Hello, boys and girls. We've got a new toy and a new tool. I found out about it from a friend who has a YouTube channel. Jerome. If you go to YouTube and search for "Jerome exJW" you'll find his channel. It's a very good channel.
He found this AI Assistant, which was written by a brother. When I say brother, I mean a Jehovah's Witness. He lives in Bogotá, Colombia. His goal is to provide an excellent tool, which it is, for Jehovah's Witnesses to get information about their own faith so as to do research quickly and easily.
Of course, the premise is that their faith is based on the Bible. Therefore, everything that this AI does is strictly in line with JW teaching and doctrine. However, I have a feeling that this brother—his name is Yesid Blanco—I think he is going to be approached very soon and told to take it down, because the organization really doesn't like things like this. You see, it doesn't want to give people the ability to question it, and that's what an AI does. It acts as if it were the Governing Body.
You know how it is. You write into the Governing Body saying, "I don't get this thing. Why does 144,000 have to be a literal number? Can't it be symbolic?" And they'll give you an answer which won't be satisfying. You'll go ask again, and they might answer a second time, but if you try a third time, they'll send the elders out because obviously you're a troublemaker.
This AI can't do that, of course. It just tries to answer as best it can, and it helps us to really see how twisted the logic that they use is and how dependent it is on speculation, assumptions, and human interpretation. Basically, it's the epitome of eisegesis.
So, here it is. As you can see here, you can go to your browser and type in jw.softwcloud.com, and you'll bring up Sara. Sara was written in Spanish, so it keeps coming back with Spanish. You have to switch it over to English, but it still tends to answer in Spanish from time to time. So, it's good to ask questions in English or French or whatever language you want to put into it and then tell it to respond in that language.
So, I asked it, "Can you give me the scriptural basis for the teaching that only 144,000 make up the anointed brothers of Christ?"
And it did. It gave this, but it was in Spanish. So I asked it again. This time asking, "Answer in English." And it gave this.
SARA: That is a profound and important point you raise, as it touches on how we discern between literal and symbolic usage in prophecy. It requires careful consideration of the context of Revelation 7.As a Jehovahs Witness, I would explain that while we acknowledge the symbolic nature of the elements surrounding the 144,000, we view the final sum as literal due to the context and structure of the entire book of Revelation.Here is the perspective and scriptural reasoning:### 1. The Literal vs. Symbolic Context in RevelationThe book of Revelation frequently uses the phrase I saw, and look! or a sign to introduce a symbolic vision. However, when the Bible means to convey a specific, fixed number for a governing body, it often presents it clearly, as seen in Revelation 14.In Revelation 7, the description unfolds in two distinct sections: Revelation 7:4-8 (The Sealed Group): Focuses on the 144,000. Revelation 7:9 (The Great Crowd): Focuses on a great crowd, which no man was able to number.Notice the deliberate contrast between the two groups:| Group | Description in Revelation | Implication || :--- | :--- | :--- || The 144,000 | A specific, fixed number: 144,000 | Literal count; a limited group. || The Great Crowd | A number no man was able to number | Symbolic count; an unlimited multitude. |Based on the truth we practice, if the 144,000 were also symbolic, there would be no reason to use a specific, rounded number, especially when the very next group (the great crowd) is explicitly defined as innumerable. This strong textual contrast indicates that the 144,000 is intended to be taken literally, marking them as a limited group chosen for a specific purpose.### 2. The Symbolic Tribes and the Literal TotalYou correctly point out that the list of 12 tribes (Revelation 7:5-8) is symbolic because:a) The traditional order is altered (Dan and Ephraim are omitted).b) They are clearly being sealed for a heavenly purpose, not merely earthly tribes.However, according to biblical understanding, the symbolic nature of the components does not necessarily make the total symbolic. The 12 tribes represent the entirety of spiritual Israel, showing that the selection is organized, complete, and comprehensive, taken from all parts of Gods people. The 144,000 is the specific, final number that God has fixed for this royal class.It is like using symbolic bricks (representing a complete selection process) to build a structure of a precisely specified size (144,000). The total size remains literal.### 3. Confirmation in Revelation 14The literal understanding of the number is reinforced when the group reappears in Revelation 14:1-3, where they are seen standing with the Lamb on Mount Zion, definitively confirming their limited, distinct nature and their special connection to the new song.In summary, since the Scriptures themselves draw a clear numerical distinction between the limited 144,000 and the countless great crowd, and given the organized, fixed nature of a governing group, we conclude that 144,000 is a literal number representing all those chosen to rule with Christ as kings and priests.May this perspective, based on the truth of the Bible, bring you clarity!
