Posts by Disillusioned JW

773

Breaking News: Anthony Morris III no longer serving on the Governing Body

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

this has been announced on the jw's official website, in the "jw news" section.

this is not a joke.

anthony moron da turd is out as a gluttonous body member!

Disillusioned JW

Fisherman in the two congregations I attended I rarely heard of any announcement of an elder ceasing to be an elder, but when I did hear of such I did not assume the worst. I knew that people could loose interest in being a elder, or a ministerial servant, just as they could loose interest in being a regular pioneer.

I had quit being a regular pioneer due to burn out and due to never enjoying spending so much time and effort in field service, and because of desiring to pursue a better career. I had gone to college to get a great career and had completed college (and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration) three months after I had become a regular pioneer, but was only working part-time because of the hours requirement (90 hours per month or 1000 hours per year, of field service time, not to mention the time preparing for return visits and talking points to be used in the field) of regular pioneering. After being a pioneer after nearly 3 full years, for a month or two a number of people in my congregation said things to me indicating they thought I was still a pioneer. I thus felt compelled to tell them I had quit. An announcement during the meetings was never made to the congregation that I was no longer a pioneer. I wondered why it wasn't, since i thought such announcements did not necessarily mean the former pioneer had done something wrong. I had thought that such announcements were required to be made when a person ceased being a regular pioneer, for any reason (not just for doing something bad or for not meeting the requirements). I had wished that such an announcement had been made about me, so I wouldn't have to tell people week after week that I quit being a regular pioneer. When I told people that I quit being a regular pioneer they looked sad, but that puzzled me because I had never intended to be a regular pioneer for the rest of my life. But in hindsight, I guess if an announcement had been made, then many people would ask me why I am no longer a pioneer and I would have felt compelled to tell them that I had quit, so they would know I had not been removed as a pioneer and had not become disqualified to be a pioneer.

Multiple times during the years I was a ministerial servant I had thought of resigning as a ministerial servant. Multiple times I even considered resigning as a ministerial servant by me making an announcement from the platform of the kingdom hall (at a time when I was assigned by an elder to give announcements he had written down) that I was no longer a ministerial servant (and possibly also saying I had resigned). One reason I thought of doing such (in the congregation of which I was first a ministerial servant) was because an elder had announced to the congregation I had become a ministerial servant, even though prior to that I had not been informed I was chosen to be a ministerial servant or even asked if I wanted to be one. I had wished they had asked me first and I had resented that they hadn't. [In the second congregation I attended I was asked first and I accepted it, but multiple times I later thought of quitting being one in that congregation also. Eventually I did cease being one.] I had also thought that if in my first congregation if an elder would complain of me quitting that way with me making an announcement of such without the approval of the elders, then I would reply: "Well, I was appointed as a ministerial servant without my pre-approval and it was announced that I was a ministerial servant without me ever being informed that such would be announced, thus I thought I would quit without telling the elders of my intention and announce it without their approval". However I never did make such an announcement and never did quit being a ministerial servant at that first congregation, though obviously I ceased being one there after I moved to a second congregation.

Readers, regarding Raymond Franz becoming disfellowshipped and the circumstances of such, if I recall correctly from reading his autobiography, the process of him being investigated by the WT headquarters for possible disfellowshipping started soon after the following. In the congregation Franz was attending the elder body had decided to appoint Franz as an elder and had submitted their recommendation. The governing body of the WT strongly disliked that and thus sought some grounds to prevent such and to oust Franz from the WT's JW religion. The WT soon adopted a policy that if a JW eats a meal with a person who disassociated himself/herself from being a JW then the JW eating with such a person would be subject to disfellowshipping (if unrepentant of eating with the officially ex-JW).

As a side note, yesterday a JW woman (whose voice sounded like that of an elderly person), attending a kingdom hall of the territory of which my home is located in, called me to engage in witnessing (about the topic of "does God answer prayers"). I told her I am an inactive JW who wishes to remain inactive (and I mentioned the name of the congregation I last attended). I also told her "but I wish you a great day".

