You are wise not to expect the forum to be used to advertise your book. That would not be acceptable. However it just so happens that a trilogy of the same genre that you have described has been written by the mother of two of the main posters on this forum. She spent a number of years meticulously undertaking the research. It was no trivial effort. The first of the books has been used as the basis for a musical play. As far as I know Sue is not on this forum but if you want advice from an expert you could ask to be put in touch with her.

I told the Lord God this you have said to me. His reply to me was...

How did the Lord God reply in this way to you? You might understand that we could be skeptical about this. We are instructed to test the spirits. You have given no indication of how to test your claim of receiving direct divine communication.

Stephen. If you continue to quote Scriptures without any explanation of what you infer from them then the value will continue to be very limited. We still don't know much about you. You are a male from San Antonio who claims to receive answers directly from God.

Stephen.

The valid point that BDW makes is that all the quotations about keeping the commandments of Christ are not controversial, but nor do they seem to lead to any conclusions that are not obvious. I have been waiting for you to continue whatever argument you might be building. Perhaps you are going to say:

We must keep the commandments of Christ

X is a commandment

Therefore we must keep X.

But you have not yet developed such an argument.

Stephen. I don't understand what point you are making. You have just quoted several Scriptures. 

Stephen. It is good that you are motivated by the desire to help people bless the name of the Lord. Rather than enter a structured Bible study it might be better to discuss what you think is important. The commandments of Christ are vital for our Christian walk. And foremost among these is the command to love one another. Obviously is not law or the keeping of commandments that saves us, but we cannot be saved without this. In other words the faith in Christ that saves us is only genuine if our life-response is faithfulness to what Christ wants of us.

Stephen Levi. We don't know anything about you other that you are a male from San Antonio TX. Would you like to introduce yourself first please?

Evidence please that this started at WW1. Why "Good GRIEF"? It is hardly self-evident that the fulfillment only starts at WW1. Is there anyone other than JWs and other denominational descendants of Charles Taze Russell who think this?

... the signs Jesus gave started ONLY with the outbreak of WW 1... 

Evidence please.

I'll be out for a few hours. I am not ignoring you. If someone else doesn't take on the conversation I'll come back to it.

The evidence for 1914 is very weak. It has several weak links in the argument.

(1) The "seven times" (2520) represent years. That is quite possible, but the evidence is not conclusive.

(2) It starts at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Why then?

(3) That date was 607BC, a date pushed by Watchtower and very few others

(4) The interpretation of history that puts 1914 as a really important date. Sure, it was the start of WW1. But there are many other dates that could be thought of as significant.

The real reason it is accepted is that the Watchtower organization committed itself to it. Anyone one who disagreed was disfellowshipped. So there was no remaining dissent. Once the Watchtower authority is challenged and you realize that it is not "God's organization", then much of the edifice of JW teaching crumbles. Fortunately some can remain. The mortality of man is one teaching that is sound for example.

No, the Trinity is not Scriptural. The Spirit is often personified, but is not literally a person. Literally it means "wind" obviously. But in usage the Spirit is much more than wind. Nevertheless the meaning is built on the idea of an unseen power (which is what wind is). One of the manifestations of God's unseen power was in the provision of miraculous powers as at Pentecost.

I am sure you can enlighten us. But please don't just paste JW literature.

Then you are very welcome to engage. We have interesting things in common, but also some big differences. From a practical point of view a really big difference is our more loose organization. That is good and bad. It means that we have not been as effective as you guys at expansion. Though we feel that your tight structure has meant that you have been less able to fairly and honestly examine your beliefs. Whereas our founder (who knew proto-JWs quite well) made a similar mistake in predicting the date of the return of Christ as Russell did, at least we admit that he was wrong in that regard. We don't invent an invisible return as do JWs and SDAs.

Mad JW

I don't know how much you know about Christadelphians, but on the two issues you have raised we are not in disagreement with JWs. That is we accept the mortality of humans and we deny the Trinity. However your contribution appears to have been to just past JW literature. If you want to meaningfully engage Christadelphians you are very welcome.

I said "the evidence for it seems very thin". When evidence is thin then it is unwise to conclude that it is true. The evidence (such as it it is) is indirect. It is a possible identification. The use of the word "mark" or "character" by Lutherans and RCs is not persuasive. A "strange choice of words" is "strange" to you, but there are no doubt historical reasons for the use of those words. If you suppose a sinister reason for the choice of those words then you would need to spell out the argument more clearly.