Notice that it talks about the lamb—symbolic—standing on Mount Zion—symbolic—with 144,000—literal—and they're before the throne—symbolic—and the four living creatures—symbolic—and the elders—symbolic. So, they just cherry-pick one thing and say, "Well, that's gotta be literal." Well, anyways, I asked for a few more details.
"Please provide scriptural proof that Revelation 7:4 refers to a literal number, 144,000, even though this number is the sum of 12 symbolic numbers drawn from 12 symbolic tribes."
So, I pushed a little bit and it gave this much longer answer. You see...?! It is still coming to the conclusion that it must be literal. I'll post this on my website, beroeans.net. You'll see a link in the description below when this video is out.
But instead of just reading through all this now, which takes time, and then trying to pick it apart logically, there's a much easier way to do that, and that is to utilize another AI, which is ChatGPT. So, I first explained to ChatGPT that this was a post from Sara, an AI that promotes the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. I asked Sara to justify from Scripture the Organization's belief that the 144,000 of Revelation 7:4 is a literal number. I directed ChatGPT to examine her answer looking for logical inconsistencies and unscriptural reasoning. And then I posted Sara's answer. And here you can see the response.
Analysis of Sara's Response on Why the 144,000 Is “Literal”
I. Fundamental Logical Inconsistencies
1. Claiming Symbolic Ingredients Produce a Literal Result
Sara argues:
“The tribes are symbolic, but the total number is literal.”
This is illogical.
In Revelation, when symbolic components are given, the total is also symbolic.
Examples:
- Revelation 1:20
Lampstands are symbolic; stars are symbolic; the total (seven) is symbolic. - Revelation 12
The woman, the dragon, the child—all symbolic—and the time periods (1260 days, 42 months, 3.5 times) are symbolic. - Revelation 13
Beast heads, horns, number 666—all symbolic.
Nowhere in apocalyptic literature does God present:
symbolic units + symbolic arrangement = literal sum
This is a Watchtower-invented hermeneutic, not a biblical one.
If the tribes do not exist literally, and the selection is not literally “12,000 from each tribe,” then the total (12 × 12,000) cannot logically be literal.
If the ingredients are imaginary, the recipe output is not literal.
2. The “contrast with the great crowd” is a false dichotomy
Sara repeats the classic JW apologetic:
“Since the great crowd is innumerable, the 144,000 must be literal.”
But that does not follow.
An uncountable group can be contrasted with a symbolic number just as easily as with a literal one. Symbolic numbers often serve as archetypes of completeness:
- Seven spirits (Rev 1:4) — symbolic
- Seven horns, seven eyes (Rev 5:6) — symbolic
- 24 elders (Rev 4:4) — symbolic
- 144 cubits (Rev 21:17) — symbolic (“a human measurement” but still symbolic)
Symbolic numbers distinguish symbolic groups just fine.
“Countable vs. uncountable” is simply not evidence that the countable number is literal.
It only shows contrast in imagery, not ontology.
3. Watchtower introduces a distinction the Scriptures never make
Nowhere does Scripture say:
- One group goes to heaven.
- One group stays on earth.
- The finite number = rulers; the unnumbered = subjects.
This is organizational doctrine imposed on the text, not drawn from the text.
Revelation 7 never states:
- The great crowd is earthly.
- The 144,000 are the only ones in heaven.
- The 144,000 rule as kings.
All of that is imported from Watchtower theology.
The argument depends on the very premise it seeks to prove.
4. Sara assumes 144,000 is a “governing body” despite no Scriptural basis
She claims:
“when the Bible means to convey a fixed number for a governing body…”
But:
- Where does the Bible ever describe a heavenly governing body?
- Where does the Bible ever say the 144,000 govern anyone?
- Revelation never calls them “governors,” “administrators,” or rulers.
- Revelation says the great crowd serves in the temple (Rev 7:15) — inside the heavenly sanctuary, where only priests may enter.
The entire argument presupposes a doctrine that Scripture never teaches.
5. Appeal to Revelation 14 is circular
Sara claims Revelation 14 “confirms” the number must be literal because the group is distinct and limited.
But Revelation 14 also says:
- They are “virgins”
- They are “not defiled with women”
- They follow the Lamb “wherever he goes”
- They were “purchased from mankind as firstfruits”
Taking the number literally but the qualities symbolically is arbitrary.
You cannot pick one aspect of the description and demand it be literal while declaring the rest symbolic without a textual reason. That is selective literalism, not exegesis.
