Posts by kepler

14

How can one be a witness of events unseen and unheard?

by kepler in

back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western europe of things happening in central asia could have been much worse.

events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day.

much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of genghis khan.

kepler

Thanks, all of you for your comments.

Sometimes, posting these propositions, have to wonder if I am coming in from too far out in left field, just coming up with things that are irrelevant to the experience of years of KH and knocking on doors. I never know. But at the same time, the experience of being on the other side of the counter and having this tear up my home, it's left a deep impression on me too. So I keep plodding on...

Soft & Gentle,

Yes, you were right. I was thinking of Fatima. For anyone interested, the Wikipedia provides a detailed account and links at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

Rather than to claim that this is matter of dogma in anybody's faith, I would just like to highlight some points for comparison.

1. There were three witnesses,

2.There were repeated incidents, crowds gathered to observe events.

3. The site provides newspaper records of the day of one of the observed events.

4. A message was written and given to religious authorities.

5. Predictions about specific history were given...

From that point, in my youth circa 1960, I was aware that the message was instructions to pray for peace and the conversion of Russia, lest there would be another terrible war. My teachers in parochial school were ambivalent about whether this was all true or not, but did not suggest that the idea be ignored. Dutifully, like others, I participated in such prayers. We need not examine all the details, but that was the story in essence. In all appearances, it seemed like an intercession into the natural course of events- if you believed what perceived evidence there was. And as I am maintaining above, there is some, whether credible or not. Furthermore, from all appearances, considering that many in the 50s, 60s and even into the 1980s feared that nuclear war would result from US and Soviet confrontation over something, it would appear that this form of apocalyptic thinking had a happier ending for most of mankind than the "glad tidings" I have heard about once I opened my door...

In addition, there are other similar incidents in history. A staggering example is the Lady of Guadalupe in the 1530s. Perhaps it changed Mexico from whatever it was before. Generally, historians say that it this is a legend that accrued over decades or even a century. Maybe so. But I have read Bernal Diaz's account of the "Discovery and Conquest of Mexico". As a lieutenant of Cortez in the 1517-21 campaign and a settler of Guatatemala, he is a contemporary of the event and makes mention of it in his history toward the end. Why he did not elaborate on what the "miracle" was? Perhaps he thought all his readers already knew and acknowledged it. Whether a natural explanation existed or not, the absence of his detailed account is our loss all the same.

But it still raises the question: Why should the miraculous unwitnessed events events of 1914 and 1919 be more credible than these?

---------------

YY,

You raise the point that the Jehovah's Witness is a nomenclature derived from Isaiah 43. No doubt about that. But I still think that the point about witness to unperceived events is worth raising. If one is introduced as speaking in behalf of Jehovah with a name like that, then one is lead to belief that the individual is providing important testimony. The people that came to my house were not allowed to deviate in any significant matter from a script associated with publications. And when I examined the publications they were presenting as "truth", there were a number of downright lies that I have mentioned earlier.

And also, behind it all, were these remarkable claims about Satan falling to Earth, a property he supposedly already owned, as well as Christ arriving in some sort of incremental process (1878, 1914, etc.) - but in both cases invisibly. Why should it make any sense that this particular war that started several months before the October determination should be the kickoff of anything other than what it was, a war? And then why should anyone believe that there was a 5-year invisible administrative process in heaven to determine that Rutherford and Co. was the most qualified candidate for Theocrat? I've read the guy. ... What can I say?

To a large degree, Rutherford would claim that events in his life were foretold in Revelations, and then subsequentlyeverybody forgets the matter, perhaps eventually recycling the same passages for other purposes.

I don't know if I should discount this, but so far no one has recounted how either Russell or Rutherford heard one word at the Brooklyn HQ from the Most High about what was going on "up there". There is no certificate. No tablets. Nothing that equates to events at Mount Sinai. Or even across the ocean in Portugal.

14

How can one be a witness of events unseen and unheard?

by kepler in

back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western europe of things happening in central asia could have been much worse.

events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day.

much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of genghis khan.

kepler

Yesterday when I submitted the above post, I should have looked at it more carefully. Maybe it was an oncoming headache. I feel better now and maybe some of the text revisions below will be of some help.

