Jump to content

Bible Speaks

“Send out your light and your truth."

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Bible Speaks -
Bible Speaks -
1
822

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

“Send out your light and your truth. May these themselves lead me.” Psalm 43:3.  JEHOVAH is very considerate in the way he makes his purposes known to his servants. Instead of revealing the truth all at once in one blinding flash of light, he enlightens us progressively. Our trek along life’s pathway might be compared to a walk that a hiker takes down a long trail. He starts out early in the morning and sees little. As the sun begins to rise slowly over the horizon, the hiker is able to distinguish a few features of his surroundings. The rest he sees in hazy outline. But as the sun continues its ascent, he can see farther and farther into the distance. So it is with the spiritual light that God provides. He allows us to discern a few things at a time. God’s Son, Jesus Christ, provided spiritual enlightenment in a similar manner. Let us learn how Jehovah enlightened his people in ancient times and how he does so today.

IMG_8016.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Similar Content

    • By 4Jah2me
      I do hear occasionally on this forum, the expression of, (oh dear it's gone now), I'll say Basic beliefs, Foundation beliefs, of Jehovah's Witnesses. 
      My point being, when were those basic foundations started ?  Yes we have Russell and Rutherford et al. So who decided what was what and when ? 
      We have things like 'hell fire' eternal damnation' ' soul in continual punishment' etc. But who basically found the truth from God's word about 'The dead are conscious of nothing at all' ?
      Then we have the 'resurrection of the dead',  those being split into heavenly and earthly. Who decided these things from scriptures ? And when ? 
      It would probably take me 10 years, which I probably do not have left, to research all the things I wish to know. 
      So here is a question. From 1960, what new serious Bible knowledge do we have from those whom regard themselves as the F&DS or top of the tree ?
      What have they given to the congregation that is of extreme importance ?  BUT, more importantly what have they given that they haven't changed since giving it ? 
      So we've lost the 7,000 year creative days. We've lost Armageddon in 1975, We've lost no blood / replaced with blood fractions. We've lost the Superior Authorities as God and Christ, and probably lots more. BUT what important beliefs have we gained since 1960 ? What IMPORTANT SCRIPTURAL input have those at the top made since 1960 ? 
       
    • By 4Jah2me
      Point 1. I really do laugh at this term "Only game in town"   As I've said before the JEWISH RELIGIOUS LEADERS would have said that serving God by obeying THEM and the Mosaic Law, was the only game in town. Jesus however proved those Religious leaders to be wrong. Jesus and his disciples carried over the good points of the Mosaic Law and discarded the bits no longer needed. (Such as animal sacrifices, circumcision etc). 
      Russell & Co came out of former religions. I presume they must have carried over some good points from those former religions, then made adjustments or changed doctrines.
      So why would it not be possible for people that have left the JW Org to form a new religion ?  Carrying over the good and disposing of the bad, of which there seems to be plenty....
      I'm not saying it will happen but it does dispose of this idea of 'the only game in town' brainwashing. JW's seem to be taught that there cannot be anything else ever. What if Russell had believed that, the Bible Students would have never been formed. 
      Point 2.  The 'Truth' / JW Org.
      As I read more and more on here I am finding out that the Governing Body / Writing Dept'  / Legal Dept' et al,  have deliberately told many lies.
      The latest I'm reading (on a new topic on here) but the info stems back a while, seems to contain information whereby the 'Org' / those in charge at the time, implied, that children cannot get baptised, and that blood transfusions were acceptable to the Organisation. It seems that this was written in order to get favours from a certain government. 
      Both of those things are lies but seem to be deliberately used for some form of dishonest gain.
      Then of course we have lawyers telling lies in court about shunning. 
      And C.S.A court cases have proved that elders and others have deliberately lied. And the American 'section' of the JW Org deliberately withholding information regarding such matters.
      Link this to misuse of scriptures, such as, Superior Authorities, which deliberately took away people's conscience / freedom of choice, in WW2.
      And I'm sure people here can come up with lots more examples of lies, deliberate wrongdoing, mistakes, misinterpretations, 'new light' corrections et al.
      Why am i writing all this ?  Well I am proving two points. 
      1. If it's your 'only game in town' then it's not a good one. 
      2. That calling it 'The Truth' is totally deceptive.
      I do not think you would like it if I gave you a meal that was three quarters yummy, but a quarter poison. The poison might well contaminate the good food !
      So, saying that the Org / GB are three quarters right does not help. 
       
