Posts by Doug Mason

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

In 1927, Rutherford said that the "Coming" (erchetai) in the parables of the "Talents" and of the "Faithful and wise servant" related to Jesus coming to the temple in 1918. That was the time the "Servant" class was created - comprising Jesus as its head and all spirit-anointed as the body/feet, although it could also refer to Christ alone or to the body/feet alone. It was in this way that Rutherford related the relationship between the "Faithful slave" and 1918. (He also said that the "Evil slave" were those people who had fellowshiped with him but now stood in opposition.)

Whereas Rutherford saw the Coming as a past event, the current WTS leadership says it refers to a future event that is associated with the Great Time of Trouble and Armagedon. Obviously then, they cannot relate the "Coming" to the setting up of the FDS. Rutherford's coming was an invisible action taking place in the heavenly temple, the current WTS teaching is completely visible, even violent.

The date of 1919 appears to first arise in the very early 1970s. At that time, and until 2013, the evolving Governing Body was a representative of the FDS class - the "spirit-anointed", little flock of 144,000. As I have said, Rutherford also saw it as a class.

However, from October 2012, and as announced in the July 15, 2013 Watchtower, the GB has expressly stated that it now limits the expression to itself.

Until 1930 at least, Rutherford's Presence (parousia) was confidently fixed at 1874.

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

Vanderhoven7,

I finally converted that 1927 Watch Tower article into Word format. It is indeed most interesting, and I might be able to make another use of it. If you would like to see it, contact me by email.

Having seen how Rutherford approached the "Faithful and Wise Servant" it is likely I will need to make some improvement to my description of him. I will need to think about it, since I was trying to reflect how the current GB portrays what happened in 1919, but they were not specific as to the individual(s) concerned.

As I said, I do not want to distract by canvassing all the variant interpretations of those verses in Matt 24. Of course, that is not beyond the realms of possibility. I will think about it; there is no panic, since that point does not impact the thrust of my argument.

The question that arises from Rutherford's article is: "When is the FDS?"

Doug

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Doug Mason

Jeffro,

See the Chapter "Jews Return to Yehud" (at least) in my Study:

http://www.jwstudies.com/They_would_not_listen_Version_1.pdf

Doug

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Doug Mason

Jeffro,

My detailed analysis of the situation is at:

http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Jews_return_home_ver_3.pdf

An interesting clue lies in the fact that Cyrus' decree as recorded by Ezra bears no semblance to the words on the Cyrus Cylinder.

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

Phizzy and Vanderhoven7,

I reckon you guys are spot on.

When I looked at the WT Library CD, I gained the very clear impression that the idea of the 1919 inspection was highly likely introduced with the 1973 publication, "God' Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached". Look at pages 331-363 (and pages 349-356 in particular).

It took some 54 years (1919 to 1973) before they realised, "Hey, Jehovah God had appointed us!".

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

Phizzy,

Thanks for that 1973 quote. The date ties in neatly with the list of quotations given in the post by Vanderhoven7, which appears immediately after yours.

Maybe the idea had its conception in 1972 and its birth in 1973?

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

Vanderhoven7,

Thanks for that list of sources, especially as you have given them chronologically. I will mull over them.

I have not done the research, but it would also be interesting to look at "appointment" (rather than "anointed"). When did the concept first arise in the WTS and what was the context?

I have made one failed attempt at turning the 1927 WT article into an OCR file; I will make another attempt.

If these guys were appointed by Jehovah God and his son, how come they knew nothing about it at the time and maybe not for decades later? Did Jehovah forget to mention it to them?

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

leaving_quietly,

I focused my Study from the viewpoint of Paul. I touch slightly on Acts but I deliberately did not feature the aspects you mention. Mostly, I wrote that Acts is suspect, and is treated with caution by scholars with some avoiding it altogether.

I have left myself room to work on a Study of Acts of the Apostles by Luke because it plays a central role in the Governing Body's claims and demands (such as on blood).

So I think the issue is far larger than focusing on a particular turn of phrase. Let me briefly explain: Luke wrote a created history with the objective of papering over the cracks between the gentile work of Paul and his opposite number, the Jewish sector under the control of Jesus' brother, James.