Back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western Europe of things happening in central Asia could not have been much worse. Events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day. Much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of Genghis Khan. His armies and those of his successors eradicated cities and armies that resisted their advance: from China to Hungary and Poland; heading south in Asia, the middle eastern heart of the Islamic world. His descendant Mongke ruling from remote Karakorum in Mongolia, anticipated ruling the world from Pacific to the Atlantic and communicated with the outside world accordingly.

What follows is a simplification, but it will set the table for the presentation of an argument. If anyone is curious about more detail about this era, I suggest "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World", by Jack Weatherford, a best seller of several years back.

Anyway, the Mongols themselves had their own religious beliefs and traditions and had assimilated some others from their conquests. But what ensued during the 1250s was a court-sponsored debate among the great faiths of the era. By invitation mullahs, monks (Christian and Buddhist) and other missionaries travelled to Karakorum via the Silk Route, in some cases in transit for over a year. We have some record of the discourse. William of Rubruck a Franciscan monk was in the contingent arguing for western Europe's Roman Catholicism and Weatherford draws some from his accounts.

Actually many of the Mongols had married wives from conquered regions where Syrian or Eastern Orthodox christianity held sway; and as a result believers of this variation of Christianity already was widespread within the Mongol court as well as among the horse-borne cavalries travelling all over Eurasia. But ultimately the Khans either turned to Islam or Buddhism. In part because the Christian sects squabbled to no advantage in the court debates, were not as learned as their Muslim counterparts and in the case of ruling over China, the culture just had a way of influencing them.

Now, let us imagine a new debate in a new court if somewhat imaginary. I am not one of the Khans, but I will play the part as someone who is not entirely versed in JW beliefs and their foundations. Easy enough to do, because it is true. Ready?

From lengthy reading, discussion and debate elsewhere I have learned that JW or the WTBTS believe that

1. Christ returned to reign on Earth in 1914.

2. Satan the devil was thrown out of heaven at about the same time.

3. Under God's auspices a lengthy search of Earth's believers was conducted and circa 1918 or 1919, it was settled that an organization (WTBTS) was suited over all other potential candidates to be God's Theocratic Government on Earth.

4. All of this process was invisible.

5. All of this process was unheard.

Now questions arise.

1. Did I state items 1 through 5 correctly?

2. Aside from C. T. Russell concluding that WWI must have been indicator of 1 and 2, how do we know?

3. Since C. T. Russell was no longer around in 1918 or 1919, what was the evidence of the subsequent search?

4. Did heaven wait for Joseph Rutherford to complete his WTBTS corporate takeover?

5. Was the decision announced by Mr. Rutherford?

6. If this was invisible how was this event perceived? ( I don't mean pointing to several Bible verses, but perceived as an event such as one wakes up one day and the matter has yet to be resolved – and then it is because of a perceived event)

7. Did Rutherford or Russell have any other witnesses?

8. How do you witness an invisible event?

9. How do you corroborate your observations with others - unless they also saw exactly nothing?

10. How come this organization was subsequently so unsuccessful in predicting much of anything else beside this invisible event?

11. If the event is invisible as claimed, why should I not be just as open to other claims of invisible events entirely unrelated?

12. In this case, why should I not conclude that we are dealing with an oxymoronic expression?

A little later, I would like to provide an account of other events in the same era (1914-1919) produced by another organization; these were more visible and involved three (3) children as simultaneous witnesses ( time and a half enough to provide sufficient testimony in other clerical matters). I myself am not convinced of the facts and veracity of the alternative story, but I have to admit that that I sense more evidence in support of this apocalyptic scenario than the one that I so far understand to be that of the WTBTS.

14

How can one be a witness of events unseen and unheard?

by kepler in

back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western europe of things happening in central asia could have been much worse.

events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day.

much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of genghis khan.

kepler

Back in the 13th century, the rumors coming to western Europe of things happening in central Asia could have been much worse. Events then were about as apocalyptic as anything we have experienced in our own day. Much of the world was coming under new management, that of the descendants of Genghis Khan. His armies and those of his successors eradicated cities and armies that resisted from China to Hungary and Poland and the middle eastern heart of the Islamic world. His descendant Mongke ruling from remote Karakorum in Mongolia, anticipated ruling the world from Pacific to the Atlantic and communicated with the outside world accordingly.

