Last Triumph of the Blessed and Only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Brown predicted that "The full glory of the kingdom of Israel shall be perfected" based upon a period of 2520 years. This is the first known record of an expositor claiming that the "seven times" of Nebuchadnezzar were a prophetic 2,520 year period.
Around 1818, another gentleman by the name of William Miller had became convinced that he could calculate the date for Christ's return. Miller initially based his calculation upon the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. Eventually Miller's scriptural reckoning was expanded to fifteen separate proofs that Christ’s return and the start of the millennium or 7th "day" would occur sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. These included such things as counting 2520 years from the year 677 BC, which he believed to be the year when Jerusalem fell. Miller recorded his interpretation in a sixty-four page pamphlet published in 1833 entitled Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ About the Year AD 1843.
Nelson H. Barbour joined the Millerite movement in 1843 at the age of 19, but in his own words, "…lost his religion completely after the Great Disappointment." He subsequently became a miner during the Australian gold rush and did not return home until some years later in 1859. It was during his voyage home that Barbour discovered what he believed to be the critical error in Miller's reckoning. While Miller had started his count of the 1260, 1290, and 1335 "year days" of Revelation 11 and Daniel 12 at different points in the past, Barbour decided that all three periods should be counted from a common starting point --- 538 CE. Soon an eschatological picture every bit as complex as Miller's emerged based upon additional concepts such as "Israel's double," the "Jubilee cycle," "Parallel dispensations" and Brown’s 2520 years derived from the seven times of Daniel chapter four. Barbour located the latter between the years 606 BC and 1914 AD. Barbour subsequently published specific details as to the end of the Gentile Times in his monthly periodical, which now carried the abbreviated title Herald Of The Morning.
Charles Taze Russell first came into contact with Barbour's research in January of 1876. Although Russell had been intrigued by some aspects of Adventism since about 1869, he had previously rejected Adventist chronology and date setting. However he was so impressed with Barbour's work that he paid his expenses to come to Philadelphia to meet with him. Russell was convinced by Barbour and this is the origin of the JW 1914 date.
It definitely precedes the pyramid calculations.
When was the date first mentioned, where, and in what matter?
If you mean specifically with regard to the Bible Students / Jehovah's Witnesses, the 1914 date is first mentioned in the December 1879 issue of Zion's Watch Tower on page 3. If your question is general, then I've given some background above.
When was the "invisible return of Christ" first mentioned in reference to 1914?
The Bible Students / Jehovah's Witnesses dated the "invisible return of Christ" to 1874 clear up until the early 1930's. The last clear statement in support of 1874 appeared in the 1929 book, Prophecy. The first clear statement in support of 1914 in The Watchtower appeared in December of 1933. -
36
586/7 vs. 607 (another one) Critique my letter please....
by bigmouth insince moving back to another town i've met up with an elder i knew from way back.
(i met him coming out of a salvation army shop.).
he visited me at home a few weeks ago, and as i seem to be getting more comfortable at fading i invited him in and told him i was very concerned over the 607 bce.
-
-
bigmouth
Joey Jo-Jo - JW’s see themselves as the teachers, not the student so when you are directly affirming something they will automatically take it as wrong without doing their home work (because they believe JW’s are Gods chosen people).
- Thanks JX3, I remember way back when I was starting out on FS, the brother with me said "Don't bother taking other peoples literature or debating with them. We have the Truth. We do the teaching." As an 18 year old, I felt invincible just knowing that my religion was right. No need to check anything outside of the Society's literature.
Farkel cracks me up.- "The tricky part was filtering through the obfuscating WTS comments on the matter, and I won't bother you with that." - The WTS are peerless in using language this way. I will have a go at your method. I'll start with a few drinks first and see where I get. The dude who wrote the chronology section of the Aids Book seems to know what he's talking about.
Debator - "Third witness himself set forth a thorough write up of this topic. http://thirdwitness.com/607_BCE/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/"
Thanks Debator, I came across this site when I was researching the subject using Google. I was somewhat put off with this chap as he came across as rather....angry? I don't know. He seemed a little overwrought in the way he put his argument across. The bottom line with him seemed that the 70 years must be right despite secular records indicating nearer to 50 years. He believes, by faith only, that the Bible must be correct and the sheer weight of material evidence is in error.
Hi diamondiiz, thanks for that. It's been recommended by others too. Actually I made the last post before I left for work and just before I went I found an old post that asked the very same question. I didn't have time to read any of it but I'm home now and I'll see if I can locate it again somehow. Maybe through my 'history'. -
36
586/7 vs. 607 (another one) Critique my letter please....
by bigmouth insince moving back to another town i've met up with an elder i knew from way back.
(i met him coming out of a salvation army shop.).
he visited me at home a few weeks ago, and as i seem to be getting more comfortable at fading i invited him in and told him i was very concerned over the 607 bce.