Luke's objectives remove his objectivity. For example, Paul - who was there, but of course biased - wrote that he had two private meetings with Cephas and James. Luke expanded this to a mighty convention. Another example: Paul indicates he was in Damascus persecuting (which could have been arguing or physical Jewish punishment) when he "saw the light"; he went to Arabia, and returned to Damascus. He says he saw no one for 3 years and only then did he got to Jerusalem. He stayed with Cephas for 15 days, had private meetings and he also saw James. Luke, on the other hand, contradicts Paul.

Only after looking at the big picture can we then understand any statements made by Luke. He was not a companion of Paul's; Acts was written decades after Paul's death. At the start of his Gospel, Luke says that his account was gained through gathering information. Who knows what stories people told him.

Doug

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Doug Mason

Jeffro,

The crucial date for the WTS is the moment when the first Returnees assembled at the temple in Jerusalem. They rely on their date of Tishri 537 BCE to be able to arrive at 607 BCE for the entry of Jews into Egypt, following the murder of Gedaliah.

It is my contention that no one, whether the WTS, you, or I, is able to positively date that event. It could have taken place in any year from 538 BCE to 535 BCE, depending on the assumptions being made. A search of the www shows the range of dates that are proposed. This is the major problem for the WTS; the elephant in the room.

As you point out, no one knows the timing of Cyrus’ Decree; it could have been made at any time during his first year. Likewise, no one has any proof – only assumptions – about the time taken for the Jews to prepare, when they actually left, arrived in the villages, the length of time they took to settle down, or the time they took after that to get to Jerusalem. If these were important to Ezra, he would have made a point of writing the details. His sole concern was identifying who had legitimate rights to the priesthood.

Nehemiah used the Tishri calendar, even when writing about a foreign monarch (see Theile, discussing Neh 1:1 and 2:1, as well as the period in question). The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally a single document (scroll), and Ezra wrote the document named after him, as well as 2 Chronicles. So the likelihood of a Tishri calendar must not be ruled out.

The writer of Daniel ascribes to Darius a rule that reached its first year, which means it would have commenced on 24 March 538 BCE (P&D Julian dating). If, as you say, Darius and Cyrus were not coregents, that moves the start of Cyrus’ first year to 12 March 537.

To prove that the Jews assembled on Tishri 1 (5 October) in 537 BCE, the following needs to be known: In which part of his first year did Cyrus issue his decree (from 24 March 538 to 11 March 537, ignoring a rule by Darius). Then provide undeniable details, not assumptions, of how long it actually took people to prepare their families, and the date when they left. (They would have had to wait until people from various parts of the region had gathered.)

Prove how long it took them to move their families, possessions, and beasts, to reach Yehud. Prove how long it took before all of them had arrived at their respective towns and villages and had settled down. Prove how long it took before they all assembled at the temple site.

This is the exercise that the WTS has to address – but it cannot achieve its objective. In their system of reckoning, the date of the destruction of Jerusalem is a red herring. The WTS jumps from 537 to the exodus of Jews into Egypt. That is the date they have to be concerned about.

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

Vanderhoven7,

I was thinking about this - apologies for being a slow thinker, but that's life.

I don't know how recent this "appointment in 1919" idea actually is, but the context in my mind is the July 15, 2013 Watchtower magazine. I had just written a Study on that issue of the magazine but I had omitted discussion on one subject: the GB itself. That, I reasoned, required a separate Study, which is what I produced during the ensuing weeks.

So my statement regarding 1919 has to be seen in the context of this latest list of amended WTS ideas. I could have discussed the changes that have been made to the idea of the FDS, but that would have been an unprofitable distraction.

Maybe I could amend my text to say that this is their current teaching, but I wonder if that would that be of any benefit?

I looked at the 1963 "Babylon" book to see what it (I presume Fred F.) had to say about the date: it was the year when the prison doors were opened; the year when Babylon fell; and it was the year when the remnant of the 144,000 began to be freed. Nothing about any "Appointment"; nothing about any "Governing Body" that I could see.

As I wrote previously, that 1927 Watchtower magazine, in talking about the "Faithful and wise servant" provides no thoughts about 1919. I will try to create a text file of the relevant parts of that article - but no promises.

Doug