What about The Gentile Times?

Some witness friends of mine have asked me to reconsider the gentile times prophesy, as interpreted by the watchtower organization. I have re-examined their interpretation and have also re-examined your essay "Was 1914 the end of the Gentile times?"I would appreciate your view on the chronological interpretation of Daniel with regard to the 2,520 days relating to years and hence starting in 607 bce and ending in 1914.You mention chronology at the beginning of your essay and then refer to PYRAMIDOLOGY as a basis for CT Russell’s interpretations. What do you mean?I need the answers to these questions so that I can defend my position.Many thanks



The Gentile times essay makes the case that the so-called Gentile times, that is, the interval God has allowed for the nations to trample “Jerusalem,” has nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE, or whenever it was supposed to have occurred. It is therefore pointless to argue pro or con whether Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem in 607. It makes for historic trivia but it is irrelevant in terms of Christ’s prophecy.

If common sense prevailed instead of dogma, it would become apparent that Jesus was foretelling a future trampling of the holy place, not a trampling that had occurred five centuries before.

According to numerous related prophecies, the appointed times that Jesus referred to in the 21st chapter of Luke has to do with the trampling of the holy ones during the tribulation. In the first century the Romans fulfilled the prophecy when they razed the temple. In the grander fulfillment the 8th king will trample on God’s spiritual temple for a specified interval. The 11th chapter of Revelation indicates that the appointed times for the beast to lay waste to God’s holy place amounts to 42 months.

As for the pyramidology, Russell was captivated by the idea that pyramids had built-in chronological values that supposedly held divine secrets. It was believed that the measurements of interior passageways represented years – an inch for a year instead of a day for a year. By such means Russell calculated that 1914 would be the year the world would end. In reality using pyramidology to divine the future amounts to spiritistic divination. After Russell’s death the Watchtower junked pyramidology but kept 1914 as the year that Christ’s parousia began. (Russell taught that Christ’s presence began in 1874.)

E-watchman maintains that the 1914 doctrine is the foretold operation of error promoted by Satan through means of powerful works and lying signs and every unrighteous deception. The fact that 1914 has is roots in the demonistic art of divination is one aspect of an unrighteous deception. World War One and the outbreak of the Spanish Flu in 1918 were very powerful signs intended to convince Jehovah's people that Christ had begun ruling.

The 1914 doctrine has been used as cover for a man of lawlessness within the organization. By using prophecy to convince Jehovah's Witnesses that Christ came in 1918 to remove an evil slave from the midst of the organization and that he appointed a faithful slave over all of his belongings, the Watchtower has cloaked itself in infallability and placed all evil and apostasy outside the Governing Body. That's why Jehovah's Witnesses are incredulous when presented with the evidence of the Watchtower's corruption and apostasy. The general reaction is 'Oh, the Watchtower could never do that. Jehovah wouldn't allow it.'

The 1914 doctrine and all that goes with it has been instrumental in enabling a man of lawlessness to lead the organization into apostasy without anyone questioning it.

For more on the man of lawlessness see the essay entitled Mystery of the Antichrist

Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions

I'm becoming confused with the debate on blood. I always understood the issue to be a moral one and more about Jesus sacrifice. All the standards that I have based my life on are being eroded away. “Abstain from,” is being interpreted as meaning just abstain from eating blood as food. But does the Bible really forbid the use of blood for medical purposes?

If it was a mistake for Jehovah’s Witnesses who lost their lives because of refusing blood, was it also a mistake for those who took bullets for others in the concentration camps and gave up their lives? Has it all been for nothing?


Most likely the reason this issue has come up in your mind at this time is due to the recent publication of an essay critical of the Watchtower’s policy on blood. (Excerpts of the essay were posted on e-jehovahs-witnesses.com)

It is well to keep in mind that there are usually always two sides to every issue. And on an issue as controversial as the Watchtower’s blood policy, there are sure to be many critics. As Christians, though, our task is to tune out the cacophony of controversy as best we can and determine what Jehovah’s will in the matter is.

It is worth noting that the author of the recently published essay lost her mother, who happened to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses; supposedly, because she refused a blood transfusion. I say “supposedly” because we don’t know the circumstances surrounding her death.

