@djeggnog wrote:
If Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC, prove it without contradicting the Bible!
@Joey Jo-Jo wrote:
The thing is it doesn't contradict the bible, because it did occur 70 years of servitude not destruction, all the references in Jeremiah and Daniel point to 587BCE and 607BCE is impossible to [reconcile].
The "good word" that Jehovah gave to Jeremiah was that He would turn his attention to His people after "the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon," and I believe the land of Judah lay desolate just as Jehovah had foretold by the prophet Jeremiah "until the land had paid off its sabbaths ... to fulfill seventy years," whose prophecy Daniel recounts. (Jeremiah 29:10; 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21; Daniel 9:2) You are free to believe that this 70-year period began in 605 BC as do those who hold to the year 587 BC as the year when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, knowing that historians all point to 539 BC as being the year when Babylon fell to the Persians, when Cyrus freed the Jewish exiles from captivity and let them return to Judah to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
Now I realize, @Joey Jo-Jo, that you were repeating something you either heard or read somewhere without realizing what it was you were saying -- kinda like those folks that were caught up in the ruckus at Jesus' trial and shouted "Impale him!" without giving any thought whatsoever as to whether the man upon whom they were urging Pilate to condemn was deserving of death ( ) -- because it isn't possible to find 70 years between 587 BC and 539 BC since you would be 22 years shy of fulfilling 70 years, but let me continue since, to be fair, you did mention the servitude of the Jewish exiles in Babylon.
It is claimed by some that it is during Nebuchadnezzar's accession year in 605 BC that many of the Jewish captives first became exiles in Babylon, so their 70 years of servitude would end in 535 BC, and they speculate that it must have taken a few years before Nebuchadnezzar finally got around to freeing the Jewish captives so that they could return to Judah. Ok. But what was Nebuchadnezzar's accession year?
It was in 625 BC that crown prince Nebuchadrezzar led his Babylonian forces to victory over the Egyptians at Carchemish. At Jeremiah 46:2, "Nebuchadrezzar" is Nebuchadnezzar, and note that Jeremiah refers to Nebuchadnezzar here as "the king of Babylon." We know that Nebuchadnezzar had become king in this year because Jeremiah also tells us at Jeremiah 46:2 that it was during the "fourth year" of Jehoiakim's reign that Nebuchadrezzar [Nebuchadnezzar] defeats "Pharaoh Necho the king of Egypt." It was in that year that Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebopolassar, dies, so that 625 BC became Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. I hope you're following me here, but here's the point:
Flavius Josephus indicates in his work, "Antiquities of the Jews," Volume X, vi, 1, that in his victory at Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar conquered the entire Syria-Palestine region, "excepting Judea," which poses a problem for those that would make the claim that the Bible is wrong and that the 70 years of servitude began in 625 BC during Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, and according to Jeremiah 52:28-30, Jewish servitude didn't begin until Nebuchadnezzar's seventh regnal year (618 BC) when he took 3,023 Jews into exile; it was during Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year (607 BC) when Jerusalem was destroyed and Zedekiah, who had fled Jerusalem, was overtaken at Jericho, blinded and then led captive to Babylon among the 832 Jews that had been taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar, and it was during his 23rd regnal year (602 BC) when 745 Jews were captured by Nebuchchadnezzar's chief of the bodyguard (Nebuzaradan) from Egypt and from other nations. Not referring to the Jews alone, but Jeremiah has foretold that all of "these nations [would] have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (Jeremiah 25:11)
Now Josephus agrees with what the Bible says about the 70 years, but there's this Babylonian priest named Berossus, who makes other claims that contradict what Josephus wrote, saying, for example, that Nebuchadnezzar's battle at Carchemish took place in 605 BC, claiming 605 BC as being Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, but whether you agree with Berossus or Josephus, I go with what the Bible says, and believe that the 70 years began in during Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 607 BC and ended 70 years later in 537 BC, when the year after Cyrus' first accession year , which would be in 539 BC, his first regnal year began the following year in 538 BC, when he issued his decree that freed the Jews from captivity and permitted them to return to Judah by "the seventh month" in 537 BC. (Ezra 3:1) It was "in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah's word by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished," regarding the 70 years, which, again, would have been in 538 BC, that "the king of Persia" issued his decree that permitted the Jews to "go up" to Judah. (2 Chronicles 36:22, 23)
@lisaBObesa wrote:
You are quite right about the "firm position" on 1975. It was more like a very strong position on 1975 possibly being the end because the Watchtower said that 'reliable' chronology was pointing to that year, and a very "firm position"on the end coming before the generation of 1914 passed away.