What follows is a simplification, but it will set the table for the presentation of an argument. If anyone is curious about more detail about this era, I suggest "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World", by Jack Weatherford, a best seller of several years back.

Anyway, the Mongols themselves had their own religious beliefs and traditions and had assimilated some others from their conquests. But what ensued during the 1250s was a court-sponsored debate among the great faiths of the era. By invitation mullahs, monks (Christian and Buddhist) and other missionaries travelled to Karakorum via the Silk Route, in some cases en route for a year. We have some record of the discourse. William of Rubruck a Franciscan monk was in the contingent arguing for western Europe's Roman Catholicism. Actually many of the Mongols had married wives from conquered regions where Syrian or Eastern Orthodox christianity held sway; and as a result believers of this variation of Christianity already was widespread in the court. But ultimately the Khans either turned to Islam or Buddhism. In part because the Christian sects squabbled to no advantage, were not as learned as their Muslim counterparts and ruling China just had a way of influencing them.

Now, let us imagine a new debate in a new court if somewhat imaginary. I am not one of the Khans, but I will play the part as someone who is not entirely versed in JW beliefs and their foundations. Easy enough to do, because it is true. Ready?

From from lengthy reading, discussion and debate elsewhere I have learned that JW or the WTBTS believe that

1. Christ returned to reign on Earth in 1914.

2. Satan the devil was thrown out of heaven at about the same time.

3. Under God's auspices a lengthy search of Earth's believers was conducted and circa 1918 or 1919, it was settled that an organization ( WTBTS) was determined to be God's Theocratic Government on Earth.

4. All of this process was invisible.

5. All of this process was unheard.

Now questions arise.

1. Did I state items 1 through 5 correctly?

2. Aside from C. T. Russell concluding that WWI must have been indicator of 1 and 2, how do we know?

3. Since C. T. Russell was no longer around in 1918 or 1919, what was the evidence of the subsequent search?

4. Did heaven wait for Joseph Rutherford to complete his WTBTS corporate takeover?

5. Was the decision announced by Mr. Rutherford?

6. If this was invisible how was this event perceived? ( I don't mean pointing to several Bible verses)

7. Did Rutherford or Russell have any other witnesses?

8. How do you witness an invisible event?

9. How do you corroborate your observations with others unless they also saw exactly nothing?

10. How come this organization was subsequently so unsuccessful in predicting much of anything else beside this invisible event?

11. If the event is invisible as claimed, why should I not be just as open to other claims of invisible events entirely unrelated?

12. In this case, why should I not conclude that we are dealing with an oxymoronic expression?

A little later, I'll come back with an account of other events produced by another organization that were more visible and involved three (3) children as simultaneous witnesses ( time and a half enough to provide sufficient testimony in other clerical matters). We can then examine how it compares.

I'll get back a little later to tell about some similar miraculous events that were going on during this era ( post 1914)

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

kepler

OGD and several others,

Thank you for your contributions based on your experience and analysis. As to the answer to the rhetorical question of the topic, maybe I should concede that the answer is, "Plenty." After signing off and thinking about some objections raised to my initial approach to this ( taking out an historical tape measure and dividing by generations), I could see what was bothering some people. I had a spacing for generations, but I had no indication of when a generation would literally die off. And if in many cases "this nation" or "this people" could be inserted into translation instead, that posed another problem. So I was looking back over my shoulder as well. I think OGD and others have examined this matter well. In addition, there is illustration of how the Synoptic Gospels could have taken different slants (OGD above) on given events or sermons. I stop short of saying "in fact", because we can only guess what the Gospel writers were thinking - unless they someday give interviews on Charlie Rose.

But with so much other material in the Gospel text related to the prediction of the circa 70 AD siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, I would not dismiss possiblity of two editorial revisions: one to point toward 70 AD; and another to point toward a more distant time. Luke's inclusion of the discussion between the good thief and Christ was an indicator of something not so much based on return but a Kingdom transcendant, another such glimpse being Mark 12:17-21: "...For when they arise from the dead... they are like the angels in heaven."

But John of Patmos had a "dream" and we all know the rest.