At any rate, the author obviously is not an unbiased observer. Furthermore, Baylor University is the largest Baptist university in the United States and the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston obviously trains student doctors in the use of blood. So, let’s not lose sight of the obvious personal point of reference of the author of the essay.

The essay, entitled "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," critically examines the brochure “How Can Blood Save Your Life?” And, among other things, she accuses the Watchtower of overstating the risks of blood transfusions. But is that really true? Have the risks been overstated to terrify Jehovah’s Witnesses? That is merely the essayist’s opinion and not a fact of law. One can alternatively argue that the blood industry and the medical establishment have consistently understated the risks of blood transfusions. For example Pulmonary News Dot Com points out some of the inherent risks. Back in the 1980’s thousands of people were given transfusions that were contaminated with HIV.

The National Academies’ website states: “In the early 1980s, more than half of the 16,000 hemophiliacs in the United States and more than 12,000 blood transfusion patients were infected with HIV through contaminated blood. Some of them unknowingly gave the virus to their spouses, partners, and newborn children.”

There is no doubt that the numbers of persons who have died from transfusion related complications far outweighs the numbers of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have died for lack of blood. The truth is that blood screening techniques are only effective for known pathogens. There is always the risk of newly emerging diseases infecting the blood supply before they can be identified. And in some parts of the world blood is not screened because of the expense in doing so.

Uninformed persons may be of the impression that the Watchtower has callously stood by while thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses die on the operating tables because of refusing blood transfusions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Besides the fact that the numbers of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have died is most likely grossly overstated; the truth is, to their credit, the Watchtower has single-handedly changed the way that many in the medical establishment view the matter of blood transfusions.

Instead of constant confrontations between doctors and patients, there is now a greater willingness on the part of medical professionals to accommodate and cooperate with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

This has come about because the Watchtower Society has trained hundreds of elders around the world to serve on Hospital Liaison Committees in order to educate the medical community regarding our views on blood. The result has been that doctors are much more open to alternative therapies that are not objectionable to Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are even surgical facilities devoted to bloodless medicine. For example, Motts Children’s Hospital, which is connected with Michigan University, practices bloodless surgery. The hospital even credits the HCL of Jehovah’s Witnesses for their cooperation. Here is a quote from their website:

“C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, in cooperation with the local Hospital Liaison Committee of Jehovah’s Witnesses, will provide training and on-site education for physicians, nurses, and affiliates in their offices and the hospital to ensure smooth operation of this program and its affiliates. Mott Hospital can provide speakers for continuing education programs relevant to the treatment of bloodless medicine and surgery patients as well as community education programs.”

But as all of Jehovah’s Witnesses should know, our refusal to take blood transfusions is not because of any perceived medical risks from doing so. Just the opposite, in fact. We are willing to take the risk of not accepting blood transfusions in order not to violate God’s law.

Can any lawyer, doctor, or self-styled Bible expert assure us that “abstaining from blood” does not include blood transfusions? Of course not. Each Christian, therefore, must make every effort to know what God’s will is in this matter. As Paul said: 'Go on perceiving what the will of God is.'

If some of Jehovah's Witnesses view the blood issue as a conscience matter, we still have to follow the dictates of our own conscience, not someone else's conscience. And even if, due to legal pressures, the Watchtower were to drop the prohibition on blood, that would not absolve Christians from the obligation of individually obeying God’s word either.

How important than to "make sure of all things," as the apostle admonished.

For more information see No Blood Dot Org



_

Murder? Yahweh? Book of Enoch? & Ray Franz?

If many parts of Ezekiel foretell the coming collapse of the WT and the calamity from judgment, how do the accounts of Jehovah saying that there is much bloodshed and murdering come into play? I do not see where theWT is guilty of such, please clarify. You have pointed out how they are guilty of idolatry, prostitution and other faithless acts, but how does bloodshed fit in the picture?

From a human point of view, murder is solely the willful, usually violent, act of taking another’s life. However, from Jehovah’s exalted perspective murder involves more than that.

For example, Jesus stated that anyone who remains wrathful with his brother is a murderer. Another aspect of murder is what is called bloodguilt. Bloodguilt may be incurred by simply doing nothing. For instance, Jehovah told Ezekiel that if he saw the executioner’s sword coming upon the city and failed to warn the unwary, then he would also be judged adversely.