That was what I was told when I was a young child. However the evidence for it seems very thin:

(1) The number of the beast, probably 666, but possibly 616, has been variously used to identify individuals by gematria i.e. adding up the numerical values of Greek letters. So many matches are possible that the simple coincidence of the numerical value to a name does not prove anything. The context in Revelation suggests a Roman Catholic Church meaning for the number of the beast.

(2) Once it is assumed that the number of the beast refers to the RCC then the mark of the beast may refer to some symbol of that church. The cross is a possible candidate.

In the Australian state of New South Wales most (or maybe all) ecclesias use unleavened bread, but I don't know of anywhere else that does that. Mind you I am not well-travelled. It must be some accident of history. I don't think it is vitally important, but it seems more appropriate.

You then believe Gen 1 is factually incorrect

No more than I believe the Bible is factually incorrect when it says (Revelation 21:21): " And the twelve gates were twelve pearls, each of the gates made of a single pearl, and the street of the city was pure gold, transparent as glass". Not all parts are the Bible should be interpreted literally.

 no one but God knows the age of the sun or the universe

Evidence please. God has actually provided us some evidence of these things, not in his Book of Word, but in his Book of Work, the things he has made. The age of the universe is currently estimated at about 13.8 billion years. I am not an astro-physicist, so I am not sure what assumptions that is based on. The age of the moon is known quite accurately from radiometric dating of the rocks. It is a little over 4.5 billion years old, and that is a solid figure. Rocks have been found on earth that are only a little younger than the moon, so probably the earth and the moon are about the same age. The sun must be no younger than that.

No. There is evidence to support the miracle of Christ's resurrection. A supposed miracle of plants created before the sun would necessarily require fabrication by God of innumerable of pieces of evidence that show that plants have only existed hundreds of millions of years, but the solar system 4.5 billion years.

A much more reasonable solution is that you have misinterpreted the early chapters of Genesis.

I hope one day you realise how silly it is to insist that plants were created before the sun. The solar system has been in existence for more than 4.5 billion years. Depending on what you understand to be a plant (i.e. whether or not plants include green algae), they have been in existence for about half a billion years. Flowering plants have existed for around 160 million years, and became widespread about 120 million years ago. Plants are older than the sun only in an imaginary reality. It might not be fatal to live in that imaginary reality, just so long as you don't set yourself up as a teacher and try to impose it on others.

If your interpretation of Scripture says that 1 + 1 = 3, then it is your interpretation, not arithmetic, that is wring. If you say that people were created before animals and that plants were created before the sun, then it is your interpretation that is wrong. Maybe that is not quite what you are saying. I'm not quite clear. Do you understand the days as literal?

 

Exactly. He created light on the 1st day but the sun moon, moon and stars not until the 4th day. Don't you see some indication that the chapter is not intended to be read as a literal science lesson?

 

 

We aren't discussing science. The subject is chronology of events. :Particularly, why does Gen 1 says God created animals first but in Gen 2 God creates man first.

 

One of the answers to that question is that Genesis 1 is not a chronological account of events as they took place. Nor for that matter is chapter 2 which has an agricultural focus. To what extent chapter 2 is a literal account I am not sure. The events seem to be cartoon-like. Adam and Eve were (it seems to me) real people. But the context of the chapter doesn't make sense as a literal account. Assyria (v14) wasn't a nation until a long time after Adam. Gold (v12) was meaningless as a precious mineral until later; at the time of Adam (looking at it as a literal account) working of minerals had not yet been invented (4:22).

The whole approach seems to me to be wrong. Wouldn't it better to step back and try to put ourselves into the mindset of the ancients. That's easy to say and not so easy to do. Chapter 1, whatever else it is, is a challenge to the ancient pagan religions, in a similar way to the ten plagues of Egypt were a challenge to the gods of Egypt. Exodus 12:12  For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD.

Exactly. He created light on the 1st day but the sun moon, moon and stars not until the 4th day. Don't you see some indication that the chapter is not intended to be read as a literal science lesson?

Genesis 1 is most certainly not chronological. For example the sun, moon and stars were created on day 4 after plants.