From Jim Hamby to Ben Whitfield

Ben
The sermon left me with a few unanswered questions i wrote down.
Why didn't Mr. Armstrong use the letter or later acknowledge the letter reply from Mordicai Joseph from the Rabbi Ben Zion Bergman of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles? I do not know the answer to this one. (The letter also may not have come intime for HWA, since his letter was dated the same time as Mordicai Joseph's. There was a great deal of research going on at the time from many corners.) Yes I would imagine had HWA used Mordicai Joseph's letter it may, have set better, but he did not. The other information I passed on to you and what you have in your letters of previous origin must all be used together. However, one must also realize the cultural atmosphere that surrounded HWA and the administration at that time. Many meetings were being held and lots of verbal discussions were going on...we do not have any of that information to fall back on. I'm sure the atmosphere was rather "charged" for sure. But HWA still made the correct decision to change the day on which we observed Pentecost from Monday to Sunday, which the scriptures still support. It took a great deal of factual information for HWA to make a change, but when enough of it was presented to him and he did his own personal research he changed. This is one of the true marks of a servant of God--when faced with facts that would change a previously held position regarding truth one changes to be in line with scripture and God's word. Few men exercise this quality. HWA was one and RCM is another. But one must present enough truth from the word of God to back up what needs to be addressed. We tend to forget that HWA took years to develop doctrine within the church and as you know from some of his early writings he changed a number of doctrines as he came to understand them more accurately.

It surely would have had more weight with the brethren than the RSV translators, mentioned in the Feb 11 1974 letter to the members.Perhaps so; however, in HWA's letter he used and quoted the RSV translators, but he did have other proofs available. The RSV was more effective in his understanding and he shared that proof source with us. It must have been the one source that made sense to him. (I personally do not know why he went this way, but he did.) HWA and many in the early days of the church in our age have come from (as I explained) a Protestant and Roman view point, not a Jewish background. Perhaps this is why HWA felt more comfortable using the RSV translators. But as you look over all of the information, he did consider many Jewish sources as well...he just did not quote their sources in his final letter. Would this have helped, yes it would have. But it is now 27 years after the fact and HWA is not alive to ask. Raymond McNair who was one of the principles in bringing the information to HWA, he might know more of the details. HWA didn't really answer to anyone other than to Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the church and He was using HWA directly as an Apostle in this end time. The others on his council were his advisors, not ultimate authority...that came only from Jesus Christ. Therefore when HWA understood what the scriptures said to him he responded accordingly.

I don't think this would be the case. The postponement of the "Wave Sheaf" offering affected the beginning of Nisan/Abib, it's New Moon or the 1st of the month. Once that was addressed Pentecost would always be 50 days beyond the "Wave Sheaf" (Lev 23:15-16)...the "Wave Sheaf" was the day after the Sabbath. The high priest had enough information to also bring about a calculated calendar based not only on observation, but previous experience and calculation. The Hebrew world throughout the ages had communication skills that would reach throughout the known world and if there was a famine going on in Jerusalem, someplace else there wasn't. But we do not have any record of this ever happening. (That doesn't mean it didn't, the scriptures are silent and as a result we just don't know.)

According to the official Church view, when was the set calendar placed into practice? Jim, I have not seen an "official" statement from the church on "When was the set calendar placed into practice..." from San Diego. However, from what I personally see all of the evidence we have from scripture the calculated calendar has been around since creation...when God created time. From the text we know that God intervened from time to time to "reset" things and explain to men (such as Moses) when the calendar should be referenced (Ex 12:1-3...this probably is the first evidenced of the calendar being recorded...@1486 BC...in an official way. Just like the 10 commandments were in existence prior to Exodus 20, but in Exodus 20 we see them codified for the first time. Therefore I can see why some would say that the calendar wasn't noted officially prior to Exodus 12.

I know that when David mentioned in 1 Samuel 20:5 that tomorrow was to be a New Moon, and Jonathon in vs. 18, that a set calendar must have been in place, but why has the church in the past said only in the 1500's was a set calendar in place? See above response. (Also, the time of King David was @1000AD, almost 500 years after the Exodus.) The Sanhedrin officially started with Moses and Aaron and was given the authority at that time "to proclaim the holydays in their seasons"...thus the calendar officially had its beginning. Yet we can see from the text that the calculated/observable calendar was in existence prior to that. It's that the nation of Israel had it's official beginning with Moses and Aaron...thus the church uses this time to site the beginning of the calendar. (Another analogy is that our United States Declaration of Independence 1776 and the US Constitution 1782 marks the official start of the US; however, there were lots of folks living in this country prior to our nation's official existence.)

What about the 19 year cycles? Do postponements screw them up as well? Especially in dealing with all the prophecies of 19 year and 1900 year etc. I do not feel the postponements cause the 19 year cycles to become distorted. The postponements are adjustments within the calendar itself for that particular year. It aligns the lunar calendar with the solar...the two requirements necessary for the sacred Hebrew calendar to work properly and for the spring feast (Passover and UB) to be in the spring and not rotate back and fall during the winter. And for the fall holydays (Trumpets, Atonement, and FOT) to be in the fall and not end up in the summer. Also, I think it's interesting to note that the Jubilee is also tied with the calendar and if you look at the broad picture it's been almost 40 jubilees since Christ died. According to some Christ died in a Jubilee year. Interesting isn't it. Does God's luni-solar calendar change simply because we haven't paid attention to it? No, on the contrary...God keeps perfect time just as He is perfect. Stop and think about this for a minute (no pun intended). God's calendar has been around since He created time! As man comes in contact with God at various personal periods in History (Abraham, Moses, David, Christ and the early Apostolic period)...we often see God showing man when His calendar is to be noted. So too in our day...It's our understanding that is coming in line with His mind as we draw closer to Him, His way and begin to "come in sync" with His plan don't you think? .... Especially since the end of the age is shortly upon us. It's going to be imperative that the church be "on time"...with God's time. Not the other way around.

Some have said because of the 150 day time frame that Noah was said to be on the Ark at that specific time, he did not have a set calendar because the time frame is off by some days? this is from the Frank Nelte article i believe.

You sent the article to me, maybe you can shed some light on this? Who knows for exact certainty. I just look at what the text references. I do know that Frank Nelte tends to be in disagreement on a number of things in order to prove his position. (When I forward articles, please do not assume that I might condone anything or everything said in an article or support the article in the first place. It's that in a particular article some differing views may shed some light, differently or not, on a particular subject. When doing research one must be fully aware of all of the various arguments.) I hope I haven't misled you here. It's always good that you ask.

Also on another note, there is circulating around that before HWA died that Sunday Resurrection was acceptable. Some may have felt this, especially since some of the architects of the heresies that later rocketed WCG were already there. However, RCM and others have always preached a weekly Sabbath resurrection just prior to sundown. What was presented Sunday morning was the wave sheaf offering...the time Jesus Christ was presented to the heavenly Father at God's throne. Some of the presenters shortly after HWA's death were literally scripted by Mike Feazell and instructed to preach a Sunday Resurrection...this is when the apostasy really began in earnest...but I think this was a few years after HWA's death, not prior. Could a Sunday Resurrection have been substituted for the Wave Sheaf offering? Yes most definitely and it was. This is how heresy slips in, often subtly, then as the crack is created other more devastating heresies are brought in wholesale. We've lived through one of the greatest heretical periods in church history. Amazing isn't it.