Also, according to Jesus, there will be an accounting from everyone who stumbles one of Jehovah’s sheep. That’s because stumbling another causes them to lose faith and potentially lose out on life.

So, it is apparent that from Jehovah’s standpoint murder can involve more than directly killing another person.
Why do the JW's use the word Jehovah when there is no letter in the Hebrew or the Greek and since most now know that the name of the Father is Yahweh. I personally use Yahsha for His Son's name since it means Yah's Saviour. But I do not claim to be any kind of authority in the matter. I only looked at the Hebrew words seeing how the messiah was Jewish and not Greek or from any other culture. I grew up believing in the name of Jesus but always wondered what His Hebrew name was, so I started to study and came to understand that His name was not Jesus, or Iesus. I also don’t think that his name is Yahshua because the “shua” means to cry out, or wealth, or to have riches. Let me know what you think please.

The reason YHWH is spelled with a “J” is because that is the accepted method of English translation. Remember: We speak and write English—not Hebrew. True, the NWT transliterates a few Hebrew words; one that readily comes to mind is Sheol. But since it is not possible to transliterate YHWH anyway, "Jehovah" is as good a translation as any.

Also, keep in mind that God’s name is spelled and pronounced differently in every language according to customs and accepted rules of translation.

The fact is, all proper Hebrew names that are spelled with a “Y” are translated using a “J.” Common names like the Jerusalem, or Jeremiah, are two examples. There are dozens of other names spelled thusly—God’s name is merely one of many that uses a "J" in place of a "Y."

As for “Yahweh” being the correct pronunciation in Hebrew, that is not necessarily the case. Although no one can say for certain how the name was originally pronounced, we can be fairly confident that it was pronounced using three syllables-not two as in Yah-weh. And it seems reasonable to assume, at least to me, that the middle syllable had an “O” vowel sound.

Many proper Hebrew names were evidently derived from the first two syllables of God’s personal name. For instance, Jeho-seba, Jeho-ram, Jeho-shaphat, Jeho-ushua (Jesus), Jeho-zabad, Jeho-nadab, Jeho-nathan (John), Jeho-shabeth; and others besides these. All of those names have the first part of God's personal name as a prefix.

Ye-ho-wah might be the closest to the original Hebrew pronunciation; but again, no one can say with certainty. But since Jehovah has long been recognized as a legitimate and credible English approximation of the name of God, there should not be any valid objection to its continued use by Jehovah's Witnesses.

My back ground is I was born into the religion and now disfellowshipped .I am on a quest for knowledge and have found the keys of Enoch and the Urantia book where now time is a factor, what do you think about these non religiousorganization and the books.
The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom. And Jehovah is the source or true knowledge. Jesus said of himself that he is “the way, the truth and the light.” Conversely, the apostle Paul warned Christians not to be taken in by “falsely called knowledge.” If we look to the Bible as our guide it will lead us in the right way. No other book can compare to the Bible.

What about Jesus' lost years?

What is the truth about Jesus’ so-called 17 lost years?






You are referring to the gap between the incident recorded in the Bible that took place when Jesus was 12 years old and the time of his baptism 17 years later. The reason the Bible does not contain any account of Jesus’ life during those years is because it is not important. The reason those years are not important is because Jesus did not begin his ministry until he was baptized at the age of 30. What was Jesus doing during those years? After the incident in the temple when Jesus was 12 the Bible account at Luke 2:51 simply says: “And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and he continued subject to them. Also, his mother carefully kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus went on progressing in wisdom and in physical growth and in favor with God and men.”

So, basically Jesus lived with his parents, studied and went to meetings and worked with his step-father, Joseph, in the family carpentry business until he was baptized and afterwards embarked on his three and a half year ministry.

Michael the Archangel

Here is one paradox which the WT cannot resolve for me - just one of many! They teach that Jesus was previously - and also now - known as Michael, the created archangel. But it is a simple matter to prove from Scripture, that this cannot be so. Who is the "man" talking with Daniel in chapters 10 & 12? “... here was a certain man clothed in linen, with his hips girded with gold of Uphaz. And his body was like chrysolite, and his face like the appearance of lightning, and his eyes like fiery torches, and his arms and the place of his feet were like the sight of burnished copper, and the sound of his words was like the sound of a crowd.”