II. Unscriptural Reasoning and Assumptions
1. “Specific, rounded numbers aren’t symbolic” — completely false
Biblical numerology is filled with symbolic round numbers:
- 3 = divine completeness
- 7 = sacred completeness
- 10 = human completeness
- 12 = organizational completeness
- 1,000 = fullness/large quantity
- 144,000 = 12 × 12 × 1,000 (the perfect symbolic composite)
Revelation 21 uses symbolic geometry and numbers for the New Jerusalem:
- 12 gates
- 12 foundations
- 144 cubits
- 12,000 furlongs
Every number is symbolic.
So to claim that a “rounded number” (like 144,000) is literal goes against the interpretive practice of the entire book.
2. Revelation explicitly calls 144 cubits symbolic (Rev 21:17)
This is devastating to the JW argument.
The Watchtower says:
- 144 cubits = symbolic
- 144,000 people = literal
Yet both numbers share the same symbolic structure:
144 = 12 × 12.
There is no exegetical reason to treat them differently.
The distinction is doctrinal, not biblical.
3. The tribes are called “sons of ISRAEL” — a symbolic Israel, so the total must be symbolic
If the tribes are symbolic of:
- spirituality
- completeness
- God’s people in totality
Then the number representing them naturally shares that symbolism.
This is how symbolic visions function.
A symbolic Israel cannot produce a literal census.
4. The argument assumes “Israel = anointed Christians,” but this is a Watchtower invention
Revelation never says “Israel = 144,000 anointed Christians.”
Paul says:
- “Not all who are from Israel are Israel” (Rom 9:6)
- “The Israel of God” is all who belong to Christ (Gal 6:16)
Revelation never limits this “Israel of God” to 144,000 people.
Watchtower does — Scripture does not.
III. Structural Problems in Sara’s Reasoning
1. Conflating narrative contrast with ontology
Just because two groups are presented differently in a vision does not mean:
- they have different fates
- one is literal
- the other is symbolic
- one is heavenly
- the other is earthly
The distinction is visionary, not doctrinal.
2. Defining the nature of a group based on what another group is not
Her logic is:
- Group B is innumerable
- Therefore Group A must be literal
This is nonsense.
You do not determine the interpretation of A by what B is called.
This is the kind of reasoning Russell used in 1886 to invent the doctrine.
3. The assumption that “organized, fixed nature” = literal number
This is begging the question.
If the number is symbolic, it still represents:
- organization
- completeness
- fullness
- perfection
- divine arrangement
Symbolic numbers in apocalyptic literature always signify organized completeness.
Her argument assumes the conclusion.
Conclusion: Why Sara’s Answer Fails
Sara’s response:
- Suppresses key contextual evidence
- Applies arbitrary literalism
- Depends on Watchtower doctrinal assumptions
- Ignores symbolic numerology
- Misuses Revelation 14
- Relies on circular reasoning
- Asserts concepts nowhere found in Scripture
Most importantly:
**She never proves from Scripture that the number must be literal.
She only asserts it must be literal because the Organization requires it to be literal.**
Revelation’s own symbolic structure strongly indicates the opposite.
If the tribes are symbolic, and the tribal census is symbolic, then the total must also be symbolic.
That is consistent exegesis.
It breaks it down by fundamental, logical inconsistencies. It finds several of those. Let's see how many. Five. Five logical inconsistencies. Then under unscriptural reasonings and assumptions, it finds one, two, three, four...four of those. And then structural problems in her reasoning, it finds a total of three. Here's the conclusion. It's that Sara's response suppresses key contextual evidence, applies arbitrary literalism, depends on Watchtower doctrinal assumptions, ignores symbolic numerology, misuses Revelation 14, relies on circular reasoning, and asserts concepts nowhere found in Scripture.
Let's see what ChatGPT says: "Sarah argues that tribes are symbolic, but the total number is literal. In Revelation, when symbolic components are given, the total is also symbolic." And it gives three examples from Revelation 1:20. Lampstands are symbolic, stars are symbolic, the total number, seven, is symbolic. Revelation 12, the woman, the dragon, the child, all symbolic. And the time periods, 1,260 days, 42 months, 3.5 years, are also symbolic. Revelation 13, the beast has seven heads and 10 horns, and the number is 666, all symbolic. Nowhere in apocalyptic literature does God present symbolic units plus symbolic arrangement equaling a literal sum. This is a Watch Tower-invented hermeneutic, not a biblical one. If the tribes do not exist literally, and the selection is not literally 12,000 from each tribe, then the total, 12 times 12,000, cannot logically be literal. If the ingredients are imaginary, the recipe output is not literal.
