All Eight Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses members are now individually named on two New York Child Victims Act case documents

[Space Merchant]

4 hours ago, Anna said:

I don't remember anything being said about the year 2000. It must have been very obscure. All I remember is it worried computer programers a little, and got people's panties in a twist.

Alan must have confuse this with a different community, I forget whom, but I don't recall such regarding JWs or any Restorationist, be it individuals and or group.

[AlanF]

James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    f it is #2, you will find yourself in another beef with @James Thomas Rook Jr.. You should have heard him carry on about the impossibilities of translating without advanced education on another thread.

I am still of the opinion that when translating from ENGLISH, to another language, a person MUST be a fluent EXPERT at both languages, and have lived in areas where both are spoken extensively, and also have a DEEP knowledge of the history and culture of both places, AND have a potload of plain old common sense .... which is not all that common.

 

I suspect that this is true in all other language translations.

I completely agree -- in principle. In practice, with the Bible we're dealing with three dead languages, so there exist no fluent speakers. Nevertheless, I think competent scholars still do a pretty good job of translating. That's esecially so when independent scholars arrive at essentially the same translations.

Quote

We have Bible translations in over a thousand languages (...or is it just some Bible literature?) ... but how good are those translations?

Pretty spotty, I expect.

[Space Merchant]

@AlanF The thing is about translations, if it lines up with our earliest manuscripts and our Strong's, it is in the clear regardless of language, however, if something is off, and does not match and or line up, then textual criticism and or such pertaining to it, and or similar, is applied. I say this because there are those out there who do not believe the Scriptures has been tampered with centuries ago, and these same people take issue with such ones who try to restore Scripture by means of revision for the modern man/woman to read each to their own.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

There is always the final arbiter .... the "smell test".

[AlanF]

30 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

There is always the final arbiter .... the "smell test".

Not necessarily. That's a rough guide, is all. The best guide, I think, is the consensus of competent scholars over a long period of time. Even then, no one can be sure that we really possess the original manuscripts, because there are many examples where, for example, the Masoretic text differs significantly from the LXX, which many argue is based on an older and more authentic Hebrew text. Of course, if a bona fide ancient Hebrew text from 300 BCE or earlier is found, that would throw a big monkey wrench into Biblical textual criticism.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

IF

 

I have a nose, NOW.

[Anna]

4 hours ago, AlanF said:

The Society made direct statements as well as more subtle suggestions. Take a gander:

<< How thrilling that must have been for Paul and Barnabas-sailing to their first foreign assignment! The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our century. >> January 1, 1989 Watchtower, p. 12

Note that "in our century" was changed to "in our day" in the bound volume and in the CDROM Library.

Note that when the following statements were made, the Society was teaching that "the generation of 1914" meant the group of people alive in 1914 who survived until "the end".

<< Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom. >> -- "The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah"-How? - 1971

<< And if the wicked system of this world survived until the turn of the century, which is highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, there would still be survivors of the World War I generation. However, the fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that “the conclusion of the system of things” is moving fast toward its end. >> -- October 15, 1980 Watchtower, p. 31

<< It has been thrilling to see the fulfillment of Jesus’ sign showing that the Kingdom was established in the heavens in that momentous year 1914. And Jesus has told us to rejoice at seeing the dark storm clouds of Armageddon gathering since that time. He has told us that the “generation” of 1914—the year that the sign began to be fulfilled—”will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matthew 24:34) Some of that “generation” could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that “the end” is much closer than that! >> -- March 1, 1984 Watchtower, pp. 18-19

<< The Time for a Change Is Near!
Carole, from France, has a “marvelous hope” and foresees, for the near future, “something marvelous—not at all like the world we live in.” Samuel, a 15-year-old youth from the same country, also believes in a complete change: “For the year 2000, I visualize a world transformed into a beautiful paradise! But I don’t think that either the present world or its rulers will live to see that day. . . We are living in the last days of the system of things.” Ruth, a German girl of 16, also expresses her confidence in these changes: “I know I’m not smart enough to change the world and make things run right. Only Jehovah, our Creator, can and will do that soon.” >> November 8, 1986 Awake!, pp. 7-8

Thanks for those references. I obviously must have read some of them, especially the ones from the 80's and I am aware that our mothers would say we would never go to school, that Armageddon would be here by then. This was nothing new to me since we were saying this almost since the founding of the JWS. What I was questioning was the specific date 2000. That Armageddon would come in that year, in the same way as was insinuated for 1975. "Within the 20th Century" is open, and just because 15 year old Samuel "visualizes something happening in 2000" doesn't mean we had to think it will happen exactly then, lol. Samuel is 48 today, probably with kids, maybe a grandad,  and probably still a JW. I know plenty of people who visualized something happening, and nothing happened, and they are still visualizing it. But, everyone in their right mind yearns for good things, and Jesus told his followers to "keep on the watch" and Peter "await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah".  As for the society setting specific dates for the end, 1925 sticks in my mind, for which Rutherford apologized, and 1975, which was not official anyway. And 1914 of course....