When he saw this "man", Daniel fell unconscious, and the "man" told him not to be afraid, and helped him to his feet. Whoever he is, he has these things to say about Michael - "But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to help me...And now I shall go back to fight with the prince of Persia. When I am going forth, look! also the prince of Greece is coming. However, I shall tell you the things noted down in the writing of truth, and there is no one holding strongly with me in these things but Michael, the prince of you people…And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book. And there will be many of those asleep in the ground of dust who will wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches and to indefinitely lasting abhorrence."

We see this same man speaking with John in Revelation chapter 1 - "I heard behind me a strong voice like that of a trumpet ... in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man, clothed with a garment that reached down to the feet, and girded at the breasts with a golden girdle. Moreover, his head and his hair were white as white wool, as snow, and his eyes as a fiery flame; and his feet were like fine copper when glowing in a furnace; and his voice was as the sound of many waters."

When he saw this "man", John fell unconscious, and the "man" told him not to fear, and raised him to his feet. "Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever ... " This time, we are left in no doubt at all as to who this "man" is. He identifies himself as Jesus. His characteristics prove that he is the very same "man" who spoke with Daniel, and who said that Michael was just "one of the chief princes", who "came to help him", whom he "left behind with the king of Persia" (as stated in translations other than the NWT.) So, since it is Jesus speaking with Daniel, about Michael in the 3rd person - it is obvious that Michael cannot be Jesus. Jesus is superior to Michael, who is simply "one of the chief princes" and I take this to mean, that he is one of the 7 chief angels Jesus is holding (as stars) in his hand in Revelation 1. In fact, Jesus says that Michael is the chief prince of the Israelites - in both Daniel 12, and Revelation 12.

I would be very interested in your response to this. Other JWs I speak to have been unable to grasp the simple logic of reading the plain evidence of Scripture for themselves, but you are different. You can see the danger of formulating a doctrine around a misconception or a verse taken out of context.



There is no mystery who the “man” was that appeared to Daniel. He was the angel Gabriel; the only angel mentioned by name in the entire Bible (other than Michael). How do we know it was Gabriel and not Jesus? Throughout the prophecy of Daniel there are two angels that converse with each other and with Daniel. Consider the 8th chapter where one angel tells Gabriel to approach Daniel and explain the vision to him. Daniel 8:16-19 reads: “And I began to hear the voice of an earthling man in the midst of the Ulai, and he proceeded to call out and say: ‘Gabriel, make that one there understand the thing seen.’ So he came beside where I was standing, but when he came I got terrified so that I fell upon my face. And he proceeded to say to me: ‘Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.’ And while he was speaking with me, I had become fast asleep on my face on the earth. So he touched me and made me stand up where I had been standing. And he went on to say: Here I am causing you to know what will occur in the final part of the denunciation, because it is for the appointed time of the end.’”

Notice please the similarities to the incident you cited in the 10th chapter. In both cases Daniel became terrified by the sight and fell down as if dead. On both occasions the angel revealed prophetic events tied to the time of the end.

In the 9th chapter of Daniel Gabriel appears again and makes mention of the fact he had been made weary with tiredness. Then in the 10th chapter we are informed that the angel had to fight with the demonic prince of Persia—no doubt the reason for Gabriel’s tiredness in his earlier appearance to Daniel. It would appear, then, that the angel in the 10th chapter is also Gabriel—even though he is not named as such.

Lending weight to that is the fact that the angel was successfully opposed by the prince of Persia for three weeks—until Michael came to his assistance. If the angel in the 10th chapter of Daniel had actually been Christ or the Word as he is also called, surely he would have been more powerful than the prince of Persia and Michael. The account suggests otherwise—that the angel of the vision has less authority than Michael. Indeed, the 12th chapter of Revelation indicates that Michael is the most powerful angel in heaven—even taking the lead in ousting the Devil from heaven--yet the angel in the 10th chapter was not able to overcome demonic opposition until Michael came to help.