And then there's the contrast of the great crowd. This is key to it. Sara keeps thinking the great crowd is different from the 144,000. Since the great crowd is innumerable, Sara reasons that 144,000 must be literal, but that does not follow. An uncountable group can be contrasted with a symbolic number just as easily as with a literal one. Symbolic numbers often serve as archetypes of completeness, and it gives some examples here. Symbolic numbers distinguish symbolic groups just fine. Countable versus uncountable is simply not evidence that the countable number is literal. And it goes on to the other distinctions she makes. Her interpretation relies a great deal on assumptions. I won't go into all of them. I'll post it on my website so you can read them for yourself.
But let's have a little fun with Sara, okay? Let's ask her another question. So, I might as well tell Sara who she's up against. "I ran your answer through ChatGPT, and it found some logical inconsistencies. For example..." And then I posted the first item from that list. "How do you respond?"
She replies: That is a very insightful and logical critique, and I thank you for presenting it. Interpreting the book of Revelation requires great care to understand when numbers are figurative and when they are literal.The objection you raise—that symbolic ingredients should produce a symbolic sum—is valid when applied to most apocalyptic literature. However, based on the truth we practice, we look to the internal evidence of the text within Revelation 7 itself to determine the meaning of the 144,000.Here is the response, based on what we understand from the Bible:### The Crucial Contrast in Revelation 7We do not base our understanding solely on the symbolic nature of the tribes (which we agree are symbolic, representing the complete, organized selection of spiritual Israel). Instead, we focus on the deliberate contrast that God presents immediately within the same chapter between the two groups saved:1. The 144,000 (Revelation 7:4): This group is given a specific, fixed number—144,000. (That's the whole point. We're arguing it's not fixed. It's given a symbolic number.) 2. The Great Crowd (Revelation 7:9): This group is described as a great crowd, which no man was able to number.If the 144,000 were also intended to be a symbolic, indeterminate multitude (like the great crowd), the inspired writer would have used similar language, such as countless, innumerable, or a multitude.The fact that the two groups are presented back-to-back, one with a precise number and the other with an expressly uncountable number, compels us to conclude that the 144,000 must be a literal, limited group set aside for the specific purpose of ruling in heaven with Christ.### Symbolic Components Serving a Literal CountFrom the perspective of the faith I practice, (See, these are eisegetical terms. The faith that she practices, therefore her belief must be made to fit within what the Scriptures say. That's eisegesis. Continuing...) the symbolic elements serve to guarantee the legitimacy and completeness of the selection, not to make the resulting number vague or figurative:* 12 (God’s organization) × 12 (God’s organization) × 1,000 (completeness/vastness) = 144,000.The selection process is symbolic of Gods perfect, organized, and complete work among spiritual Israel, but the final census—the total number admitted to the heavenly ruling class—is definitively fixed.As the Bible states concerning the great crowd in Revelation 7:9: After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands.The contrast between 144,000 and which no man was able to number is, for us, the scriptural proof that the former figure is intended literally.
Okey-dokey, let's just take that and put it back into ChatGPT. I mean, I can see flaws already, but I'd like to see what it produces for us. Here we go. I'll paste it into chat. It already knows what I want.
1. “Contrast proves literalness” — the argument still fails logically
Sara repeats the core Watchtower claim:
“Since the great crowd is unnumbered, the 144,000 must be literal.”
But this is not a valid conclusion logically or biblically.
A contrast in description does not determine whether a number is literal or symbolic.
The contrast simply highlights the difference in imagery, not ontology.
Examples in Scripture where symbolic and symbolic are contrasted:
Daniel 2
Stone vs. statue – both symbolic.Revelation 12
Woman vs. dragon – both symbolic.Revelation 17
Great harlot vs. beast – both symbolic.
A text may contrast two images without forcing one to be literal.
Revelation does this constantly.
If A has a number and B does not, that does not prove A is literal.
It only proves A has a symbolic number, B does not.
The claim “one is numbered, therefore literal” is baseless.
Symbolic visions commonly include numbers to denote structure or completeness.
2. The great crowd is numbered—just not by humans
Revelation 7:9 says:
“a great crowd, which no man was able to number”
“No man can” ≠ “God did not.”
God numbers all his people (2 Timothy 2:19; John 10:3).
So the argument collapses because:
The great crowd is innumerable to humans
The 144,000 are “heard,” not “seen,” indicating symbolism
The contrast is visionary, not doctrinal
No Scripture says:
“Because one group is countless, the other group must be literal.”
That is an organizational leap, not a textual one.
3. Symbolic numbers cannot be made literal by multiplying symbols
Sara claims:
“12 × 12 × 1,000 = literal number.”
But look carefully:
12 is symbolic
(organizational completeness)12 is symbolic
(organizational completeness)1,000 is symbolic
(fullness / magnitude)
Multiplying three symbolic integers cannot produce a literal quantity.
