Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ARchiv@L

JW Library—Android—(help video files)

By ARchiv@L, in Topics

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

ARchiv@L -
ARchiv@L -
1
923

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

ARchiv@L    1,023

ARchiv@L
Posted


JW Library—Android—(help video files)
hello everyone,
here is some notes about the video "help" files that you can keep them together or send to someone you know who needs help to learn how to use the mobile application.
thanks.

802013118_univ_cnt_1_xl.jpg

Start Using JW Library—Android


Download and Manage Bibles—Android


Download and Manage Publications—Android


Set and Manage Bookmarks—Android


Use History—Android


Customize the Reading Experience—Android


Search in a Bible or Publication—Android


Highlight Text—Android


 

Annie Abbott reacted to this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Go To Topic Listing




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • JW Insider
      A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.

      By JW Insider · Posted

      This is quite strange. Russell didn't dismiss the Edgar pyramid scheme. He dismissed Russell's pyramid scheme that Russell had mostly plagiarized from Joseph Seiss. If you think Russell used it as a comparison and nothing more then you probably have not read all the things Russell said about the Great Pyramid. He even called it "Jehovah's Witness" (with a capital "W" no less). Obviously not! If he had started from scratch, he would not have copied the dates that Barbour had published. These were not plagiarized, because Russell ADMITTED clearly where he copied them from. Barbour ADMITTED that he based his dates on a readjustment of William Miller's dates. The primary events of the time that Russell was influenced by were "New England's Dark Day of 1780, and a spectacular meteor shower in 1833." The meteor shower was considered by Russell (and Adventists) to be the "stars falling." Russell admitted this in the Watchtower, and in Studies in the Scriptures. I'm not sure why the particular mistake that Russell and Rutherford made concerning the Jewish nation is still so important to you. Rutherford corrected this mistake around 1930. This is false. Totally false.
    • TrueTomHarley
      A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.

      By TrueTomHarley · Posted

      Unnecessary on his account. He is so bombastic that I can hear him in my sleep.
    • César Chávez
      A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.

      By César Chávez · Posted

      You finally posted something substantive. Good for you. Yes those baptized should consider themselves as ambassadors to Christ. Therefore, the GB are also considered ambassadors with a responsibility of a Shepherd. You might want to rethink the wording and framing of this sentence. If both comments were of substance, they would disagree with each other. I wonder if you will get the same response from JTR! 😊
    • Srecko Sostar
      EVA CASSIDY ~ Fields Of Gold

      By Srecko Sostar · Posted

    • TrueTomHarley
      A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.

      By TrueTomHarley · Posted

      What?!!! Never do that again!!
    • César Chávez
      A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.

      By César Chávez · Posted

      Was Brother Splane speaking against the Watchtower or of Christendom? I would imagine all the older witnesses should now understand, the revisions made that are now understood while it was in its infancy back then. Therefore, I’m not the one disagreeing with the Watchtower. That determination is being made here by a few, it’s just not me. I understand scripture, as well as prophecy. Incorrect, The GB as presented by opposers believe the GB are like the apostles. I happen to believe, they are following the apostles lead to continue Christ works with the same vigor as the apostles. The GB are simply fellow workers that have accepted to a greater degree of responsibility. I have no confusion as to the role God has given those that accept that responsibly. Therefore, it would be a presumption to think otherwise on how they perceive someone's words. I appreciate the push that is drawn. Countless areas are made known how flawed the Watchtower is. But are they all factual enough to sit in Judgement. What I accept is looking for deviations from scripture. I have from none in principle with that by the Watchtower. Therefore, it’s not that I refuse to see human errors, it’s that we all do human errors every day. I just don’t dwell on them as it is done here. What I care about is linkage to false presentations as its made by Christendom (i.e. trinity etc.) Substance if for a better word. I will leave that to your conscience. Frankly, I'm not the one bearing weight on issues, as it is constantly and frequently done here with the same worldly issues.
    • TrueTomHarley
      Trump Derangement Syndrome