We also talk of generations in our own day. There's the Baby Good, Generation X, etc. There might remain one or two veterans of World War I in this country. I was surprised by how many Russian Revolution veterans seem to show up in recent documentaries... but that's a three or four year bias. They are all essentially gone. A GB member giving a speech as "this generation" being one year old at the time, is in violation of the principle. He is part of the "next generation". His parents were part of "this generation". So we are left with the notion that to fulfill a numerological 19th century prophecy regarding a 2520 year span, 1913 babies handing off a torch to the children of the Generatio-X is what Christ had meant nearly 2000 years ago.

Case rests.

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

kepler

There are variations in this text from extant Hebrew versions beyond the scope of this discussion, but translators to Greek had to decide when to use the term "genea" and how. Maybe there is a clue there.

Sulla,

You are right that this does not warrant much more discussion. Neither of us buy the notion. It's a foreign idea I started to explore never having been a JW and see it only as a strange calamity that fell on my household. And as you said, you have already argued over this with a thousand others. However, ...

If Matthew was aware of when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians, then there was an implicit notion of what 14 generations spread over nearly 600 years implies for the length of a generation. I can't say if he knew that was six centuries ago, but it possible. I suspect Josephus did. But the successive WT definitions employed over the past century now violate all common sense. Rationalizing them is leaning over backwards.

What was the resemblance?

What made Rome different from the Persians who ruled Judea for a couple hundred years? Or what made Rome different from the Seleucid rulers two centuries earlier that violated the temple as described in Maccabees I & II? They destroyed the Temple and sent the population off into slavery. The trouble was, Peter had already passed away as far as anyone knows. It's an anachronism in the text. The NWT appendix claims these epistles were written from Babylon - which the elder and overseer that visited my house on Saturdays a couple years ago kept claiming had been destroyed already forever. A writer's retreat?

As to the other matters: the Septuagint or comparing the other synoptic gospels, that's simply what you do if you run an investigation. If this were archeology we would be sifting through sand with trowels rather than excavators. Patterns do emerge. In one gospel, Christ speaks of the "kingdom of heaven'; in another it's "my father's kingdom". On the cross to the good thief, it was "paradise" he would enter with him that day.

Talking to people of other faiths, like the one in which I grew up, for some the notion is that Christ's words are meant to throw people off balance; that the Gospels are meant to stir things up, to make people think twice or find in them something the reader hadn't seen before at age twelve, twenty or forty-five. ...I've even heard people say that of Tol'stoy too,contemporary of Russell and Rutherford in some ways, but he made a better writer than a cult founder... But the odd situation we have here is that we are debating a pretended static presentation of the Scriptures in their entirety ( inerrant, predictive of the future, explained and enforced by the authority) which gets revised even as we watch.

With regard to that process of establishing authority via witnessing invisible events, I've been thinking about another topic...

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

kepler

oompa,

LOL. It might have been about 1820 at the Congress of Vienna after they put Napoleon out of circulation that the top diplomats among the allies were sitting around in meetings dividing up Europe. In the midst of all this the Russian representative didn't show up because he had died.

One of the negotiators sitting at the table expressed his concern. "What do you suppose was his motive for doing that?"

And by the way, a generation is equal to 43.5 years. And if you don't believe it, when I report back to my ship, I will be forced to open this envelope which contains my orders...

Cheers,

Kepler

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

kepler

OGD,

You noted that I was as adamant as the WT about their being a specific numerical value for a generation?

Hmmm. I'll have to reconstruct. Since I have not grown up in the WT faith, the notion of a generation has been more on the periphery for me for most of my life. Since Biblical references to generations were probably a large portion of the pie chart of generational measurements though, I think I have probably mused at one time or another about how many years they are talking about. It was only today though that I actually thought about using this test, and had meant to look at some other concordance instances of use. There's a concordance here at home and I had difficulty finding what I wanted on line when I was at the office. So I guess I started writing half-cocked. Rather than having a precise temporal definition of generation - I just have some of the arguments displayed for parents giving birth to children over an age span - and indications that Matthew's chapter one use of the term seems to match up rather well with that. I feel as though I have not done sufficient homework to argue the case for/against other genea definitions in chapter 24. I would just as soon listen to what others have to say on that one.