[AlanF]

James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Quote

What gets me is, as in the book 1984 ... the Society revises history, as stated in the examples given above,

Those examples don't revise history -- they are history.

But there are hundreds of examples of Watchtower writers revising 'problematic' Watchtower history. I did a study some years ago examining several hundred statements about what the Bible Students believed about 1914 before that date arrived. Only a handful were truthful. Most were deceptive in the sense that they conveyed a wrong view about what was believed, but without a flat-out lie. A couple of dozen just flat-out lied, like "the Bible Students believed that Christ would return in 1914, and that Armageddon would begin then." The truth was that Russell taught that both events had already occurred in 1874, six years before he published an account of 1914 in the 1880 Zion's Watch Tower.

My favorite example of such mealy mouthed deception is from the Proclaimers book (p. 163). Speaking about what Rutherford and company taught in the decade after 1914, it said:

<< As the years passed and they examined and reexamined the Scriptures, their faith in the prophecies remained strong, and they did not hold back from stating what they expected to occur. With varying degrees of success, they endeavored to avoid being dogmatic about details not directly stated in the Scriptures. >>

Note that expression "endeavored to avoid being dogmatic". It doesn't say that they succeeded in avoiding being dogmatic, so the statement is not technically a lie. But it gives the strong impression that the main goal of the Bible Students under Rutherford was to avoid being dogmatic -- which simply reading Watchtower literature beyond 1914 proves is not true. Rutherford actually taught that what was written in The Watch Tower was equal to the Bible in authority, including his 1925 prediction of Armageddon where he self-admittedly "made an ass of" himself.

Quote

 

That was Winston Smith's JOB ... to revise history.

THEN .... when called on their actions, stare blankly into the headlights and say "No, we didn't!"

 

Exactly what most JWs do when confronted by information like the above.

Quote

It's a good thing I understand such things as normal to all people, or it would "stumble" me.

Of course it is. Tell that to Watchtower leaders.

[Anna]

21 hours ago, AlanF said:

22 hours ago, Anna said:

It's because they thought he was cured.

You know that, do you?

You're wrong. I told you earlier: Greenlees was a pedophile in 1964 when he was appointed a Director, and before that according to one of his child victims, Mark Palo, who has put his story online. Greenlees was 72 when he was forced off the GB. Pedophiles don't start up at age 72 -- they just keep doing what they've long been doing

I don't know it, I am being logical about it. Why would anyone knowingly want to appoint a practicing pedophile?

21 hours ago, AlanF said:

And even back in 1984 it was well known that pedophiles are never cured.

I agree. But as you say, he was appointed director in 1964, and then as GB in 1971. So it could have been believed he was cured. I don't know what happened in 1984 when he was forced to resign. But whatever it was led the rest to believe he wasn't cured after all.

21 hours ago, AlanF said:

Furthermore, if holy spirit had anything to do with the Governing Body -- which formed the judicial committee that found Greenlees guilty of child molestation -- it would never have 'directed' Nathan Knorr to appoint Greenlees as Director in the first place, or it would have seen to it that Greenlees was not appointed a GB member in 1971, or that he was removed long before 1984.

I thought I had already agreed that if Greenlees was a pedophile when he was appointed director, and then later GB member, the holy spirit had nothing to do with it, that he was appointed by men who were evidently deceived. And I thought we had already discussed the "mechanics" of how holy spirit works.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Trust NO ONE, and you will seldom be disappointed.

[AlanF]

Anna said:

Quote

 

    36 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    My favorite example of such mealy mouthed deception is from the Proclaimers book (p. 163). Speaking about what Rutherford and company taught in the decade after 1914, it said:

    << As the years passed and they examined and reexamined the Scriptures, their faith in the prophecies remained strong, and they did not hold back from stating what they expected to occur. With varying degrees of success, they endeavored to avoid being dogmatic about details not directly stated in the Scriptures. >
    Read more   

It might sound mealy mouthed, but it's hardly deception.

 

It's gross deception. Why? Because it deliberately gives a completely false picture of what the Bible Students said.