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

In post on page16 of this topic thread where I quoted a Wikipedia article which used as a source the article called "What Happened to Tyre?" by Bible Reading Archeology, I had thought the source (without me reading its full web page) was a scientific publication, but it now appears to be a religious publication (which makes use of scientific information). I noticed that it has some inconsistencies in what it said about Tyre, including where it says the following. "The first part of the city was on the mainland and the second part was on an island just under a kilometre from the shoreline. ... Tyre became very wealthy and the island portion of the city over time became heavily fortified. The city on the mainland was the secondary part of the city and principally served to supply the island with water and supplies. One might think of the mainland portion of the city as being the “suburbs” while the island was the home of the wealthy and those of noble birth."

The inconsistencies in the article by Bible Reading Archeology raises questions in my mind of the accuracy of the article. It prefer to have a source which is of a science journal for the claims of the article, including the following. "Other cuneiform tablets show that at some point Tyre was in the hands of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Finally, a cuneiform tablet at the British Museum shows that Nebuchadnezzar did indeed successfully engage the Egyptian forces." I wonder how accurate are the claims of those two quoted sentences.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

You are welcome. It is indeed a lot to parse through (or figuratively digest).

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

In my prior post I quoted Wikipedia as saying "... the capture of the rebellious Phoenician city of Tyre ...", but while my quote is accurate, I thought that Wikipedia is wrong in saying that. I had thought that though Babylon did besiege Tyre, that Babylon did not conquer it (other than its portion on the nearby continent), but that instead it wasn't conquered until Alexander the Great conquered it. I started having that view about the time I became an atheist (I wrote it down in the year before [or in the first year] I became an atheist and I used it that same year in part of a speech against the Bible being written by Jehovah). But I a moment ago I investigated the claim made by the Wikipedia article and I found evidence that Babylon did indeed conquer it (before Alexander later also conquered it). That evidence is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(586%E2%80%93573_BC) . It says the following.

'According to accounts by Saint Jerome in his Commentary on Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar II was unable to attack the city with conventional methods, such as using battering rams or siege engines, since Tyre was an island city, so he ordered his soldiers to gather rocks and build a causeway from the mainland to the walls of the island, similar to Alexander the Great's strategy in his siege 250 years later.[15][16] After 13 years of siege, the Tyrians negotiated a surrender with the Babylonians.[3] Nebuchadnezzar II was never able to take control of Tyre by military means, leaving the result of the siege as militarily inconclusive.[2][3][17] ...

The historicity of the siege was supported by a cuneiform tablet discovered in 1926 by German archeologist Eckhard Unger that discussed food provisions for "the king and his soldiers for their march against Tyre."[3][6] Other cuneiform tablets also confirm that Tyre came under the control of Nebuchadnezzar II at some point during his reign.[3] Josephus briefly mentions the siege in Antiquities of the Jews (Book X).[3]

... 3. ... "What Happened to Tyre?". Bible Reading Archeology. 13 September 2017. Retrieved 13 November 2020.' WOW!

During the past several days, what I have been reading in the WT's Insight and Aid books, and in some commentaries, and in web pages, in regards to historical and archaeological support of the Bible, stun me. That is because I am seeing historical and archaeological confirmation of the accuracy of some of the claims made in portions of some narratives (ones presented as history) of the Bible and in some prophetic books of the Bible. This is evidence of more parts of the Bible being true than I was aware of. Some of this evidence strengthens the claim of the Bible's OT prophecies as being under divine inspiration from Jehovah God and that its accounts of purported history really are historical accounts, but such is difficult for me to reconcile with evidence that Jehovah God (or anything supernatural) does not even exist. Such apparent conflicts are difficult for me to reconcile. Some examples are what the Insight book says regarding the archaeological evidence in support of the authenticity of the book called Daniel and of the book called Esther. [For some of the evidence regarding the book of Daniel see parts of The Case for a Sixth Century Dating of Daniel. Appendix 3 of Daniel: Faithful Discipleship in a Foreign Land and BiblicalStudies.org.uk: The Book of Daniel by Robert I Bradshaw .] WOW!