However, the similarities between the appearance of the angel in Daniel’s prophecy and the appearance of the son of man in Revelation are undeniable. But, keep in mind that Daniel’s encounter with the angel was in the form of a vision. And without doubt the vision was prophetically significant—prefiguring Christ’s parousia. Later on in the encounter the angel took the less imposing form of an earthling man. What accounts for the similarities then? Most likely the angel was playing the role of Christ in the vision. That Gabriel would have that privilege is in keeping with the fact that Gabriel later announced the birth of Jesus.

Since the angel’s appearance took place after Daniel supplicated God for mercy upon Israel and was for the purpose of informing Daniel of what would befall Jehovah’s people during the time of the end, it seems that Daniel’s terrifying encounter with the glorious angel prefigures Jesus’ presence—when he comes alongside the chosen ones to minister to them after they have been disciplined.

Keep in mind that on numerous occasions angels represented Jehovah himself. For example, when Moses had an encounter with God up on top of Mount Sinai, when he received the 10 Commandments, the account says that Moses spoke with God, but 1,500 years later we are told that Moses merely encountered deputized angels who spoke for God. Now, if the angels have authority to speak for Jehovah, it is reasonable to assume that Michael’s angels have authority to speak for him as well.

Higher Education?

Dear E-Watchman,

Assuming you have already read the Oct 15 WT on Higher Education and the dangers of going to college, why do you think the WTS is so viciously opposed to it? Is it because they are thinning on the ranks of pioneers and MS's; or is it that young JW's are being taught critical thinking and are leaving the WT? If possible, it would be nice if you could do a commentary/essay on this topic, as many in my circle are aghast at this revised stand against university education.


Actually, I haven’t read the October 15th Watchtower yet, but it doesn’t exactly sound as if they are putting forth “new light.” But it does seem as though there is a back and forth struggle between the hardliners and the moderates.

Really, though, why should the Watchtower even have an opinion on the subject of higher education? They should warn of the spiritual dangers and leave it at that. After all, it is a personal matter and an issue for families to decide. It is no one else’s business if another Christian chooses to go to school.

Did Jesus have anything to say on the topic? Paul? Peter? John? James? If the Bible is silent on the issue of higher education, why should the Watchtower weigh in with such a heavy opinion on the matter?

Actually, the Bible indicates that Moses was raised in all the knowledge of Egypt--which means that he received a higher education from the first world power of history. Daniel and the three Hebrews were also schooled in all the knowledge of the Chaldeans. By all accounts they turned out okay.

If Jehovah’s Witnesses are well grounded in their faith then they too should be able to stand up to the challenges and temptations a so called higher education might present.

But keep in mind though---a college degree ain’t what it used to be.

70 X 7 prophetic?

I am wondering if you have any thoughts on the prophetic significance of Matthew 18:21-22 because I cannot find anything written by the Society on the relevance. Is it possible that it's because of how the NWT renders the scripture (compared to other translations, including the Emphatic Diaglott); the NWT misinterprets the original thoughts conveyed by the original language?

The NWT renders the scripture this way: "Then Peter came up and said to him: "Lord, how many times is my brother to sin against me and am I to forgive him? Up to seven times?" 22 Jesus said to him: "I say to you, not, Up to seven times, but, Up to seventy-seven times."

Whereas, other Bible translations have it this way:

"...until seventy times seven." (KJV, NLT, Diaglott, ESV, BBE, ASV, et al)

As you must already know, seventy times seven equals 490, so might this not have been of far more prophetic significance than simply the extent we should be willing to forgive our brothers and sisters? Might this not have been Jesus' way of referring to the 70-week (490 years) prophecy in Daniel 9:24 "There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies."

If Jesus was actually trying to bring Daniel's prophetic declaration to mind for Peter because it addresses Israel's "transgression," why is it that the Society has not published anything about this in our literature, especially because of its prophetic significance?

Whether the correct rendering is 77 or 70 X 7 I don’t think there is any prophetic significance to Jesus’ comment. (Apparently neither does the Watchtower) He was apparently simply using a figure of speech, which he frequently employed, called a hyperbole; which is a form of exaggeration. Jesus wanted to impress upon Peter that the idea of even keeping an account of the number of offenses was ridiculous. Who is going to keep a ledger of even 77 offenses, let alone hundreds?