While the instances cited so far are for the New Testament, I suppose the research could be expanded (in principle ) to the Septuagint. To clarify what I mean, the Hebrew Scripture or Old Testament was translated over several decades or a couple centuries into Greek for dissemination about the Mediterranean Jewish community. There are variations in this text from extant Hebrew versions beyond the scope of this discussion, but translators to Greek had to decide when to use the term "genea" and how. Maybe there is a clue there.

But I am also inclined to believe/think that many Biblical passages that are interpreted as prophecy appear as they do because of a lot of backdating or ex post facto editing. To put it another way, once that possibility is admitted into the discussion, it is hard to identify where the genuine predictions are - or who said them. In some of the discussion above it is implied, but to illustrate, consider I Peter writing supposedly from Babylon. If he was not writing from Babylon, it was probably Rome. But why would he call Rome Babylon if he didn't see a resemblance? What was the resemblance? Also, the "this generation" passage appears in all three synoptic Gospels, but there are significant differences in the overall accounts surrounding that discussion. So, for arguments about context for "generation" in Matthew: do they apply as well in Mark and Luke?

...It is hard for me to break off about prophecies of destruction of cities without mentioning the one that bothers me most. And that is the reported destruction of Babylon in Isaiah. The insert into the "poem" of chapter 14 at verses 22-23 describes the fate of Babylon at the hands of Sennacherib - not Cyrus. Sennacherib desecrated its temples, leveled and flooded the city and sent its population off into captivity about a century before Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem. Nothing like that happened ever again. But our tradition tells us otherwise.

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

kepler

OGD, Sulla,

I suppose that since the discussion is moving toward the sixth generation concept of "the end", then maybe a comparison of generations derived from chapter one with 2010 statements in Watchtower might be a propos. Here is what was quoted at www.JWFacts.com:

At the 2010 annual meeting, John Barr presented the latest understanding of the generation. 97-year old Barr was an apt choice to deliver this talk, being the last of the Governing Body born before 1914. He explained the generation is now to include 2 groups whose lives "overlap" since 1914:

"John Barr ... twice read the comment: "Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of the other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation." We do not know the exact length of "this generation," but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during the part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!" Watchtower 2010 June 15 p.5

------------

Now, in my case, I have never been an inside observer; nor can I say at this point that I am impartial outside observer either. But what I note about this statement is that it never refers to generations at all, but only"groups". Based on Matthew chapter one and using historical records, we derive 43-45 year period for a generation. Although this a rather long period based on the "begetting" method of calculation, this method still does not account for the length of life for an individual cohort. For example, generating a new generation begins with the first born and then continues with a succession of siblings. The situation is further confused with children producing grandchildren before their parents are done producing sons and daughters. Maybe Matthew was actually unaware of whether Jerusalem fell six centuries earlier, but a width of twenty some years for producing children would argue for the 45 year figure for a generation. On the other hand, there is no indication in the three examples of how long individuals in a generation might survive.

In the new concept for defining generation does not address how many actual generations are involved in the anointed overlap and relies more and more on the upper edge of a demographic bell curve. Carr's legitimacy as part of "this generation" rests on being one year old prior to 1914. But still, the gap now is more than twice as long as the generation length derived from Matthew's 14 generations between Christ's birth and Jerusalem's fall. Can forty year olds declare themselves as anointed? What about twenty year olds? If this is an-ongoing situation, then eventually the spread between the first generation of anointed and the last is clearly going to be several generations - at least from Matthew's perspective.

Come to think of it ( and this just might be my ignorance), are there any anointed JW women? Or are all the celestial civil service appointments reserved for males? Does anyone track whether there are any anointed women? Were the people pictured on the 1984 Watchtower cover all of that designation? If so, that looks like a nearly even distribution ( 7 of 16). But what about those prior to the 20th century? If I remember right, Rutherford was expecting male houseguests at Beth Sarim.

And then, of course, a lot of those who during the 20th century got their stripes and passed on, believed in something as an article of faith (2nd, 3rd, 4th formulation ...) that was demonstrated to be wrong.

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

kepler

Thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, I took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history. Thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

I can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in Matthew 24:34.

"Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."

Interpretation of this verse in the history of the JW organization, as the site notes, seems to have had six generations of revision. So far. Perhaps because the Revisers are getting closer and closer to the light.