@djeggnog wrote:
I could, but what you are saying here is just semantics, a kind of word game really, that some people love playing. Your quote from an older Watchtower article that "the autumn of the year 1975 marks the end of 6,000 years of human experience...," ends with both the question, "Will it be the time when God executes the wicked and starts off the thousand-year reign of his Son Jesus Christ?" and the answer, "It very well could, but we will have to wait to see." But how does this question and answer from this older Watchtower article prove that Jehovah's Witnesses ever took a firm position or a "very strong position" as to 1975 being more than the year the marked the end of 6,000 years since mankind's creation (in 4026 BC)?
@lisaBObesa wrote:
Let's just state the facts: "The Watchtower took a position that 1975 very well might be when God executes the wicked."
This is more semantics, but ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
We were promised that the end would come during the generation that began in the year 1914 when the sign of Jesus' invisible presence and the conclusion of this system of things began.
@lisaBObesa wrote:
Exactly. That is what the Watchtower has repeatedly promised Jehovah's Witnesses. They said that they KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN before the generation alive in 1914 passed away. But they didn't KNOW. They were just guessing. THEY LIED to you.
I see I have to be careful about my word choices when I talk to you here, because when I used the word "promised" here, you took my use of the word as an unconditional promise; I didn't mean as in I had "promised" to give you a ride to work this morning if you managed to get to my house before I left without conditions, for I had also told you that you had to be at my house no later than 7:35 am. My promise was a conditional one, so if you got left, it would have been because you weren't there by 7:35 am.
POTUS Obama when he was candidate Obama made a promise to repeal the miliary's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy during his first term of office, and it may or may not happen during his first term, and he may not even get a second term, but his was a conditional promise, conditioned upon his obtaining congressional approval, for in the US, there are no kings, so Obama was essentially promising to sign the bill that repealed DADT into law if such a bill ever made it to his desk for signature.
Even children learn at an early age the difference between an unconditional promise and a conditional one, for if you tell a child that he or she can leave school on Friday with their cousin at whose home he or she will be spending the night, the child knows that your promise is unconditional, but if you tell a child that he or she can go to the playground provided he or she first makes his or her bed and picks up his or her clothes, that the promise is a conditioned upon his or her satisfying those two conditions.
At Luke 21:10-20, Jesus told his disciples about the conditions that would precede the "desolating" of Jerusalem, and that "this generation" that saw these things occurring would "by no means pass away until all these things"occurred (Mark 13:30) But Jesus didn't tell them when the end of the Jewish system of things would occur, did he? Not only that, but what they also didn't know was that there would be a major fulfillment of his prophecy that would affect mankind on a global scale and that "this generation," too, would not pass away until all of the things he foretold had occurred. (Matthew 24:34)
When Jesus' disciples had asked him whether he was "restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?" Jesus told them nothing; he didn't even give them any hint as to the answer to their question because Jesus knew that the kingdom of God would not be established "until the appointed times of the nations" were fulfilled in 1914. (Acts 1:6; Luke 21:24) Instead, what Jesus told them in response was that "it does not belong to you to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction." (Acts 1:7) It turns out though that this knowledge does belong "to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived" as we are living during "the Lord's day," when the "true knowledge [has become] abundant" and when "the kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:11; Revelation 1:10; 11:15; Daniel 12:4) How thrilling is that!