       
       
       
    • By Bible Speaks
      How did you learn the Truth? 
      I was raised in the Truth. ?

    • By JOHN BUTLER
      "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,"
      2 Timothy 3 v 16
      Was this in it's way a small prophecy ?                 
      The 2nd book of Timothy was written 65 C.E.  However 1,2,3, John and Revelation were written much later.
      So we have two points, 1. The writings were not complete when Paul wrote that information. 2, The Bible had not been constructed so no idea would have been formed as to what the Bible would contain. 
      Were there other writings ? Would they be considered as Scripture? 
      It seems that Paul was inspired to write that "All scripture is inspired.... " 
       
    • By Srecko Sostar
      "clear, pure water of truth" ?? ...and famous question that can be hear from platform and in witnessing "Would you drink water from a glass with just one drop of poison in it?"
       
      Water That Leads to Life
      ..."Jehovah’s Witnesses invite you to taste the pure waters of truth." .....
      [Picture on page 9]
      "You can find the ‘waters of truth’ at your local Kingdom Hall"
       https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009003
    • By Jack Ryan
      In paragraph 9 of this weeks Watchtower it was talking about how children’s comments at the meetings can prompt newly interested ones to recognise the ring of truth.
      I donÂ’t recall ever hearing it referred to as the ring of truth before. Is this a new phrase theyÂ’re going to try and get everybody using along the lines of, the truth, the brotherhood, this wicked system of things, etc etc.
       
    • By Queen Esther
      THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  CHRISTMAS......
      The year was 1928, when Jehovah's people came to understand the God-dishonoring roots of Christmas. Since then, the pagan roots of Christmas customs have become general public knowledge..... but few people have made changes in their way of life as a result. But, Jehovah's Witnesses are always willing to make the needed changes in order to become more acceptable as servants of Jehovah God.
      When shown that celebrating the birth of Jesus had actually become of greater interest to people than the ransom provided by his death; that the revelry of the holiday and the spirit in which many gifts were given did not honor God;  that the magi whose gift-giving was being imitated were actually demon-inspired astrologers;  that parents set an example for their children in lying by what they told them about Santa Claus;  that  "St. Nicholas"
      (Santa Claus) was admittedly another name for Satan the Devil himself;  and that such festivals were, as acknowledged  by Cardinal Newman in his "Essay on the development of Christian Doctrine" were "the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship"  the church had adopted....  When made aware of these things, Jehovah's Witnesses promptly and permanently ceased having any part in  Christmas  celebrations.
      Jehovah's Witnesses do have good times with their family and friends. But, they do not participate in holidays and celebrations that are linked with pagan gods (as is true of such holidays as Easter, New Year's Day,  May Day and Mother's day).  Read, 2.Cor. 6:14-17.  Like the early Christians,  Jehovah's Witnesses do not even celebrate birthdays. They also respectfully refrain from sharing in national holidays, that memorialize political or military events and also refrain from giving worshipful honor to national heroes.
      WHY ?
      BECAUSE  JEHOVAH'S  WITNESSES  ARE  NO  PART  OF  THE  WORLD !
      Reference, Proclaims Book,  pages  198-200....
      ( by  Brother  Roger B. Elder )     Thank  you  Brother  Elder !
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Transcript - Promoting Love and Respect for Truth.pdf
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
    • By Jack Ryan
      Governments who support “religious freedom” over the equal human rights and dignity of others condone, and even endorse discrimination.