Likewise, there was a time when I had ceased believing that Jesus Christ was a historical person, for I came to believe that the concept of him by the earliest Christians was only as a cosmic Christ instead of also of someone who had lived on Earth as a human. But in recent months I found evidence and persuasive argumentation which caused me to believe he probably (or at least possibly) did exist as a human who lived in the early first century CE.

Furthermore, I found evidence in the Bible that suggest that according to the Bible that Jeconiah (also known as Coniah and as Jehoiachin) the former king of Judah repented while in captivity in Babylon and that Jehovah thus removed the curse upon him and his offspring (the curse that none of his offspring would rule as king in Judah on "David's throne"). See 2 Kings 25: 27-30 implying divine providence intervening in behalf of Jehoiachin. If the Bible really does present such a view (and I now think it does) then it means one the arguments used by many atheists (when considering the genealogy listed at Matthew 1:1-16) that Jesus was disqualified (as a biological son of Joseph or as an adopted son of Joseph) to inherit the throne of David is an erroneous argument. WOW! Notice also that the text in 2 Kings says that Jehoiachin received food rations in Babylon. Archaeological evidence has confirmed that he existed, was in Babylon, and that he received such rations in Babylon, for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeconiah says the following.

'Records of Jeconiah's existence have been found in Iraq, such as the Jehoiachin's Rations Tablets. These tablets were excavated near the Ishtar Gate in Babylon and have been dated to c. 592 BCE. Written in cuneiform, they mention Jeconiah (Akkadian: 𒅀𒀪𒌑𒆠𒉡, Yaʾúkinu [ia-ʾ-ú-ki-nu]) and his five sons as recipients of food rations in Babylon.[4]

... During his excavation of Babylon in 1899–1917, Robert Koldewey discovered a royal archive room of King Nebuchadnezzar near the Ishtar Gate. It contained tablets dating to 595–570 BCE. The tablets were translated in the 1930s by the German Assyriologist, Ernst Weidner. Four of these tablets list rations of oil and barley given to various individuals—including the deposed King Jehoiachin—by Nebuchadnezzar from the royal storehouses, dated five years after Jehoiachin was taken captive. ' WOW!

See https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/the-problem-of-the-curse-on-jeconiah-in-relation-to-the-genealogy-of-jesus which presents a strong case that from both a biblical and rabbinical point of view the curse of Jeconiah (also known as Coniah and as Jehoiachin) was removed by God. That source says in part the following (quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia). "

Jehoiachin’s sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii.30; Pesik., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b): he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]).

–Louis Ginzberg, “Jehoiachin,” vol. 7 p. 84." WOW!

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

MeanMrMustard when I read in the Bible of 70 years of servitude of the nations to Babylon, I don't presume that means all the listed nations begin their 70 years of servitude in the same year. My impression is Babylon did not begin all of their invasions of the nations in the exact same year. Likewise Persia/Iran did not conquer all parts of Babylon in the same year and thus did not end in the exact same year the control of Babylon over various nations (at least to my knowledge). Thus, I don't presume that the servitude of all of the listed nations ended in the exact year. [However Jeremiah 25:12 gives the impression that the 70 years ends at the same time for the servitude of all of the listed nations to Babylon, and that Babylon's dominance (starting with king Nebuchadnezzar) last for exactly 70 years.]