Actually, the apostle John was the first to learn toward the end of the first century AD that what Jesus foretold at Matthew 24:7, 8, regarding "nation rising against nation and kingdom against kingdom" would be a time when "peace [would be taken] away from the earth," but Jesus' disciples had no idea that the end of this system of things would occur almost 2,000 years into the future. (Revelation 6:3-8) Today we know that we are living during the generation of the sign of Jesus' invisible presence, and of course, we don't know "the day or the hour" when the end is going to come, but we do know that "[our] deliverance is getting near." (Mark 13:32; Luke 21:27, 28)
The apostle Paul emphasizes this point when he stated, "Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. For you yourselves know quite well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. 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." (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3) We might want to know the day and hour, but we have no need to know, because, says Paul, "Jehovah's day is coming exactly as a thief in the night."
Jesus even likened his coming to a surprising visit of a thief, who breaks into your home without advance notice, saying 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. 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." (Matthew 24:43, 44) And at Revelation 16:15, Jesus says warns, "Look! I am coming as a thief."
You know that Jehovah's Witnesses do not know "that day and hour" when Armageddon will arrive, don't you? (Matthew 24:36) So when you read a statement like the following one in the Watchtower, dated June 1, 1997:
"With similar sincere intentions, God’s servants in modern times have tried to derive from what Jesus said about "generation" some clear time element calculated from 1914. For instance, one line of reasoning has been that a generation can be 70 or 80 years, made up of people old enough to grasp the significance of the first world war and other developments; thus we can calculate more or less how near the end is."
What are we really reading here? A viewpoint based upon reasoning that a generation could be "70 or 80 years"? In 1997, when this QfR article was written 83 years has passed, so the reader could not have understood that we were saying that the would come within 70 or 80 years, could they? But can this be called a promise?
"Does our more precise viewpoint on 'this generation' mean that Armageddon is further away than we had thought? Not at all! Though we at no time have known the 'day and hour,' Jehovah God has always known it, and he does not change. (Malachi 3:6)"
[w95 11/1 "A Time to Keep Awake," p. 20]On page 14 of this thread you wrote:
Again, the Jehovah's Witnesses DID predict that the world would end before the generation of 1914 passed away. No matter how much you LIE about it.
But what you have failed to do,@lisaBObesa, is prove evidence that we have ever made a prediction as to when the world would come to an end. All of this bluster on your part doesn't make your case. Where's your evidence that we've done more than just speculate on when the end of this system of things might occur? Where is it, @lisaBObesa?
On page 12 of this thread, you posted the cover of the Watchtower, dated May 15, 1984, containing the article, "1914--The Generation That Will Not Pass Away," but in the article itself it stated how "[s]ome have interpreted 'generation' to mean a period of 30, 40, 70 or even 120 years. However, a generation is really related to people and events, rather than to a fixed number of years." It further stated that Jesus had "used the word 'generation' many times in different settings and with various meanings."
The word "generation" has been defined as "Those born at the same time ... meaning: the body of one’s contemporaries, an age," and "[t]he sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time generation, contemporaries." The article stated that "[t]hese definitions embrace both those born around the time of a historic event and all those alive at that time." (Id., at page 5)
But this is the point I wanted to make here that you and many other people that read in much the same way you read things miss (also on page 5):
"If Jesus used 'generation' in that sense and we apply it to 1914, then the babies of that generation are now 70 years old or older. And others alive in 1914 are in their 80’s or 90’s, a few even having reached a hundred. There are still many millions of that generation alive. Some of them 'will by no means pass away until all things occur,'—Luke 21:32."
The word "if" as used here signifies the expression of a hypothetical. This is not a promise. It is merely a conclusion based on our speculating on what the word "generation" would mean if it were to "include all those living at a given time generation, contemporaries." You didn't get this point before. Why not get it now and take a right viewpoint?
Again, in an article entitled "A Time to Keep Awake," that appeared in the Watchtower, dated November 1, 1995, page 6, we read:
"Eager to see the end of this evil system, Jehovah’s people have at times speculated about the time when the 'great tribulation' would break out, even tying this to calculations of what is the lifetime of a generation since 1914. However, we 'bring a heart of wisdom in,' not by speculating about how many years or days make up a generation, but by thinking about how we 'count our days' in bringing joyful praise to Jehovah. (Psalm 90:12) Rather than provide a rule for measuring time, the term "generation" as used by Jesus refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical period, with their identifying characteristics."