      Tim Rymel, M.Ed., Contributor Author | Educator | Dad
      In April, Russia’s Supreme Court labeled Jehovah’s Witnesses an extremist religious group. “It effectively means that holding their beliefs and manifesting them is tantamount to a criminal act in Russia. They risk new levels of persecution by the Russian authorities,” said international legal counsel, Lorcan Price.
      In America, most of us think of Jehovah’s Witnesses as that occasional Saturday nuisance. They interrupt our morning breakfast or afternoon chores to tell us their version of the Christian faith. They cheerfully drag their families along for quiet strolls through the neighborhoods, and pass out Watchtower Magazines for us to throw away later.
      Annoying? Yes. Disruptive? Usually. But extremist? That depends.
      Growing up in the Pentecostal faith, I was taught that Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Catholics were not Christians. Anyone who converted to those, or other non-mainstream Christian sects, was deceived by the devil. Though we didn’t use the word “extremist” to define those religions, we certainly saw them as a threat to the true people of God who were susceptible to “false teachings.”
      Religion, to paraphrase Merriam-Webster, is generally a belief in the supernatural with a commitment to keep up the attitudes and practices surrounding that belief. In other words, religion is more than just a belief it is an action. For some, that means attending church on Sundays. For others, it means killing people for believing the wrong things, or believing in the wrong way.
      The BBC noted that Al Qaeda’s purpose is to avenge “wrongs committed by Christians against Muslims.” The organization wants to implement a “single Islamic political leadership,” and drive away non-Muslims from areas it deems belong to the nation of Islam.
      ISIS, on the other hand, is a group of Scriptural fundamentalists who believe all other Muslims are apostates. William McCants, director of the Project on US Relations With the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution, says that ISIS wants “to restore the early Islamic empire called the caliphate and eventually take over the whole world.”
      Most of us can agree that Al Qaeda and ISIS are extremist groups. After all, they plan and implement terrorist attacks. They kill people, sometimes brutally. But is violence the only indicator of religious extremism?
      It could certainly be argued that when a religion becomes violent it becomes extremist. But even Christianity, in it’s many definitions, has a sorted history, which is seldom talked about and often dismissed. From the Spanish inquisition to the convert-or-die tactics used on Native American Indians, Christianity has been used to commit horrific acts of violence throughout the centuries. Judaism, from which Christianity arose, recorded shocking details in the Torah of the slaughter of entire populations, including women, children, and animals.
      Any religion, which purports to, alone, have all truth, and to, alone, have a direct line of communication to God, has a propensity toward extremist ideology. As University of Notre Dame Professor, Gary Gutting, points out:
      Any religion that denies the value and humanity of others is an extremist religion. Whether those actions lead to direct harm, or simply reduce protections through legislation, extremist ideology seeks to create one class that is believed to be more valued than another.
      The grandstanding that fundamentalist Christians have done since marriage equality passed in 2015 has created a growing, and disturbing trend toward extremist Christianity.
      The Oath Keepers, a vigilante Christian group, vowed to protect Kentucky County Clerk, Kim Davis, when she refused issuing a marriage license to a gay couple. They stated the judge in Davis’ case “needs to be put on notice that his behavior is not going to be accepted and we’ll be there to stop it and intercede ourselves if we have to.” And then, in an ironic twist to the story, the infamous Westboro Baptist Church, of “God hates fags” fame, picketed Kim Davis because of her multiple divorces and remarriages.
      Since then, dozens of “religious freedom” bills have been introduced across the country with the sole purpose of reducing or eliminating protections for the LGBT community in housing, employment, benefits, and even where they can go to the bathroom.
      The problem, of course, is that “religious freedom” is based on nothing more than a belief. Governments who support “religious freedom” over the equal human rights and dignity of others condone, and even endorse discrimination. In any such environment religious extremism is the outcome, threatening the very existence of democracy.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/when-is-a-religion-extremist_us_590de8e3e4b046ea176aeb98
    • By The Librarian
      “What Is Truth?”
      THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.
      Pilate indifferently rejected the opportunity to learn such truth. What about you?
      Learn more about Jesus Christ:
       
       
    • By Bible Speaks
      25 "Therefore, now that you have put away deceit, each one of you speak truth with his neighbor, because we are members belonging to one another." (Eph.4:25) NWT
      Don't let your ears witness what your eyes didn't see. Don't let your mouth speak what your heart doesn't  feel.    Live a honest life for Jehovah! 