-
-
bigmouth
LostGeneration - I avoided getting 'Jehovah' mixed up with 'Watchtower', but you're right, to a JW the two are damn near one and the same!
Thanks for your views Terry. Coincidentally, during my research on the net I was intrigued about Miller and the Big Disappointment. I followed threads all over the place. Some of the information explaining the religiosity of America from the 18th century to the Adventist ideas of the 19th century were fascinating. When the U.S. was being settled by Protestant Christians from other lands, all of a sudden any man could pick up a Bible, read it and become a preacher. They had broken the shackles of institutional churches.
It makes it a little easier for someone like me on the other side of the world to understand why U.S. politicians always seem to higlight their religious heritage and the peculiar position religion takes in things like cartoons such as the Simpsons (Lovejoy and Flanders), King of the Hill and even Family Guy.They take a significance that probably wouldn't be seen in most First World Western countries I think.
BTW, I'm trying to get to the bottom of where the 1914 date, in it's original incarnation, first came up. Was it Barbour or Miller? Or did Russell come up with his pyramid measuring thing before the 607 - 2520yrs - 1914 ? Did the 607 - 1914 act as some kind of corroborative evidence for Russell's pyramidology ?
-
60
Name Some Stupid Organization/ Congregation Rules
by minimus inthere's a lot of them!.
one rule is you can't wear a tee shirt with writing on it if you are working at a quick build kh .
nothing with logos.. let's add more stupid rules that were in your hall or that the organization has.. .
-
-
bigmouth
Our Cong. had a rule against flip flops -Shame the rest of the WTBTS didn't have this attitude !
-
36
586/7 vs. 607 (another one) Critique my letter please....
by bigmouth insince moving back to another town i've met up with an elder i knew from way back.
(i met him coming out of a salvation army shop.).
he visited me at home a few weeks ago, and as i seem to be getting more comfortable at fading i invited him in and told him i was very concerned over the 607 bce.
-
-
bigmouth
Tweetie Bird - You're very welcome to use this however you like. I hope it helps.
Black Sheep - "Insist on an answer. Guilt him if he tries to weasel his way out of drawing up a list. Make him do the work. Do not accept pages of blurb or psychological warfare. You want a list, as described, nothing else, except, if he prefers, his head on a plate."
-You're probably right. He'd give the letter as much of a cursory glance as he would any historical proof. This subject will be just too hard for him to bother with.
AnnOMaly - Ah! Thank you ! I was looking for that post. I knew it had something to do with the KISS principle. -"was there anything in particular he latched on to as 'proof'? ". Not especially. When he returned, unexpectedly of course, I was leaving to go fishing with my son. Actually, he did ask if I had been looking at apostate web sites. I told him that I will read anything I choose to, apostate or not.
-"Regarding the 'generation' - this is a peripheral issue. Could you leave it out?" - I guess so. I just felt that 607, 2520 years and 1914 were inexorably tied into WT dogma. I was hoping he might draw the conclusion that the Society is on shaky ground having a conclusion that requires the dates to fit.
- "I'd emphasize here that the scholars who are also committed Christians have the utmost respect for the Bible's authority and testimony, and yet they STILL disagree with the WTS' date for Jerusalem's destruction - why is that?" - Excellent point.
- "I'd delete the last sentence ("Who knows ...") - it makes it sound like you're totally lost "- Good idea, I didn't mean to come across like that. I'm more ambivalent than lost. Maybe I don't care if he comes back or not. There you go..!....it's ambivalence !
simon17 -"...a little too much misdirection and not focused enough on the core issue. I think it should be far shorter and far more pointed. You give a JW a letter like that with 50 things they can focus on, then you'll NEVER get them to focus on the one thing they want. He'll wade through that and find something that is questionable, attack that, and then feel good about all his beliefs."- You are absolutely right there Simon. I actually wanted to go the route you mentioned. I had written in that style to another person and got a reply that seemed like she had never read it. So I was trying this gentler style. However, this guys an elder and the other was 'my' old (lowly woman) Bible student. I should probably have done things the other way around.Thanks to all. So....Scholar. Any ideas??
-
36
586/7 vs. 607 (another one) Critique my letter please....
by bigmouth insince moving back to another town i've met up with an elder i knew from way back.
(i met him coming out of a salvation army shop.).
he visited me at home a few weeks ago, and as i seem to be getting more comfortable at fading i invited him in and told him i was very concerned over the 607 bce.
-
-
bigmouth
Since moving back to another town I've met up with an elder I knew from way back. (I met him coming out of a Salvation Army shop.)