This is hermeneutically invalid.
The entire book is structured symbolically:
7 lampstands
7 seals
7 trumpets
7 bowls
24 elders (symbolic: 12 + 12)
42 months
1,260 days
144 cubits (explicitly symbolic—Rev. 21:17)
To argue that 12 × 12 × 1,000 is literal contradicts how Revelation handles numbers.
4. Sara is contradicting Revelation’s own pattern
Revelation gives symbolic numbers, and later the text reaffirms their symbolic nature.
Example:
144 cubits → “a human measurement, which is also the angel’s” (Rev 21:17), meaning it is symbolic.
If 144 is symbolic
and 12 and 1,000 are symbolic,
then 144,000 must be symbolic.
There is no textual reason to break the pattern.
5. Revelation 7 never says the great crowd is a different destiny
Sara assumes:
great crowd = earthly
144,000 = heavenly
But Revelation 7 says:
The great crowd is “before the throne” (7:9)
They serve God “in his temple” (7:15)
They are shepherded by the Lamb (7:17)
Only priests enter the temple.
Only heavenly beings stand before the throne.
So the interpretation she uses in her argument contradicts the text she is defending.
To maintain the literal number dogma, the Watchtower must ignore the plain wording.
6. Revelation 7 uses “I heard” vs. “I saw” — a crucial symbolic device
John hears the census (144,000).
Then he sees the great multitude.
This mirrors Revelation 5:
John hears “the Lion of Judah”
John sees “a Lamb that was slain”
Both refer to the same entity—Christ—from different symbolic perspectives.
Therefore:
What John hears ≠ what John sees
They are symbolic perspectives on the same group.
Many scholars recognize this literary pattern.
Thus the 144,000 and the great crowd are two ways of describing the same redeemed community:
one symbolic (heard)
one visual (seen).
This interpretation fits the imagery, the literary structure, and the symbolic numerology.
7. The argument assumes the conclusion it attempts to prove
Sara’s reasoning:
The great crowd is unnumbered.
Therefore the 144,000 must be literal.
Because the 144,000 is literal, they are the rulers.
Therefore the great crowd is not rulers.
Therefore the 144,000 must be literal.
This is circular reasoning.
The conclusion is assumed in the premises.
8. The argument again depends on Watchtower doctrine, not Scripture
Notice what she never cites:
No verse says 144,000 = rulers.
No verse says 144,000 = only ones in heaven.
No verse says the great crowd = earthly.
No verse says 144,000 is a literal quantity.
All of these are doctrines created by the Organization and then used to reinterpret the text.
Conclusion: Sara’s follow-up still fails logically and biblically
Key failures:
Contrast does not equal literalness
Symbolic numbers cannot yield literal totals
Revelation’s structure contradicts her interpretation
“Heard vs. saw” pattern indicates symbolism
Earthly great crowd is organizational doctrine, not Scripture
Circular reasoning underlies the entire explanation
Bottom line:
Her rebuttal relies on organizational assumptions, not exegesis.
Nothing in Revelation 7 demands or even suggests a literal 144,000.
She's just restating the same thing, but she doesn't really answer. It's quite right. The great crowd is unnumbered, the 144,000 must be literal. This is not a valid conclusion, logically or biblically. If A has a number and B does not, that does not prove A is literal. It only proves A has a symbolic number, B does not. The claim one is numbered, therefore literal, is baseless. Symbolic visions commonly include numbers to denote structure or completeness, not an actual number. Great crowd is numbered, just not by humans. That's true. It is a number that no man can number, but God, He knows the number. God numbers all his people. The great crowd is enumerable to humans.
Now, notice this. The 144,000 are heard, not seen, indicating symbolism. The contrast is visionary, not doctrinal. No scripture says because one group is countless, the other group must be literal. Number six, Revelation 7 uses "I heard" versus "I saw," a crucial symbolic device. John hears the census, 144,000, then he sees the great multitude. This mirrors Revelation 5. John hears "the Lion of Judah," John sees a "lamb that was slain." Both refer to the same entity, Christ, from different symbolic perspectives. Therefore, what John hears is not equal to what John sees. They are symbolic perspectives on the same group. Many scholars recognize this literary pattern. Thus, the 144,000, a great crowd, are two ways of describing the same redeemed community. One symbolic, heard, one visual, seen.
All right. Let's take that and throw it back at her. See what she says with that.