      By TrueTomHarley · Posted

      Another reason I follow politics is for its clarification of Pilate’s question: “What is truth?” It is a cynical question, as though mocking ones who say they can find truth. “I will never lie to you,” Trump promises his “base.” ‘He is the most lying President in history,’ opponents say. It doesn’t matter if you like him or not. How can one not look into that? It turns out that a lie is in the eye of the beholder. By May of 2019, the Washington Post claimed to have chronicled 10,000 Trump lies—“false or misleading claims,” and yet by any historical standards, they would not be called lies. NBCNews.com, hardly a Trump-friendly site, gives examples. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-lies-lot-media-must-focus-what-he-s-lying-ncna1009986 92 times Trump claimed that “NAFTA is one of the worst trade deals ever signed in the history of our country.” That can be called a “lie?” The Post counts it as 92 lies. Speak to those whose interests have suffered on its account. At worst it is an subjective exaggeration.  Trump says, “I have been the most transparent president and administration in the history of our country by far.” A lie? An unprovable boast, at worst. Daily tweets of whatever happens to pop into his head, in any historical context, would be lauded as the epitome of transparency. Here the pundits harrumph mostly because they are bypassed—they are used to spinning a president’s words before he can spin them himself, but here he does end runs around them. In fact, the nbcnews.com article recommends readers not to be so gleeful over counting his “lies” that one becomes like the little boy crying wolf. The “lies” are mostly boast, imprecision, exaggeration, hyperbole—and not actually “lies” at all. The article actually produces no “real” lies, even as it counsels readers to be on the lookout for them. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any. To be sure, that is not the purpose of the article, but you almost think that some would be there, if only for purposes to contrast the “not-really” lies with the “actual” lies. All we hear on media is “the lies of Trump” repeated full-throttle, and yet this article, by someone who is decidedly not a Trump fan, points to none. Now, one must be verrrrry careful in comparing the spiritual and the profane—even more careful in comparing words of the sacred with words of the politics. You do not want to be confused with the right wing church that mixes politics and religion so thoroughly as to make any smoothie maker envious. The School Guidebook observed that when you give an illustration, your illustration should parallel the reality illustrated in all significant respects. Otherwise, someone will point to the discordancy and the entire illustration goes up in smoke. It is why I do not care for those illustrations likening Witnesses to firemen who are urgent because lives are at stake. True, lives are at stake but they are not at stake at that very hour. Those firemen would not carry on so urgently if it was just to warn you that your smoke detector batteries are getting low. So you have to be cautious comparing the two. Manifestly, they are not the same in many regards. That’s why I like it that Alan brought up the subject (6 times!) and not me. Still, Jesus uses all types of people in illustrations—those “righteous” and those “unrighteous.”—like the “unrighteous” steward who robs his owner blind and the owner ends up commending him for it. (Luke 16:8) So you don’t have to run like a rabbit just because those you use to illustrate points are not saints. The same people that savage Trump for his “lies” would have savaged Jesus for his “lies.” In fact, for the most part, they do—the political left is far more irreligious than is the right. There are many excellent reasons to dislike Trump—reasons that do not hold true at all with Jesus. But here we are dealing with word devices that some would qualify as legitimate and some would qualify as lie. Jesus would have been a consummate liar in the eyes of these critics, and that fact is better appreciated for how they kick back at the commander-in-chief that they loathe. Hyperbole? Jesus uses it all the time. Yes, he puts it to more noble use than Trump, but he is not shy about using it. He thinks it not a “lie” to use hyperbole—it is plainly a tool in his tool box—and it has the added benefit that the critics are separated out—they miss the point completely so as to object to blatant and unprovable exaggeration. Many of Jesus’ parables are not only hyperbole, but they are quirky hyperbole, such as the unrighteous judge who will not grant justice to the widow until she nags him nearly into an early grave—and that judge is used to illustrate how you ought to persist in prayer