Does using BCE/CE draw attention away from Jesus? AFA similarity with WTS

by truthseeker 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  truthseeker

  I have never known the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society to use AD or BC, they have always maintained the BCE and CE dating system.

  I never thought about questioning it either, as it was no big deal.

  However, I found one of the AFA's latest news quite interesting... (American Family Association) Is there a connection between the article below and the WTS use of the BCE/CE system? Is this evidence that indicates the WTS is drawing attention away from Jesus?

  What would remind Christians of Jesus - Before Christ, After Christ OR Before our Common Era, Common Era?

  http://www.afa.net/petitions/bcad/takesurvey.asp

  Should using the birth of Christ to date time (BC/AD) be replaced by a secular dating method (BCE/CE)? The Kentucky Board of Education has voted to take the first step in redefining how America dates time. The board voted to include a new secular system of dating the calendar, BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era), and added it to the BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of our Lord") method. The new secular system of time dating will appear in the curriculum and other materials used by Kentucky educators. This new system is already being included in textbooks across the nation. The new method will replace the birth of Christ as the dividing point in history. For example, the new system would change 2006 AD (Anno Domini) to 2006 CE (Common Era). It also opens the door for the ACLU to find a liberal activist judge who will forcefully remove the use of BC and AD. The ACLU types will claim that the use of BC and AD are a violation of the First Amendment because it dates history based on the birth of Christ. Results will be shared with members of Congress.
• 

  Honesty

  I discussed this with our senior pastor a few months ago. The ACLU and the WTBT$ have a similar agenda concerning Jesus.

  Just like "the Gospel of Judas." It was actually discovered about 30 years ago but it wasn't released then because the opposition would have quelled it almost immediately. The 'powers that be' thought now was a good time for it to be accepted.

  In a nutshell, Christianity is being bombarded by satanic forces and the WTBTS is a player on the side of evil.
• 

  truthseeker

  Interesting thoughts Honesty - I can't really see why a "Christian" religion like the Watchtower would deliberately NOT use AD and BC.

  I think they did publish a "Question from Readers" article on this a few years back. Maybe Blondie can find it.

  I think this is important, mainly because of this article.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  WT literature was still using B.C./A.D. at least until the year 1958, instead of B.C.E./C.E. For example see the following.

  Page 199 of Rutherford's book called "Enemies" (copyright 1937) says "year 1848 (A.D.)". For another example, see Rutherford's book called "Religion", copyright 1940. Page 336 of that book says "In the year 1914 (A.D.) Christ Jesus, the King, was enthroned." The WT book called "Theocratic Aid to Kingdom Publishers" (copyright 1945) says A.D. twice on page 326 and four times on page 327. The WT book called ' "Equipped for Every Good Work" ' (copyright 1946) says B.C. and A.D. multiple times. The WT book called "What Has Religion Done for Mankind? (copyright 1951) on page 299 says "607 B.C." and "A.D. 1914". The WT book called "Qualified to be Ministers (the edition copyright 1955) says B.C. twice on page 126 and it says A.D. on page 290. The WT book called "From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained" (copyright 1958) on page 102 says "In 620 B.C. ..." and page 130 says "in the autumn of A.D. 29 ...." The NWT revision of 1961 (Second Printing) on the title page says "--Revised A. D. 1961--'. Page 1459 says B.C.E. and page1460 say "B.C.E. and A.D." It surprising that while that Bible edition says B.C.E., it says A.D. instead of C.E. The page in the back of the 1961 NWT which lists the availability of the 5 Hebrew Scriptures volumes and the Christian Greek Scriptures volumes also say A.D. in reference to the release date of each of those volumes; and volume 5 of the Hebrew volumes was released in 1960.
  

  Note in the above examples, uses of B.C. and A.D. might be on other pages besides the ones I mentioned above, I merely scanned the books quickly to see a usage of B.C./A.D. versus B.C.E./C.E.
  

  In contrast the pocket size edition of the the WT book called ' "Things in Which it is Impossible for God to Lie" ' (copyright 1965) says on the bottom of page 3 the following: 'DATING: In dating, the abbreviation B.C.E. stands for "Before Our Common Era," and C.E. stands for "Of Our Common Era." ...." B.C.E. and A.D. appear also on other pages of that book. Likewise the First Edition (pocket size edition) of the WT's "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God" book (copyright 1966) has the same message about dating as the book from 1965.
  

  Thus it seems that the WT literature didn't begin saying B.C.E./C.E. until around the years 1961 - 1965. I never found any reason stated in the WT for why they switched to the other terminology. But I have a guess as to why.

  When the B.C./A.D. system was created it was based upon the belief that Jesus was born on Dec. 25th of the year 1 B.C. and thus that the first year of his human life ended in A.D. 1 (A.D. meaning "in the year of the Lord" in Latin), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini. But modern scholars believe that Jesus was born before the year 1 B.C. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_birth_of_Jesus which says that most theologians and most scholars "accept a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC" for Jesus), and the WT also says that Jesus was born before the year 1 B.C. The WT's book called "Aid to Bible Understanding" - "1971 Edition" says on page 920 in the article called "Jesus Christ" that "Jesus evidently was born in the month of Ethanim (September-October) of the year 2 B.C.E. ...." Page 56 of Vol. 2 of the Insight book says that also.

  Thus, it is a misnomer to use the terms B.C. and A.D. if you believe Jesus was born prior to the year 1 B.C. Saying Jesus Christ was born in the year 2 B.C. is literally saying "Jesus Christ was born in the year 2 Before Christ" - a contradiction. I think that is the likely reason why the WT switched to the newer terminology. It fits with their claim of abandoning false doctrines/teachings and false practices (especially those of what the WT labels as Christendom).
• 

  dropoffyourkeylee

  The terms BCE and CE are becoming more common in all types of literature. The WT adopted the practice earlier than many, but they are not the only ones to use it
• 

  St George of England

  “Awake!” responds: Although A.D. (Anno Domini, meaning “in the year of our Lord”) and B.C. (before Christ) are used in lands where professed Christianity predominates, we have chosen to use the terms C.E. (Common Era) and B.C.E. (Before the Common Era). Why? First, there is considerable evidence pointing to the year 2 B.C.E. as the date of Jesus’ birth. Second, the literature printed by Jehovah’s Witnesses is widely distributed in languages read by many non-Christians. Third, the title “Christ” means “Anointed One.” Jesus became the Messiah, or Christ, when he was anointed with God’s spirit at the time he was baptized in 29 C.E. (Matthew 3:13-17) Thus, Jesus was not born Christ; he became Christ the year of his baptism. Significantly, the descriptions C.E. and B.C.E. are growing in usage, and they appear in almost all modern dictionaries and in many scholarly works. Please be assured that Jehovah’s Witnesses consider Jesus and his sacrifice indispensable to the outworking of God’s purposes and our personal salvation.

  g 3/9 p. 30

  George