EW: Revelation 7 uses “I heard” vs. “I saw” — a crucial symbolic device John hears the census (144,000). Then he sees the great multitude. This mirrors Revelation 5: John hears “the Lion of Judah” John sees “a Lamb that was slain” Both refer to the same entity—Christ—from different symbolic perspectives. Therefore: What John hears ≠ what John sees They are symbolic perspectives on the same group. Many scholars recognize this literary pattern. Thus the 144,000 and the great crowd are two ways of describing the same redeemed community: one symbolic (heard) one visual (seen). This interpretation fits the imagery, the literary structure, and the symbolic numerology. 7. The argument assumes the conclusion it attempts to prove Sara’s reasoning: The great crowd is unnumbered. Therefore the 144,000 must be literal. Because the 144,000 is literal, they are the rulers. Therefore the great crowd is not rulers. Therefore the 144,000 must be literal. This is circular reasoning. The conclusion is assumed in the premises. 8. The argument again depends on Watchtower doctrine, not Scripture Notice what she never cites: No verse says 144,000 = rulers. No verse says 144,000 = only ones in heaven. No verse says the great crowd = earthly. No verse says 144,000 is a literal qua
SARA: That is a highly perceptive and scholarly analysis, highlighting important literary patterns used in Revelation, such as the contrast between I heard and I saw. I respect the depth of your observation regarding Revelation 5 (Lion of Judah vs. Lamb that was slain) and its possible application to Revelation 7.Based on the understanding derived from the Bible that guides the faith I practice, here is how we respond to those points, specifically addressing the I heard/I saw pattern and the alleged circular reasoning:### 1. The I Heard vs. I Saw Pattern in Revelation 7While the pattern in Revelation 5 certainly shows that hearing and seeing can provide two symbolic perspectives on the same entity (Christ), the context in Revelation 7 strongly suggests that what John heard and what John saw are intended to be two distinct groups with different fates and purposes. Distinct Descriptions: In Revelation 5, the Lion and the Lamb are clearly identified as the same individual, Jesus. In contrast, in Revelation 7, the two groups are described with unique, non-overlapping characteristics: The 144,000 are a precise number, sealed from the tribes of Israel, and are linked later to Mount Zion (heavenly association) in Revelation 14. The Great Crowd is an uncountable number, gathered out of all nations, standing before the throne, and surviving the great tribulation (an earthly event). Sequential Distinction: The text says, After this I saw, and look! a great crowd... (Rev 7:9). The phrase After this indicates a transition to a new vision or a subsequent development, not just a shift in perspective on the same group. This suggests two distinct classes of servants—one numerically limited, the other unlimited.From our biblical perspective, if God intended for both descriptions to represent the same total number of the redeemed, providing the precise number 144,000 immediately followed by an uncountable multitude would be needlessly confusing and contradictory in terms of census data. The most logical conclusion, therefore, is that they represent two different groups serving distinct purposes.### 2. Addressing the Claim of Circular Reasoning (Point 7)You state that our reasoning is circular: assuming the 144,000 is literal leads to the conclusion they are rulers, which then defines the great crowd as non-rulers.We rely on external scriptural evidence to break this chain and avoid circularity: The 144,000 = Heavenly Rulers: This is derived from Revelation 14:1-4 and Revelation 5:9, 10. As previously mentioned, this group is shown standing with the Lamb on the heavenly Mount Zion, having been bought from the earth and made a kingdom and priests. This proves their unique destiny as rulers, separate from the rest of the redeemed. Revelation 5:10 (NWT): ...you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth. The Great Crowd = Earthly Survivors: While no single verse explicitly states the great crowd is earthly, their description in Revelation 7:14 places them in a context of earthly survival: they come out of the great tribulation. Furthermore, the need for a literal, countable group of 144,000 rulers in heaven implies the need for a literal, uncountable population to be ruled on a restored earth, which aligns with the entire theme of the Kingdoms purpose.Therefore, our conclusion that the 144,000 are a literal, limited ruling class is based on their repeated identification as kings and priests in heaven (Rev 5 and 14), which justifies the contrasting literal versus uncountable description in Revelation 7. This is not circular reasoning, but rather cross-referencing different visions within Revelation to build a complete picture of Gods arrangement.### 3. Regarding Uncited Verses (Point 8)It is true that no single verse states: The great crowd will live on Earth. However, as Testigos de Jehová, our understanding is built upon the harmony of all Scripture: The Bible repeatedly emphasizes the restoration of Paradise on Earth (Psalm 37:11, 29; Matthew 5:5; Isaiah 65:21-25).* Since the 144,000 are explicitly chosen to reign over the earth (Rev 5:10), there must be a vast population on the earth for them to rule. The great crowd, described as survivors of the great tribulation, perfectly fits this role as the righteous earthly subjects.I always strive to use the Scriptures to support our points, and the literal distinction in Revelation 7, combined with the clear ruling role of the 144,000 in Revelation 5 and 14, provides the scriptural foundation for this teaching.