      IMG_8907.mov
    • By Bible Speaks
      42 "But we have renounced the shameful, underhanded things, not walking with cunning or adulterating the word of God; but by making the truth manifest, we recommend ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God."
      (2 Cor. 4:2)

    • By Bible Speaks
      15O Jehovah, who may
             be a guest in your tent?
      Who may reside in your holy mountain?
       2 The one who is walking faultlessly,
      Practicing what is right
      And speaking the truth in his heart."
                 (Psalm 15:1,2)       Do not let your mouth say       what your heart doesn't feel. 
    • By Bible Speaks
      What Does the Bible Say About Christmas? ???????
      The Bible’s answer
      The Bible does not give the date of Jesus’ birth, nor does it say that we should celebrate his birthday. As McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states: “The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of NT [New Testament] origin.” Instead, an examination of the history of Christmas exposes its roots in pagan religious rites. The Bible shows that we offend God if we try to worship him in a way that he does not approve of.—Exodus 32:5-7.  History of Christmas customs
      Celebrating Jesus’ birthday: “The early Christians did not celebrate [Jesus’] birth because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom.”—The World Book Encyclopedia.
      •December 25: There is no proof that Jesus was born on that date. Church leaders likely chose this date to coincide with pagan festivals held on or around the winter solstice.
      •Gift-giving, feasting, partying: The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Saturnalia, a Roman feast celebrated in mid-December, provided the model for many of the merry-making customs of Christmas. From this celebration, for example, were derived the elaborate feasting, the giving of gifts, and the burning of candles.” The Encyclopædia Britannica notes that “all work and business were suspended” during Saturnalia.
      •Christmas lights: According to The Encyclopedia of Religion, Europeans decorated their homes “with lights and evergreens of all kinds” to celebrate the winter solstice and to combat evil spirits.
      •Mistletoe, holly: “The Druids ascribed magical properties to the mistletoe in particular. The evergreen holly was worshiped as a promise of the sun’s return.”—The Encyclopedia Americana.
      •Christmas tree: “Tree worship, common among the pagan Europeans, survived after their conversion to Christianity.” One of the ways in which tree worship survived is in the custom of “placing a Yule tree at an entrance or inside the house in the midwinter holidays.”—Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-christmas/

    • By Bible Speaks
      @caribbeangiirll shares with us: “My sister and I are out in service working the territory in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles. It was our first time doing territory work here since both of us were living in Canada and took the truth there. We had so much fun sharing the good news here.”
    • By Bible Speaks
      @almaguers123 from Corpus Christi,Texas, USA shares with us: “Our first part as a family!!! My husband finally made the truth his own and was baptized this year. So happy we almost couldn’t contain ourselves. Thanks to Jehovah’s undeserved kindness we are enjoying many blessings together.” Baptisms Corpus Christi Texas USA
    • By Bible Speaks
      "Ride in the cause of truth and humility."—Ps. 45:4.
  • Forum Statistics

