Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones who use CE / BCE.
Jehovah Witness cult is Anti-christ.... proof seen in the use of BCE/CE instead of AD/BC
by goingthruthemotions 25 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
-
JWdaughter
The org took up the secular term deliberately and I remember it explained once that there was nothing "christian" about this era:) I do believe it was to set them apart as they did take the time to explain why they used the other terminology (probably in "The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life"-The Truth book) -
sparrowdown
What else you gonna do in a flooded religious market but stand out as different.
Pure marketing like all their policies that make them stand out as different from other religions.
-
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 page 1460 says "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).
-
Diogenesister
The reason Christian scholars started to say Jesus was born in 4 C.E., (or BC), is because it would make a nonsense of his early life if they didn't. In particular the "slaughter of the innocents" and the flight to Egypt, because King Herod was dead by 1 C.E. when it would have taken place (or thereabouts).
-
Jeffro
Awake!, March 2009, page 30:
From Our Readers
Ancient Manuscripts—How Are They Dated? (February 2008) This article upset me. It is my understanding that C.E. stands for “Common Era” and B.C.E. stands for “Before the Common Era.” In all of my 70 years, I have seen the terms B.C. and A.D. used as a time reference, referring to before and after the birth of Jesus. It seems to me that using B.C.E. or C.E. somehow denies the birth of Jesus.
“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.
R. W., United StatesThere is no 'anti-Christ' intent in their usage. However, their assertion that Jesus was born in 2 BCE is incorrect. Though there is little evidence for almost all claims made about Jesus, he was most likely born in or prior to 4 BCE, baptised in about 26 CE and executed in 30 CE. The discrepancy is a result of their superstitious numerological misinterpretations of Daniel chapter 9.
-
menrov
WT have changed back to BC and AD if I am not mistaken.
-
Disillusioned JW
I found an official statement by the Society on the matter and it states a number of the reasons mentioned in some of the prior posts - and it refutes the accusation of it being for anti-Christ reasons. See https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009094 which says the following regarding it:
"Awake!—2009
g 3/09 p. 30From Our Readers
Ancient Manuscripts—How Are They Dated? (February 2008) This article upset me. It is my understanding that C.E. stands for “Common Era” and B.C.E. stands for “Before the Common Era.” In all of my 70 years, I have seen the terms B.C. and A.D. used as a time reference, referring to before and after the birth of Jesus. It seems to me that using B.C.E. or C.E. somehow denies the birth of Jesus.
R. W., United States
“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."
------------------
Update: I now notice that Jeffro posted the information from the Society before me, however my post gives the web page where the Society makes its statement.
-
goingthruthemotions
With all due respect Disillusioned JW, They are still twisting their words. If your a christian religion, then honor christ in all things. They do this because 1. they have to be different then other religions, so they could tell the congragants. " see were no part of the world". 2. They are an anti-christ religion, they do nothing to honor christ just like changing the AD and BC and they reject him in the memorial.
But, in the end. This cult has turned me off about religion and even to the point of wondering if there is a god. and if there is. he sure has hell doesnt care about us and has his favorites. Tell me that there is no denying Tom Brady is one of his favorites? A super Star, super model wife, money up the arse and handsome.