He visited me at home a few weeks ago, and as I seem to be getting more comfortable at fading I invited him in and told him I was very concerned over the 607 bce. teaching and the U.N. debacle. I told him he needed to research these things for me and come back with answers. Didn't think he'd bother. He did. He gave me a mish-mash of WT articles and some stuff by Rolf Furuli. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised at his lack of imagination but maybe he felt obligated to return.
I figured that any reply I gave him would never be listened to so I thought I could write a short letter to him that avoided all the chronology but might get him to actually research the subject for himself. He had expressed doubt about some things in the past so perhaps considering my thoughts might be a litlle scary for him.
So, do you think the following style of letter might get someone thinking rather than defensive ??
Thanks for any comments.
THE 607 bce VERSUS 586/7 BCE DEBATE
Virtually all secular and religious authorities agree on the destruction of Jerusalem occurring in 586/7 bce. The Watchtower Society maintains that these authorities are wrong and the destruction occurred in 607 bce.
This matter of twenty years or so would seem to be a fairly academic matter at first glance.
The problem the Watchtower has with the accepted date of 586/7 bce. is that, if accepted as historical fact, then the calculation of the beginning of the Last Days and Jesus Christ's invisible presence would have to begin in 1934/5 ce. and not 1914 ce.
1914 is a critical year in Watchtower theology. The basis of Watchtower teaching centres, to a large extent, around the belief that mankind is living in 'the last days of this system of things'. The belief is that, with the outbreak of World War 1 in 1914, mankind had arrived at a point in history where Satan and his Demons had been hurled from the heavenly realm to the confines of the earth in order to wreak havoc with mankind 'for a short time' and then the destruction of the incorrigably wicked would occur at Jehovah's hand in the battle of Armageddon.
The longest lasting teaching with regard to this 'short time' was that a number of 'the generation of people who were at an age of understanding of world events in 1914 would be alive to witness Armageddon and live on into the new earth'. This teaching has been modified two or three times since 1995 and the term 'generation' has a somewhat looser definition than the seventy or eighty years that were originally accepted. (Compare the positioning statement change at the bottom of page 4 in both the Oct. 22, 1995 and Nov. 8, 1995 Awake's)
When there is a conflict between secular dates and Biblical chronology, the Watchtower will follow the Biblical line as being infallible. The Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1 on p. 450 para. 1 says'..it is only when the secular chronology harmonizes with the Biblical record that a person may rightly feel a measure of confidence in such ancient secular dating'. This is a commendable attitude by Christians who view the Bible as the final authority on all sorts of matters. The Watchtower does admit, however, that even based on the Bible record there is room for errors to come in and explains this in the Insight book Vol. 1 p. 463 para. 1 when discussing a chart of the Kings of Judah and Israel; “The chart is not intended to be viewed as an absolute chronology but, rather, as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms.” After pointing out that the ancient historians recorded on the basis of facts and figures well known to them but not to us, the publication re-iterates; “...we may be satisfied with simply setting out an arrangement that harmonizes reasonably with the Biblical record”.
The problem, though, is that many learned men can and do read Scripture and come to varying understandings of what they have read. Many individuals claim Divine direction or guidance or inspiration in order to interpret what they read as the mind of God. The Watchtower makes claim to being the sole instrument of God, especially since 1919 and as such believe that they are specially directed toward correct understanding of Biblical Truth by Him. They claim that no other entity has this relationship with the Creator.
Given the vast collection of opinion, research and argument on this subject not just in books, tracts and articles but also on a myriad of internet sites, most ordinary people, without an academic background, are simply overwhelmed. They may well think that it's too complicated for them to figure out. (Compare Ec. 12:12). If you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses it is far easier to simply accept that the Watchtower Society must be correct and get on with life. If you accept the Watchtower teaching that 1914 is arrived at by counting 2520 years from 607 bce., then 607 bce. is the correct date.
If you don't agree with this statement then you are at odds with The Watchtower. The most cherished date in the Watchtower's short history is unquestionably 1914 ce. If this pivotal date were overturned in favour of another, then the entire chronology for the 'last days', 'this generation' and the choosing of the 'faithful and discreet slave' for example, would be rendered meaningless.
If you have faith that the Watchtower Society is, in fact, the sole dispenser of Truth, then you must accept that 607 bce. is the date of Jerusalem's destruction.
If you are unsure about who has got it right, then you open yourself up to all sorts of uncomfortable questions.
The bottom line is; no one can force you to accept one point of view over the other. Clearly there has been enormous research on both sides of the question. But in matters that require faith, neutrality is not usually an option. Jesus is recorded as seeing things as black and white when he said, at Ma. 12:30, “He that is not on my side is against me...”. I don't want to argue with Jesus, but, 2000 years down the road and after a proliferation of religious groups and individuals, I'd like to get out to the sidelines and think a bit more carefully about who or what to believe. Who knows, I might decide to not put my trust in anyone much at all.