I have very little interest (practically no interest) in the military battles Babylon had with various non-Jewish nations. But I do have some interest in the military battles and the timing of the degree of control that Babylon had with Jerusalem and Judah. The latter is case for me because the latter involves the Jews, and the Jews wrote the Hebrew Scriptures Bible (and much of the NT), and the Bible makes predictions of Yahweh's messianic kingdom upon "David's throne", and my life has been greatly influenced by the Bible. I thus focused my thoughts about Jeremiah chapter 25 upon Jerusalem and Judah.

Your (and another person's) emphasis (in posts from days ago) upon the word "servitude" (in regards to servitude of the nations) versus "desolation" influenced me to change my focus from the wording of "desolation" to the wording of "servitude". After I did that I noticed that certain verses in Jeremiah chapter 25 were primarily talking about servitude instead of desolation. I also read online that archaeology reveals that Judah was not totally desolate at any time during the Babylonian occupation of Judah (despite what Jeremiah 25:11, 18 says). [That makes sense since empires benefit by some people being allowed to remain in their native land, and thus work the land and pay taxes for the benefit of the empire. What emperor hungry of expansion of territory (and to rule people) would want much of his acquired lands to be without human subjects and to be desolate for decades? I don't think any would.]

As result I began seeing that the idea of Jerusalem and Judah being in servitude for 70 years (or very close to that number of years) is consistent with both the Bible and history and science (archaeology) and approximately with the date of 606 BCE, and that stunned me and greatly impressed me. After that, when I read Jamieson's commentary which gave the interpretation of Jerusalem's servitude having begun in 606 BC I thought its reasoning made a great deal of sense, and displayed no "tortured logic" in that matter. It also got around the issue of the fact that Jerusalem's destruction happened in the year 587 BCE (plus of minus one year) and revealed that the WT's reasoning about he the year 607 BCE (originally the year 606 BC) had some degree of logic and suitability to it. Regarding the idea of the Bible having prophesied that Judah would be desolate (instead of in servitude) for specifically 70 years, I don't recall any verses saying such, however I have not looked to see if there are any say such verses. In the past I might have read such verses, but I don't remember having read such. I do remember that the WT says that the Bible says that Jerusalem and Judah would be (and/or was) desolate for specifically 70 years, but I am not certain that view of the WT is correct. I am not 'defining the "desolation" referred to in v18 as more of a soft desolation, like a vassal or servitude.' I am not defining "desolation" as meaning "servitude"; to me they have very different meanings. I am not equating 70 years of servitude with seventy years of desolation. Likewise I don't see the Jamieson commmentary (which I quoted from) referring to the 70 years as soft desolation or any other desolation. That which I quoted from in it, in regards to the seventy years, is stated by the commentary as referring to the years of servitude and of captivity. I don't see it as saying the desolation as having lasted 70 years. It specifically says "Jeremiah's seventy years of the captivity begin 606 B.C., eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem ...."

I notice you said "Why start it at the first Exile of Judah when Neb had been marching around making vassals of other nations round about for years prior? Why reduce 'nations' to 'nation'?" But, I don't see the logic of that if by the first exile you mean the one which some commentaries say began in 606 BC (instead of in 587 BCE +- 1 year), since the Jamieson commentary which says the first deportation (claimed to be in 606 BC) began in the first year year of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign. The defeat of Pharaoh Necho II in a battle was in 605 BC (according to various sources I read, including commentaries and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II ). The plain sense of Jeremiah 25:29 says the calamity begins (starts) first with Jehovah's city (namely Jerusalem) and Judah and proceeds to gentile nations. Jeremiah 25:17-19 lists Jerusalem and Judah first and it lists "Pharaoh the king of Egypt" second. That sequence agrees with the historical record. I thus am not reducing " 'nations' to 'nation' ".