In conclusion, the recent information in the Watchtower about "this generation" didn't change our understanding of what occurred in 1914. We were guessing, but we didn't lie to anyone. Although you and others missed it, we spelled out our viewpoint on the matter and we made no promises whatsoever as to any specific year. You choose to believe this, but this is not true at all. I both know and understand more about what things that the Bible teaches than you and most of the people that frequent JWN -- the truth -- so 'as you contemplate how my conduct turns out, you would do well to imitate my faith,' @lisaBObesa. (Hebrews 13:7) You have to wait for the end to come like me and like everyone else, but when it comes, you and I had better be ready!
All of these articles in the Watchtower over the years "give us a clearer grasp of Jesus’ use of the term 'generation,' helping us to see that his usage was no basis for calculating—counting from 1914—how close to the end we are."
At Luke 8:18, Jesus admonishes Christians to "pay attention to how [we] listen; for whoever has, more will be given him, but whoever does not have, even what he imagines he has will be taken away from him." It's very clear to me that you haven't been doing that, @lisaBObesa. People say things and only do you assume you understand what was said, but you run away with it and from Jehovah. I am the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you don't have to be the dullest one in that drawer either.
Neither Peter or John was as intelligent as you are, they being perceived as being "unlettered and ordinary," but through their outspokenness the scripture says that people "began to recognize about them that they used to be with Jesus." (Acts 4:13) The people that meet me remember most that I'm one of Jehovah's Christian Witnesses and you know what? I'm ok with that, but how do the people that meet you remember you? Do they think of you as being a nice and generous person? I'm nice and generous, too, but I am outstandingly one of Jehovah's Witnesses. That's how people ought to remember you.
@3dogs1husband:
I speak from my heart. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. (long before the internet and discovering this website) What [led] me away from Jehovah's [Organization]? No one is sure of their salvation.
So based upon your perception of things, you led yourself away from Jehovah's organization. I'm speaking from the heart, too, when I tell you that I don't feel sorry for you. Not at all. No one forced you to leave God's organization, so because you decided on your own to leave, I support the exercise of your own free will and your decision to leave. This is how it should be.
@djeggnog wrote:
Let me put it this way: Anyone that listens to you will die. There is no one that refuses to listen to us that will be saved. Period. By our paying constant attention to ourselves and to what we teach, and living our lives in accord with these things, Jehovah's Witnesses have faith that we will save not just ourselves but those who listen to us. (1 Timothy 4:16)
@3dogs1husband wrote:
So needless to say when I read your reply ... I say to you: YOU ONLY HOPE TO SAVE YOURSELF!
You are free to believe whatever it is you wish about my intentions, but if you refuse to listen to us, you are probably going to perish.
@djeggnog wrote:
I am a serious Bible student and I would judge your spirituality as weak based on your telling me here that you were one of those "Bible students" that actually believed the end was coming in 1975, a teaching that smacks of apostasy since you should have known that such a teaching totally contradicts Jesus' words at Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 that 'nobody knows that day or hour.'
@Leolaia wrote:
Charles Sinutko was one of those "Bible Students" who thought the tribulation would come even before 1975 ("And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then"). But hey, he was just a district overseer, it was common for them I guess to have a weak spirituality and apostate leanings. Or is it that Sinutko didn't claim to know the "day or hour" because the end could well come in 1974, or in 1973, or 1972, or 1971, etc.
I've met Bro. Sinutko back in the 80s and while he was a powerful public speaker, he wasn't a perfect man and neither am I, for what he should have said, assuming that you are quoting him accurately here, is that regarding 1975, that "there's no guarantee that the door isn't going to be shut before then." Bro. Sinutko didn't claim to know the day and hour, period. Why you are name dropping here, I have no idea.