It was C. T. Russell that had dismissed the notion that the Greek word genea had anything to do with tribe or race, but in initial search I did see some suggestions that a full list of genea dictionary definitions could include that. Then that would make the resolution of events prophesied in the 24th chapter an open-ended proposition. But that wouldn't solve the society's problem either.

Still, based on that outside assertion I just thought I'd look around using a Concordance of the Greek text... And what did I find?

Matthew in the first chapter of his book gives a very clear definition of how long a generation lasts! He provides three examples. He uses the word "genea" and connects it with historical events! Matthew 1:17

"So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ, fourteen generations."

I am sure, what with the Society's fascination with "sacred" numbers such as multiples of seven, someone must have stumbled on this verse now and them. I have probably missed out on lots of internal discussion of this over the years, though I was previously aware that Luke had found several more generations to add to this geneaology. But we rest assured that both genealogies are correct, right? If not, that's another topic. But the important thing in this context, is that we have the author of chapter 24 going on record in the same book as to what he thought a generation entailed. Moreover, he defined it in terms of the society's own gold bar measure for events: along that timeline between the fall of Jerusalem and 1914! You might say that Jerusalem fell in 587 or 607 BC or that Jesus was born in year 1 AD or 4 BC, but fourteen generations strung between those error margins is not going to change a definition of a generation by a decade.

Are we ready for some trial calculations?

607 / 14 = 43.3 years. 587/14 = 41.9 years

We could get longer if we dropped a generation.

607/13 = 46.7 years 587/13 = 45.1 years.

Shorter if we added, but why bother.

Although Matthew is less explicit about when King David reigned, between five and six centuries earlier is not a bad guess. Archaelogical connections with Egyptian kings and the book of Kings itself tie down Solomon fairly well, if not David (circa 1000 BC). Between David and Abraham, we've got less tie in from other records and much controversy, but patriarchs aren't surving as many years as they used to according to the Bible. Also, we can see from the usage that it is not a question of how long an individual survived, but what was the space of time netweem the ascendancy of one generation after another. If he's a 18th century figure, then a generation is about 53 years. If he is a 23rd century figure, then it might be 85. But what do you base Abraham's existence on in either century or millenium? And there goes the imposed symmetry of Matthew's genealogical argument.

What comes to mind at moments like this is Moliere's play "the Bourgeoise Gentleman". As Monsieur Jourdain is being schooled for society, the distinction between prose and poetry is provided by his instructor. The student exclaims, "I had been speaking prose all my life and didn't even know it!"

In Bible study under supervision, while speaking of generations, does anyone ever bring anything like this up?

42

Emailing my sister RE: Child abuse conviction - NEED HELP!!

by What Now? in

so the other night, my family was together and my dad brought up the recent child abuse conviction for the society.

big surprise, my sister hadn't heard anything about it, so of course she got right on to the jw.org website and emailed me the link to the watchtowers official statement.

this is my reply:.

kepler

What Now,

Your correspondence with your sister certainly rings home. Three years ago I watched the same mindset set in with my ex-fiancee. I still don't fully understand how that world view is instilled from day to day even with the measures of programmed learning and outrageous claims of authority, but the effects I have watched grow tighter and tighter like an invisible strangling vine. Yet there we were. Before she decided to go back, we were trying to get married after what had been a several year, genuine romance. Since then, though I have never been a JW or even had any previous idea what they were about, I have earned honorary apostate status. Anyone who is a brother or sister is more like the angels in their proximity to God. Perhaps I am above a mineral or vegetable. I'm not sure. When one of our pet cats died, I think I observed its passing with more sorrow than my own will ever warrant.

Now that we have hardly any contact, even with official business or emergencies each seeming like a border line case, I have to wonder if something like the Candace Conti settlement even appears on her horizon. During that transition back when I would visit her on the road trips at her hotel, I soon discovered that only two forms of printed matter remained in her room: her work folders and her JW publications for study. One of the last trips, I couldn't even stay at the same hotel and she confided in me that she felt plagued by her feeling that she was still not doing enough for Jehovah. Cleaning out the house of her belongings when she finally packed it all up, one of the memento was one of those typical framed pictures with signatures of well wishing friends on the border, hoping for her success at her new job with all of its business travel. Her portrait was in the center. She cut out her portrait and saved it and threw out the signatures and well wishes of her friends (I repeat her friends - not ones I somehow imposed on her). They were all part of the demonic past - and so was I. I had met her in a non-denominational church when she was "inactive" and it was swarming with demons as she later attested. Sometimes they were bothering her when she couldn't sleep.