    61,556
    Total Topics
    113,282
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,484
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    César Chávez
    Newest Member
    César Chávez
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Only to a selected few. The key word is "sniff". You just made my day. From plus to minus, if it is JW Elders, then what would be the opposite of that?
    • Does it really matter who a person on here is ?  Does it matter if a person uses 10 different 'usernames' ? If a person can bring some info' to the table that is surely good ?  Then others can confirm or criticise that info.  But to waffle on about who a person is or is not, what good is that doing any of us ?  I have a theory that this Forum is run by JW Elders. The purpose of the forum being to study the feelings and actions of JW's, Ex-JW's, Apostates, et al.  Then those Elders report their finding to a superior body, and it may even get to the GB.   But this theory does me no good, nor anyone else, so I will keep it to myself  .  Coffee time. 
    • @Arauna  Quote " I think that things LOST are a better topic "  But it isn't the topic. You would want it to be because as I've noticed you don't seem to have any things GAINED'  The GB have lumped great weights onto the shoulders of the congregants and the GB nor Elders lift a finger to help.  Just as the Pharisees did, adding negativity but nothing positive.  What I'm showing is that the GB is not motivated by Holy Spirit, and is not moving the CCJW forward. It is stagnant, but wallowing in immorality. 
    • Look, I like you, and all. I really do. Besides, I owe you for constructive criticism of my books. I share your prioritization of the overall picture and your frustration at some ragged human edges. So should I play this way? Hmm. Ah, well, I have a touch of OCD. Everyone knows it. I’ll ask for forgiveness later: “Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them. Then Jehovah said to Satan: I mean, come on! There! Now, a couple of caveats. Of course, he is not the devil. Nor is it the whistleblower talk that prompts the characterization. It is the atheism in combination with his relentless opposition—he has spurned and opposes EVERYTHING, not just characters of the past that appear squirrelly. And his plain self-worship, as manifest by his need to correct every little detail....who does THAT remind you of? Nor, obviously, are you Jehovah—any more than I am.  https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/11/oh-no-i-would-never-presume-to-compare-myself-with-the-most-high-god.html
    • Every word emanating from my keyboard is laden with value. They positively reek with the stuff. All words from any other source should be disposed of. There is one or two Dilberts from JTR that are pretty good, but other than that.....out to the curb with everything except my posts! My favorite memory with Alan is when he was carrying on about his atheism and evolution, and I came onboard as Dr. Adhominem or someone to discuss learnedly with him the problem of persuading the rank and file about evolutionary psychology, since there really is no evidence and its little more than wishful evolutionist thinking—to see how long I could pull the scam before he knew he was being had. It went for two or three comments. Of course, it was completely unfair on my part, but he has such a blustering manner and a manifest need to prove himself RIGHT on EVERY SINGLE DETAIL, even those having nothing to do with the thread, that I couldn’t resist. Call THAT not contributing anything of value? Now watch him respond that he knew instantly that Dr Adhominem was a fraud, for it is very important to him to NEVER be in the wrong over ANYTHING. I mean, the guy has a personality that smacks  of waving a red flag before a bull. And he has NO sense of humor. A “juggernaut,” Witness called him. It will be very hard for me to refrain from saying much. I will try my best, but it will be hard. It is a huge consumer of time, so I’m not eager to commit that sin again, and besides, I don’t want to get The Librarian (that old hen) mad at me once more.  
    • Per Wikipedia, The Constitution says: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." When the Constitution was written, the terms "high crime" and "misdemeanor" were both used in senses that are quite different from the way we've come to think of them today. The original sense came from the laws that the framers had themselves been under, the British laws, which had used the term since as far back as 1386. It was originally a phrase to highlight the fact that almost any kind of "maladministration" --even things we might think of as NON-crimes-- could have a magnified effect due to the "high office" of the official, judge, president, etc. Most of the items that were considered "maladministration" would not be considered much of a problem at all if you or I practiced them. But they could become a perverting of justice or subject the populace to the ill effects in a way that only a person in high office had the ability to do. When James Madison discussed the formulation of the "constitution" with Mason, they started out with only Bribery and Treason, but Mason argued that the definition of Treason is too narrowly tied to enemies when at war, and that this would hardly cover situations when a president "attempts to subvert the Constitution." So the British term "maladministration" was suggested and then, after discussion, changed it to the more formal British term "high crimes and misdemeanors." According to the Wikipedia article on "Maladministration"  it means the following in UK law: The definition of maladministration is wide and can include: Delay Incorrect action or failure to take any action Failure to follow procedures or the law Failure to provide information Inadequate record-keeping Failure to investigate Failure to reply Misleading or inaccurate statements Inadequate liaison Inadequate consultation Broken promises That's such a vague definition that Madison said it would be the equivalent of just having a President who served at the pleasure of the Senate. It would "normalize" impeachment, and therefore the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was deemed closer to the idea of "subverting the constitution." The phrase was definitely intended to narrow the reasons that the Senate might try to impeach a President, but was also a way to include things that would not nearly reach up to the definitions of bribery and treason. In Britain the phrase meant abuse of a high office even if the abuse did NOT violate any criminal laws. So this is how legal scholars have also applied it to the US presidency, usually with a focus on any subversion of the Constitution. The Wiki article on "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" includes the following that gives an idea of how the original framers understood it: Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[10] The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and the Senate is difficult, made so to be the balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offences. This gives a lot of freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constitutional law by nature is not concerned with being specific. The courts through precedence and the legislature through lawmaking make constitutional provisions specific. In this case the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[11] The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.[12]
    • France is in shambles right now. To this day the Yellow Vest still march, and as even stated before, which turns out to be true, protests everywhere, in and outside of France. The Americans will get quite the treat in a few weeks, this I am sure of due to the ongoing chaos we see now.
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.