@djeggnog wrote:
In saying what he does at Mark 13:32, Jesus Christ knew that we would not be able to calculate the "day and hour" because he knew one vital piece of information was unknown to us and is not revealed anywhere in the Bible: The date of Eve's creation. So we logically know that Eve could not have been created any earlier than 35 years after Adam's creation, but what if Eve was created, say, just five years later or 40 years after Adam's creation? That would then logically mean that Christ's Millennial reign will not occur before the year 2015. Or don't you understand this?
@Leolaia wrote:
This ignores the fact that the Society did claim to know when Eve was created (4026 BCE) in the lead up to 1975.
Ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
I am a serious Bible student and I would judge your spirituality as weak based on your telling me here that you were one of those "Bible students" that actually believed the end was coming in 1975, a teaching that smacks of apostasy since you should have known that such a teaching totally contradicts Jesus' words at Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 that 'nobody knows that day or hour.'
@The Finger:
I think it was Freddy who brought the subject up of the ending of the 6000 years are you suggesting he was an apostate? Do you think there is a big enough difference between suggesting and believing. Do you know what was in Fred Franz mind? Do you think he may have believed this himself? Would you, did you write to him and tell him how wrong it was? Or are you now just blaming those who listened to Christ's brothers and joined them in preaching these things.
More name dropping. Am I supposed to be impressed by personalities? Were governing body members or the more charismatic brothers among us, such as circuit overseers, district overseers, what helped you rise every morning, gave you that sun and rain, made your life worth living? If so, what's keeping you alive today? Or was it Jehovah all along that was doing and who is continuing to do these things? I told someone else that I don't want to play semantics; I am telling you this as well. It's a game that I do not fare well in, because at any time one can declare themselves to be the winner, so I don't really play it.
maybe you were too busy making a comfortable life for yourself rather than spending long days trying to save lives.
You said "maybe," so this is fair, but, gratefully, I have been able over the years to multitask; I have been able to do both. Now I am able to spend much more time in Jehovah's service than I could spend in the past, serving Him with gladness day and night in His Great spiritual temple. I love it.
@aligot ripounsous:
Thank you, DJ, for going into such a long development and taking a lot of your time to prove that Jerusalem was destroyed in - 607 and not in - 587. To me it doesn't really matter....
That's fine.
Remember, nobody knows, except the father, so why should we be fussy about dates and quibble ?
I understand your view, and I won't quibble with you over it. You've expressed your viewpoint clearly and you're right: Only the Father knows "that day and hour."
@aligot ripounsous wrote:
Remember, nobody knows, except the father, so why should we be fussy about dates and quibble ?
@undercover wrote:
Why be fussy about stupid old dates. Let's forget 607/587.
Both you and @aligot ripounsous are free to forget 607 BC and any other thing you wish. I won't do that, but that's just me. I fancy myself as being a serious Bible student and I cannot do that.
The generation that saw 1914 will not pass away. Simple, direct and to the point. And ... it's been proven false.
Oh, was it?
Anyone hanging on to their stupid teachings after being shown the truth of the matter is ignorant and delusional and not worth arguing with anymore. Why do they defend the indefensible?
I believe I have the truth. If you do not think so, then where's your evidence? Prove to me that you have the truth and I don't have it. Can you do this? Will you do this? I'll wait.
@garyneal wrote:
Where's Scholar?
@undercoverwrote:
Personally, I think he got a clue and [realized], despite his defense of 607, that he can't defend the WTS for their generation stupidity and he's regained his senses and is working his way through the early stages of fading from the organization. Of course, his ego won't let him come here and take his lumps, so he'll join back up under another name.
I do not know @Scholar, but I do know the truth, and I can and am able to defend the year 607 BC as being the year when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the same year when Nebuchadnezzar's appointee, Gedaliah, was assassinated, two months after Jerusalem's destruction, after which the 70-year desolation of Judah began to undergo fulfillment. Jehovah, by means of Jesus Christ, has committed to me and to all Jehovah's Witnesses the word of the reconciliation, so I my ego is ok with folks 'appraising me as being a subordinate of Christ and steward of the sacred secrets of God.' (2 Corinthians 5:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 4:1)
@JunkYardDog wrote:
I know I left out a few dozen dates but you get the idea. ALL THIS BLASPHEMY WAS TAUGHT AS "PROPER [SPIRITUAL] AT THE PROPER TIME" FROM THE TABLE OF JEHOVAH. MEAT IN DUE SEASON. [INCONTROVERTIBLE] BIBLE FACTS !!!!!!!! TRUTH ETC.