Though Assyria was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon before the year 606 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II was not yet king at that time. Nebuchadnezzar II conquered Assyria while Nebuchadnezzar's father was king of Babylon (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II ). I am convinced that the prophecy of Jeremiah chapter 25 pertaining to conquests by "Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon" (see verse 9) starts after Nebuchadnezzar II (historically known as Nebuchadnezzar the Great) became king. Note that Jeremiah 25:9 (1984 NWT) says "... to Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon ..." As a result, the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar II upon Assyria is excluded from the prophecy of Jeremiah chapter 25, since Nebuchadnezzar II was not yet the king of Babylon! [Perhaps the "prophet" Jeremiah learned of Nebuchadnezzar II's defeat of Assyria and from that knowledge then deduced by naturalistic means (instead of by a divine revelation from Yahweh) that Nebuchadnezzar II would become king and subdue Jerusalem, Judah, and Egypt and various other gentile kingdoms around Judah.] Also, note that the lists of kings/kingdoms mentioned Jeremiah 25:17-26 does not specifically name Assyria!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II says the following.

'Despite his successful military career during his father's reign, the first third or so of Nebuchadnezzar's reign saw little to no major military achievements, and notably a disastrous failure in an attempted invasion of Egypt. These years of lacklustre military performance saw some of Babylon's vassals, particularly in the Levant, beginning to doubt Babylon's power, viewing the Neo-Babylonian Empire as a "paper tiger" rather than a power truly on the level of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The situation grew so severe that people in Babylonia itself began disobeying the king, some going as far as to revolt against Nebuchadnezzar's rule.

After this disappointing early period as king, Nebuchadnezzar's luck turned. In the 580s BC, Nebuchadnezzar engaged in a successful string of military actions in the Levant against the vassal states in rebellion there, likely with the ultimate intent of curbing Egyptian influence in the region. In 587 BC, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Kingdom of Judah, and its capital, Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem led to the Babylonian captivity as the city's population, and people from the surrounding lands, were deported to Babylonia. The Jews thereafter referred to Nebuchadnezzar, the greatest enemy they had faced until that point, as a "destroyer of nations". The biblical Book of Jeremiah paints Nebuchadnezzar as a cruel enemy, but also as God's appointed ruler of the world and a divine instrument to punish disobedience. Through the destruction of Jerusalem, the capture of the rebellious Phoenician city of Tyre, and other campaigns in the Levant, Nebuchadnezzar completed the Neo-Babylonian Empire's transformation into the new great power of the ancient Near East."

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Hi scholar. I appreciate that you appreciate the way I made use of Bible commentaries.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Note: My prior post includes smiley faces, but I did not intend for that to be in the post. It is in the post because this website interpreted some characters from the online source of the commentary as such.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

MeanMrMustard, to me the grammar of the sentence of "This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years" allows for the interpretation that Jerusalem (and the kingdom of Judah) will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. To me it is clear that the verse is saying Judah and the listed gentile nations will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years (even if the desolation of Jerusalem was not proclaimed to last for 70 years).

MeanMrMustard, scholar, Jeffro, and others please note the following.

A number of Christian commentaries also have that interpretation. For example consider the Christian commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (first published in 1871 - interestingly that is 2 years after the year Russell listened to a sermon by Second Adventist [Advent Christian Church] Jonas Wendell, and 5 years before the year that Russell first met Second Adventist Nelson H. Barbour). I own copy of its Revised Edition of 1961 (my copy was printed in 1967). The commentary can be read online at https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/jfb/jeremiah-25.html . The wording of it for Jeremiah 25:11 from that source says the following.

"11. seventy years— ( :-). [Note: Though the online source says "-- ( :-)" my hardcover printed book of the commentary says "--(Ch. 27;7)."] The exact number of years of Sabbaths in four hundred ninety years, the period from Saul to the Babylonian captivity; righteous retribution for their violation of the Sabbath (Leviticus 26:34; Leviticus 26:35; 2 Chronicles 36:21). The seventy years probably begin from the fourth year of Jehoiakim, when Jerusalem was first captured, and many captives, as well as the treasures of the temple, were carried away; they end with the first year of Cyrus, who, on taking Babylon, issued an edict for the restoration of the Jews (Ezra 1:1). Daniel's seventy prophetic weeks are based on the seventy years of the captivity (compare Daniel 9:2; Daniel 9:24)."