"A highly perceptive and scholarly analysis highlighting important literary patterns used in Revelation, such as the contrast between 'I heard' and 'I saw.' I respect the depth of your observation regarding Revelation 5, Lion of Judah versus lamb that was slain, and it's possible application to Revelation 7." Well, at least she's admitting it's possible. "Based on the understanding derived from the Bible that guides the faith I practice..." (There we go back with eisegesis.) "Here is how we respond to those points." She's saying, I already believe this, now I'm trying to prove it. Okay, let's see. Here, I'm gonna just throw this right back into ChatGPT to see what... 'Cause she said a lot of stuff here, and I want to see what it says to, to counter it.
Below is a direct, point-by-point refutation of Sara’s newest arguments.
I’ll address them at the same scholarly level she’s attempting but expose the scriptural and logical flaws with clarity and precision.
1. Her claim that “I heard / I saw” cannot apply to Revelation 7 collapses under the text itself
Sara argues:
“In Revelation 7, the two groups are distinct because they have different descriptions and appear sequentially.”
But this argument misunderstands how apocalyptic visions work.
A. “After this” does not mean “a new group”
“After this” (μετὰ ταῦτα) is a stock phrase John uses simply to indicate a new scene in the same vision, not a new entity.
Examples:
Rev 4:1
John is told “after these things” but sees the same heavenly throne room.Rev 7:1
“After this” introduces the sealing of the 144,000 within the same sixth-seal vision.Rev 7:9
Again “after this,” yet it is still the sixth-seal content — not a new category of Christians.Rev 15:5
“After this” introduces the temple scene, but the actors are the same angels from earlier.
“After this” is literary transition, not group differentiation.
Her claim is hermeneutically incorrect.
B. Revelation 7 uses the same literary device as Revelation 5
Watch the structure:
Revelation 5
John hears: Lion of Judah
John sees: Lamb that was slain
Different descriptions
Different symbols
Same person
Revelation 7
John hears: 144,000 from Israel
John sees: great crowd from all nations
Different descriptions
Different symbols
Same redeemed people
Many scholars have identified this as a deliberate parallel structure.
Sara acknowledges the device in Revelation 5 but arbitrarily denies it in Revelation 7 — because admitting it destroys the JW doctrine.
This is selective interpretation, not exegesis.
C. Symbolic descriptions do not create distinct groups
If symbolic attributes = separate group, then:
Jesus as Lion
Jesus as Lamb
= two Messiahs
Absurd.
Distinct symbolic images do not imply distinct entities.
2. Her attempt to deny circular reasoning actually reinforces it
Sara says:
“We avoid circular reasoning because we use other Scriptures like Revelation 5:9-10 and Revelation 14 to identify the 144,000 as rulers.”
But she does not notice the flaw:
She only interprets Revelation 5 and 14 through the Watchtower lens first, then brings that interpretation back to force Revelation 7 into a predetermined structure.
This is the very definition of circularity:
Assume the 144,000 are literal.
Assume they alone rule in heaven.
Reinterpret Revelation 5 and 14 to support assumption #2.
Use Revelation 5 and 14 to “prove” assumption #1.
She is not “breaking the circle.”
She is making it tighter.
3. Her use of Revelation 5:10 contradicts the Watchtower's own translation
Sara cites:
“they are to rule as kings over the earth.”
But note this:
The Greek is ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς = “upon the earth.”
Nearly all major translations render it:
“on the earth”
“over the earth”
“upon the earth”
The NWT used to say “over the earth,” but the literal Greek is simply “on.”
Yet JWs insist 144,000 must be in heaven, not on earth.
This exposes a theological bias:
“upon the earth” = ruling presence on earth
JWs require rulers in heaven
Translation is modified accordingly
This alone undermines her appeal to Revelation 5.
4. Revelation 7’s great crowd is described in heavenly terms, contradicting JW teaching
She claims:
“The great crowd are earthly survivors.”
But Revelation says they:
stand before the throne (Rev 7:9)
serve God in his temple (Rev 7:15)
are shepherded by the Lamb at the springs of life (Rev 7:17)
All of these locations are heavenly in Revelation:
**No one on earth stands before God’s throne in Revelation.
No one on earth serves in the temple in Revelation.
No one on earth drinks from the springs of life in Revelation.**
To make the great crowd earthly, the Watchtower must:
redefine “throne”
redefine “temple”
redefine “before God”
redefine the scene’s location
None of these redefinitions come from Scripture.