Quote

They tried hard not to be dogmatic, but they didn’t always succeed.

That's like saying the Nazi's tried hard not to be dogmatic about Nazism, but didn't always succeed.

Tell me if the statements quoted below about 1918 and 1920 are dogmatic or not.

The Finished Mystery, 1917, pages 62, 64, said with great authority:

<<
The data presented in comments on Rev. 1:1... prove that the Spring of 1918 will bring upon Christendom a spasm of anguish greater even than that experienced in the Fall of 1914.

The awakening of the sleeping saints, A.D. 1878, was just half way (three and one-half years each way) between the beginning of the Times of Restitution in 1874 and the close of the High Calling in 1881. Our proposition is that the glorification of the Little Flock in the Spring of 1918 A.D. will be half way (three and one-half years each way) between the close of the Gentile Times and the close of the Heavenly Way, A.D. 1921.
>>

These predictions failed. More forceful language was used in the predictions of a terrible destruction due to come on Christendom's churches and their members in 1918, with their dead bodies strewn about unburied. Pages 484-485 said:

<< Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of "Christianity." >>

Page 513 said:

<< In the year 1918, when Christendom shall go down as a system to oblivion.... God will cause the nations to shake with gigantic revolutions. >>

The book also predicted stupendous events for 1920. On page 258 it said:

<<
Even the republics will disappear in the fall of 1920...

Every kingdom of earth will pass away, be swallowed up in anarchy...

The three days in which Pharaoh's host pursued the Israelites into the wilderness represent the three years from 1917 to 1920 at which time all of Pharaoh's messengers will be swallowed up in the sea of anarchy.
>>

On page 542 it said:

<< As the fleshly-minded apostates from Christianity, siding with the radicals and revolutionaries, will rejoice at the inheritance of desolation that will be Christendom's after 1918, so will God do to the successful revolutionary movement; it shall be utterly desolated, "even all of it." Not one vestige of it shall survive the ravages of world-wide all-embracing anarchy, in the fall of 1920. >>

How about the following statements about 1925? Were they dogmatic or not?

The book Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920 Edition, said on pages 89-90:

<< . . . we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old . . . >>

The May 15, 1922 Watch Tower said:

<<
We have no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925.

It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need?

Using this same measuring line... it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably in the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914.
>>

I could go on with this for a long time, but here's the link on this that I already gave you: https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/old-articles/2006/02/part-3-statements-concerning-1918-1925.html

Not dogmatic? Please!

Quote

Sometimes they did well and were not dogmatic, and sometimes they didn’t do well, and were dogmatic.

The split is more like 90-10 when it came to anything to do with the Gentile Times stuff the Proclaimers book was discussing.

Quote

I believe they endeavored to avoid being dogmatic. But obviously didn't always succeed.

Believe what you like. Quotes like the above say different.

Time to go beddie-bye.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Why do you keep saying "cured"? That assumes that someone knew Greenlees was a pedophile before any of his appointments. But no one ever knew -- at least, not those in responsible positions in Bethel -- until 1984.

I did assume that someone knew he had done something in the past, but that it was believed he was changed and would never do it again in the spirit of 1 Cor 6:11. 

I have noticed this is one of the reasons why in the past pedophiles ended up molesting other victims besides the original victim. Elders assumed the person was "cured" and would never do it again. 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

And even back in 1984 it was well known that pedophiles are never cured.

Well known by whom?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Quote

I don't know what happened in 1984 when he was forced to resign.

I've said what happened in gory detail in earlier posts.

Missed that.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Quote

the holy spirit had nothing to do with it, that he was appointed by men who were evidently deceived.

 

Correct. But the holy spirit was not deceived.

Well, in a manner of speaking, since holy spirit is not a person but a force.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Discussed perhaps, but even now you still don't understand that holy spirit does no direct appointing of elders. Such "appointing" is only a metaphor, a manner of speaking. It's not real. Go back to my Julia Childs example. Does she direct you in the kitchen? Or do you follow directions in her cookbook? Do you understand the difference?

I do understand it is a manner of speaking, since holy spirit is not a person, as I mentioned above. You obviously meant it as a metaphor as well when you said it "was not deceived". By the same token, it can be said someone is appointed by holy spirit even though it was merely written directions that were being followed. Since God used holy spirit, his force, to inspire people to write down His directions, when appointing overseers, elders do so according to those directions. Doing so correctly is contingent on the honesty of the one being appointed, and the astuteness of those doing the appointing. If the person actually qualifies, then it can be said they were appointed by holy spirit as per Acts 20:28 "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God...."