to the Father! (Luke 18:5) Metaphor? Strictly speaking, a metaphor is a “lie.” “The tongue is a fire,” says James. ‘It is not,’ would counter the Washington Post and you can almost imagine them testing this statement, evaluating the claim with a thermometer. “God is the potter and we are the clay,” says the Word—and the Washington Post logs two “lies.” “He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day,” declares Jesus at John 6:54. Call that not a metaphor? It is even a metaphor that contributed (says Bart Ehrman) to accusations of cannibalism that served as a pretext for early Christian persecution. Ad hominem attack? That’s a type of lie, Trump’s detractors say, since they are stated “without evidence”—to borrow a media clarification that is now routinely applied to the President but has never been applied to any of the other countless scoundrels and blaggards of history. Jesus used ad hominem attack all the time. Pharisees were the “blind men leading the blind”, the “whitewashed graves hiding every sort of filth.” He would have been called out for lying each time in the Washington Post. Ask Jesus a question, and he will not answer it. He will ask a counter question instead that makes you scared to ask another. This is a major no-no to critical thinkers today, who insist that their questions be answered without resort to raising a “straw man.” Still, Jesus doesn’t care. He raises straw men as readily as he raised Lazerus. (Mark 11:27-33) Head games? I don’t know what in the world was Trump’s claim of huge inauguration attendance, easily debunked as a “lie” by just viewing the photos—so easily that it becomes clear he is playing a head game of some sort, clarified when KellyAnne comes on TV to speak of the “alternative facts” he would like media to pay attention to. Are not Jesus’ parables head games of a sort? He would never explain them to his critics—only afterwards to his disciples would he “explain all things,” and it served as a way of separating the wheat from the chaff. (Mark 4:34) Would he have granted an interview with the Washington Post to explain all those parables? I have my doubts. About this time we can send Trump packing off to the stables. I was never too comfortable bringing him in to begin with, so I waited for someone with TDS to do it, and Alan obliged—allowing me to point out with but diminished spiritual damage that Trump illustrates certain aspects of communication so perfectly that he becomes invaluable for just that reason.  You can even go further. Trump, by all accounts, represents “flyover country”—the common working people usually ignored by policymakers who are pursuing their own ends and careers. His enemies? Those policymakers—the “swamp,” the “elites,” the wonks that hail from Harvard and who live for the machinations of the beltway. And if you really want to get sacrilegious, you can recall that he descends on the golden escalator from his high and mighty perch, and announces to his “base:” “I am your voice.” You can even liken media’s relentless efforts to separate Trump from his “base” to the efforts of JW critics to separate the GB from its “base”—and for the same reason—that both might be better neutralized. I can think of only one other President who offered some of these same parallels: “The buck stops here,” “give em hell, Harry” Truman , who was despised by the “elites” then—even blue blood FDR kept his distance from his own “inferior” VP—on account of his crude demeanor and businessman origin. Like Trump, Truman’s elite enemies even gloated that they had won the election and later had to eat crow!—one of the iconic photos of American history is Truman holding aloft the (wrong) headline of his own defeat. He offers many of the same object lessons, but not as strikingly as Trump, mostly because people were more civil back then and opponents didn’t seek to gouge each other’s eyes out as they do now—a nod to the further applicability of 2 Timothy 3:1-5. (Wow. I just thought up the Truman parallel as I was writing this remark. The day I throw my hat in the ring to form my own sect, I will spin some sort of an anti-type out of both names beginning with ‘Tru”—what are the chances of that? And I will play on Truman being “True Man”—same as they did with Jim Carrey on the Truman Show. And wait till I get done with the fact that Truman started as a haberdasher-, the same as you-know-who. Yes, I like the idea more and more. Only....I cannot do this Mighty Ministry on my own! Send me your contributions—large or small!—(but large is preferred)—for the Lord’s sake I would gladly walk around in rags, but the fact of the matter is, I look so much better in the two-thousand dollar suit that I will buy with them)  

  • 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.

  I accept