@djeggnog wrote:
I'd rather call you out now. Please explain your point about the blasphemy of which you speak. You shouted a lot of things to me, but I'm not moved by any of it. You accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of lying through our literature, through the Watchtower magazine, and if you cannot prove this allegation, then that would make you a liar.
@JunkYardDog wrote:
Do I really need to address you?
I don't know. That would be up to you, wouldn't it?
calling me a liar?
No, I'm just not as gullible as you might wish me to be to simply believe because you say these things and believe them to be true that they are, in fact, true.
Every one of the dates I posted are BLASPHEMY printed by your god in Brooklyn in the name of jehovah jesus and the holy sprit. deny that?????
Yes, I do.
you want proof[?]
Yes, I do.
the wts nov. 1955 said " jehovah told Judge rutherFraud to preach " [MILLIONS] NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE " in 1918 etc. if you read "MILLIONS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE " or read any of the 1919 -1924 wts or GOLDEN AGE MAGS you would know that RUTHERfRAUD was teaching the world was going to end in 1925.... READ "STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES VOL 2 THE "TIME IS AT HAND" PG 76,77 101 . AND TELL ME IF WHAT THE WTS TAUGHT ABOUT THE WORLD ENDING IN 1914 WAS TRUTH?????????????? ... HOW THE WTS SAID ANY THINKING PERSON WOULD "RATHER HAVE SMALL POX , MUMPS, ETC THAN HAVING A [VACCINATION].... AND YES I'M SHOUTING AT YOU
I don't mind if you feel you must shout, but shouting on the 'net is considered discourteous. However, none of what you mention in your post constitutes proof, which is what I was expecting to get from you.
Now Jehovah's Witnesses are not perfect people. For example, I'm imperfect and so are you. Imperfect people, whether they be Jehovah's Witnesses or not, might actually say some zany things that someone will have to later go to them and correct them. Perhaps you yourself during your lifetime of shouting at folks are guilty of having said something in the past that you may have since regretted saying, something really stupid. I know that I've done this. I once told someone that I had heard that actress Cicely Tyson was former heavyweight boxing champion, Mike Tyson's mother! This was during the 80s when Tyson had become the youngest boxer to have won boxing title before his rape conviction in 1992. I had told a lot of people in those days and it was funny when I came to realize how many people I had shared this tidbit of false information. It was from this experience that I came to learn the importance of checking my facts before repeating them to others as if I had verified what I had heard someone else say.
The test though is whether those individuals will allow themselves to be corrected. I don't think it to be blasphemy though for Rutherford to have preached that "millions how living will never die," for I may, in fact, be among those millions that the apostle John saw 'coming out of the great tribulation.' (Revelation 7:14) I mean, this is very possible.
As to whether any of Jehovah's Witnesses ever taught that the world was going to end in 1914, in 1925, or in any other year, I'll leave you to judge, but we don't make such predictions, since Jesus clearly stated at Mark 13:32 that 'nobody knows that day or hour.'
AFTER 20 PAGES IF YOUR NONSENSE YOUR GOING TO BE EASY. i'M NOT THE OTHER NICE WT SCHOLARS YOU DEBATED HERE . THE DOG IS GOING TO HOLD YOUR FOOT TO THE FIRE. NOW LETS TALK ABOUT THE GOLDEN AGE MAG AND THE WTS 1996 CLAIM ...
If you don't soon produce proof of these claims you're making with respect to the topic, I'm going to start ignoring your posts as I do Outlaw's and others here that I view as being trolls here. Specifically, the topic of this thread is about the adjustment that was made in our understanding of Matthew 24:34 that first came to our attention in the Watchtower dated February 15, 2008, and then in the Watchtower dated April 15, 2010. As you should appreciate from reviewing the past 20 pages, you're off topic.
@djeggnog