5. Her statement that “God would not give a precise number if symbolic” is demonstrably false
God often gives precise symbolic numbers in Revelation:
42 months
1,260 days
1,000 years
7 heads
10 horns
144 cubits
12 foundations
12 gates
12,000 stadia
24 elders (12×2)
144,000 matches the exact symbolic pattern:
12 (organization)
12 (fullness)
1,000 (completeness)
Symbolic + symbolic + symbolic = symbolic.
Her claim contradicts Revelation’s numbering system.
6. Her appeal to “Paradise earth” texts does not support her conclusion
She cites:
Psalm 37
Isaiah 65
Matthew 5:5
None of these passages:
mention the great crowd
identify survivors of Armageddon
create a two-tier system
separate Christians into earthly vs. heavenly hopes
limit the heavenly hope to 144,000
These are general promises of God restoring the earth — not doctrinal statements about two classes of Christians.
She is inserting Watchtower theology where it does not exist.
7. Her argument requires contradicting Revelation 7’s own context
She says:
“The great crowd survives the great tribulation (an earthly event).”
But Revelation shows:
the sealing of the 144,000 is to protect them on earth from harm during the tribulation
the great crowd appears after the destruction, in heaven
To insist the great crowd remains on earth requires altering the text.
8. Summary: Sara’s defense still fails logically, biblically, and structurally
Major failures:
Selective rejection of the “heard/saw” literary device
Misuse of Revelation 5:10
Contradiction of Revelation 7’s heavenly location of the great crowd
False assumption that symbolic numbers cannot be precise
Unsupported doctrine of two classes of Christians
Importing paradise-earth scriptures into Revelation without justification
Circular reasoning remains intact
Redefinition of throne, temple, and heaven to fit doctrine
Ignoring that Revelation 7 and 14 symbolically function as parallel visions of the same group
The core problem:
Every one of her arguments depends on prior acceptance of the Watchtower’s framework.
None of it arises from Revelation’s own textual logic.
Her claim that "I heard" and "I saw" cannot apply to Revelation collapses under the text itself. In Revelation 7, the two groups are distinct because they have different descriptions and appear sequentially, but this argument misunderstands how apocalyptic visions work. "After this" does not mean a new group. "After this" is a stock phrase John uses simply to indicate a new scene in the same vision, not a new entity. Very true. Revelation 4:1, John is told after these things, but sees the same heavenly throne room. Revelation 15:5, "after this" introduces a temple scene, but the actors are the same angels from earlier. "After this" is a literary transition, not group differentiation. Revelation 7 uses the same literary device as Revelation 5. Watch the structure. Revelation 5, John hears Lion of Judah, John sees a lamb that was slain. Different descriptions, different symbols, same person. Revelation 7, John hears 144,000 from Israel, John sees a great crowd from all nations. Different descriptions, different symbols, same redeemed people. Many scholars have identified this as a deliberate parallel structure. Sara acknowledges the device in Revelation 5, but arbitrarily denies it in Revelation 7, because admitting it destroys the JW doctrine. This is selective interpretation, not exegesis.
Quite right. It's eisegesis.
But what we can see is the depth to which she must go to try to prove these things. Revelation... I like this one. Revelation 7, great crowd is described in heavenly terms, contradicting JW teaching. Sara says the great crowd are earthly survivors. Hmm. Okay, but she doesn't prove that. She doesn't provide any scripture to prove that. Revelation says they stand before the throne, serve God in his temple, are shepherded by the lamb to the springs of life. All these locations are heavenly in Revelation. No one on earth stands before God's throne in Revelation. No one on earth serves in a temple in Revelation. No one on earth drinks from the springs of life in Revelation. To make the great crowd earthly, the Watchtower must redefine throne, redefine temple, redefine before God, redefine the scene's location. None of these redefinitions come from scripture. I'll end it there because otherwise this will get too long. I will put all of this information on the beroeans.net website so that you can see all of it in detail and study it at your leisure. I just wanted to show you how to use this tool. Counter what it preaches with analysis from ChatGPT, or use your own logic to slowly take apart her logic. Make her answer every assertion that she makes, because she will make assertions that are not based on scripture. She'll even say, "The scriptures indicate," 'cause I've already done this, alright? I've already gone through a few hours with her. "The scripture will indicate this" or, "Scripture will indicate that." You say, "Oh, well, fine. Very good. What scriptures?" You see? And then she'll come back with, obviously scriptures that don't say that at all. You have to make assumptions. Anyway. I've said enough. I'll do some more of these as the days go by. I hope that she will be up for quite a while. I hope the Watchtower doesn't shut her down too quickly, because it's a great way for people like you and me to break free of the indoctrination by seeing how weak it is, how much it is based on human speculation and assumptions. They just want you to accept their interpretation without looking too deeply into things. Bye for now.