Some time in the midst of all this she told me what had sealed the deal. It was when her son had died of leukemia. We traveled to the midwest for the funeral and it was the first time I met her family other than her remaining daughter. Her mother, an active minister, had been dutifully shunning her. There were no arrangements for the funeral and I made many of them myself. At the funeral ceremony, an elder from a local congregation ( not her mother's several states away) spoke of her son and all the travails in his life - which were plenty - and then turned to my fiancee and proclaimed from the podium that everything that had happened to her son was her fault.

She had given birth to him at age of fourteen.

The emotional devastation of such a loss, being a teenage mother and also a mother to a very troubled son - all this was monumental from the start. And even as much as she was practically everything to me, I could feel that somehow the other shoe would drop as a consequence of such loss. So I can honestly say that I did not know how to deal with either situation. Her profound grief or the demanding monster still banging at the door. With regard to the latter, I ended up studying religious matters with a new zeal, especially when one day she came up to me out of the blue and asked: "Don't you think you need someone to advise you on the Bible, a true expert?" I had thought that that was the exactly what the Protestant Reformation was in reaction to.

Examining Protestant issues or perspectives vs. Catholic ones of my own background, it was interesting, but it was mostly heading down a cold trail. It was the apocalyptic thought that was the important branch, the one in the English speaking world and the American outback that seemed to gain impetus with sighting of mid 19th century comets. As I became more acquainted with the faith she was brought up in, I saw a lot of discrepancies. First I was amateurish with false starts. This stuff was more subtle than I had thought. But then I got some important clues.

When I dug around in the local university library and looked at the use of the term crucifixion in Greek and Latin texts, I was convinced that the issue of cross vs. stake was a red herring. But I might have driven a stake into a vampire the way she screamed in reaction. She told me that I was going to take instruction and then I was going to convert. Period.

I did eventually take instruction and very careful notes. I continued to take instructions several months even til after for reconciliation there no longer appeared to be hope. What stopped it finally was an overseer who made a guest appearance on Mardi Gras weekend. He didn't like my questions and I didn't like his anti-semitic rants in my living room.

But then I continued to pursue these matters - and I kept her aware of my progress whether she liked it or not. For example I told her she was deceived when she quoted Ephraim Stern on the destruction of Jerusalem. This was false witness for sure. She gave me no reply. Then I wanted to take on a number of people who I felt that had lied to me or were responsible for telling the lies. I wanted her to set up the meeting, but all she could supply was a postal address to the Home Office and warning not to get her involved.

I went back to the local kingdom halls. I asked to talk to any Elder that would give me time. Most of them scattered, but eventually I located some who were available to hear me out. It was the congregation that had drawn her back in. I spoke of things that I had examined and told them that, if on no other basis but Scripture, I could show that what they were telling me ( and by inference her) was wrong or a deliberate manipulation to fit doctrine. Things that I eventually spoke of on this forum. Things that other people have discovered on their own and spoken of here as well. It is sad that this process is such a lone pilgrimage, especially when you believe that others are living in a lie.

The elder and his two subordinates drew complete blanks to anything I had to say. More or less they shrugged. But he did ask me, "Does this matter have anything to do with a woman?" I said, "Yes, it did." He advised. "That woman was very sick. I strongly recommend that you forget all about her and move on." And my heart sank. Amid all the lies maybe he had actually said something that was true? And of things, one JW putting down another?

Yes. She was sick. And now, so was I. But I had lost track in the midst of all this examinations of scripture and doctrine why she was sick. It would have helped if the Org and her mother had not curtailed her high school education since the world was supposed to blow in '75. Maybe she would have been less inclined to believe Chinese cookie fortunes or business success stories based on covenants with God. But more important:

I don't think the Org could have landed a more deadly and vicious blow than to hit her as it did when her son had just died.