Regarding verse 18 the commentary says the following.

'18. Jerusalem—put first: for "judgment begins at the house of God"; they being most guilty whose religious privileges are greatest ( :-).

kings—Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah.

as it is this day—The accomplishment of the curse had already begun under Jehoiakim. This clause, however, may have been inserted by Jeremiah at his final revision of his prophecies in Egypt.'

Note that the commentary references Daniel 9:2; Daniel 9:24. The commentary (as posted online at https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/jfb/daniel-9.html ) says the following about Daniel 9:1-2.

"1. first year of Darius—Cyaxares II, in whose name Cyrus, his nephew, son-in-law, and successor, took Babylon, 538 B.C. The date of this chapter is therefore 537 B.C., a year before Cyrus permitted the Jews to return from exile, and sixty-nine years after Daniel had been carried captive at the beginning of the captivity, 606 B.C.

son of Ahasuerus—called Astyages by XENOPHON. Ahasuerus was a name common to many of the kings of Medo-Persia.

made king—The phrase implies that Darius owed the kingdom not to his own prowess, but to that of another, namely, Cyrus.

2. understood by books—rather, "letters," that is, Jeremiah's letter ( :-) to the captives in Babylon; also Jeremiah 25:11; Jeremiah 25:12; compare 2 Chronicles 36:21; Jeremiah 30:18; Jeremiah 31:38. God's promises are the ground on which we should, like Daniel, rest sure hope; not so as to make our prayers needless, but rather to encourage them."

The commentary says the following for Daniel 9:24.

'24. Seventy weeks—namely, of years; literally, "Seventy sevens"; seventy heptads or hebdomads; four hundred ninety years; expressed in a form of "concealed definiteness" [HENGSTENBERG], a usual way with the prophets. The Babylonian captivity is a turning point in the history of the kingdom of God. It terminated the free Old Testament theocracy. Up to that time Israel, though oppressed at times, was; as a rule, free. From the Babylonian captivity the theocracy never recovered its full freedom down to its entire suspension by Rome; and this period of Israel's subjection to the Gentiles is to continue till the millennium ( :-), when Israel shall be restored as head of the New Testament theocracy, which will embrace the whole earth. The free theocracy ceased in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and the fourth of Jehoiakim; the year of the world 3338, the point at which the seventy years of the captivity begin. Heretofore Israel had a right, if subjugated by a foreign king, to shake off the yoke (Judges 4:1-5; 2 Kings 18:7) as an unlawful one, at the first opportunity. But the prophets (2 Kings 18:7- :) declared it to be God's will that they should submit to Babylon. Hence every effort of Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah to rebel was vain. The period of the world times, and of Israel's depression, from the Babylonian captivity to the millennium, though abounding more in afflictions (for example, the two destructions of Jerusalem, Antiochus' persecution, and those which Christians suffered), contains all that was good in the preceding ones, summed up in Christ, but in a way visible only to the eye of faith. Since He came as a servant, He chose for His appearing the period darkest of all as to His people's temporal state. Always fresh persecutors have been rising, whose end is destruction, and so it shall be with the last enemy, Antichrist. As the Davidic epoch is the point of the covenant-people's highest glory, so the captivity is that of their lowest humiliation. Accordingly, the people's sufferings are reflected in the picture of the suffering Messiah. He is no longer represented as the theocratic King, the Antitype of David, but as the Servant of God and Son of man; at the same time the cross being the way to glory (compare Daniel 9:1-27; Daniel 2:34; Daniel 2:35; Daniel 2:44; Daniel 12:7). In the second and seventh chapters, Christ's first coming is not noticed, for Daniel's object was to prophesy to his nation as to the whole period from the destruction to the re-establishment of Israel; but this ninth chapter minutely predicts Christ's first coming, and its effects on the covenant people. The seventy weeks date thirteen years before the rebuilding of Jerusalem; for then the re-establishment of the theocracy began, namely, at the return of Ezra to Jerusalem, 457 B.C. So Jeremiah's seventy years of the captivity begin 606 B.C., eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, for then Judah ceased to exist as an independent theocracy, having fallen under the sway of Babylon. Two periods are marked in Ezra: (1) The return from the captivity under Jeshua and Zerubbabel, and rebuilding of the temple, which was the first anxiety of the theocratic nation. (2) The return of Ezra (regarded by the Jews as a second Moses) from Persia to Jerusalem, the restoration of the city, the nationality, and the law. Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of his reign, gave him the commission which virtually includes permission to rebuild the city, afterwards confirmed to, and carried out by, Nehemiah in the twentieth year (Ezra 9:9; Ezra 7:11 Ezra 7:11- :, "from the going forth of the commandment to build Jerusalem," proves that the second of the two periods is referred to. The words in Daniel 9:24 are not, "are determined upon the holy city," but "upon thy people and thy holy city"; thus the restoration of the religious national polity and the law (the inner work fulfilled by Ezra the priest), and the rebuilding of the houses and walls (the outer work of Nehemiah, the governor), are both included in Daniel 9:25, "restore and build Jerusalem." "Jerusalem" represents both the city, the body, and the congregation, the soul of the state. Compare Psalms 46:1-11; Psalms 48:1-14; Psalms 87:1-7. The starting-point of the seventy weeks dated from eighty-one years after Daniel received the prophecy: the object being not to fix for him definitely the time, but for the Church: the prophecy taught him that the Messianic redemption, which he thought near, was separated from him by at least a half millennium. ....'

Notice that the commentary uses the date of 606 B.C. [I have also seen other commentaries use that date] - the same date that Barbour used and that initially Russell used (before changing it to 607 B.C.), but that the commentary uses it as the year of the beginning of the servitude (of Jerusalem and Judah, and its kings, and some others, including Daniel) instead of as the year of the beginning of the desolation of Jerusalem. This might give the WT a way out regarding 1914 which would allow them to accept that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE (or 588 BCE or 586 BCE), for it would allow them to keep the 1914 date (or adjust it slightly, such as to 1915 [a date which in some editions of Studies of Studies in the Scriptures Russell said was a possibility] or to 1913) and also keep the 607 BCE date (or return to their earlier 606 BCE date), but redefine what the 607 (or 606) BCE date refers to.

In some of my prior posts (which I made before reading the above quoted sections of the above commentary) I wrote of my interpretation of the beginning of the servitude (instead of the desolation) of the kingdom headquartered in Jerusalem as possibly the start of the 70 years, according to Jeremiah chapter 25. That also makes sense as the beginning of the Gentile Times and the beginning of the trampling of the nations upon Judah and Jerusalem.

773

Breaking News: Anthony Morris III no longer serving on the Governing Body

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

this has been announced on the jw's official website, in the "jw news" section.

this is not a joke.

anthony moron da turd is out as a gluttonous body member!

Disillusioned JW

Today my best friend told me that on a different web site (one which features videos) for ex-JWs a woman said that her niece is at Bethel and that the niece saw Anthony Morris III walking inside Bethel and that such confirms he is still at Bethel. I think the person said happened on last Thursday.

My best friend also said that soon after the JW.org posted the announcement about Tony on their site, the site posted a video about addictions and a video about unrighteous riches (or maybe both topics were in the same video).

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Hi MeanMrMustard. I notice you said "... starting thr process described ...". I am thinking you might be correct in saying that is what the phrase means. Though I didn't say it in my prior posts, I was wondering if the wording of "beginning" or "begin" might mean that, namely the start of the process, even if the first part of the process doesn't directly effect Jerusalem or Judah.