Jump to content
The World News Media

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/28/2019 in all areas

  1. .... or can it be other people read those works and combined it with the Watchtower to have asked a witness about it, .... Do you suggest by this how non-JW people are so interested to know what JW's have to say about some subject on world events - in particular, about 1975 - ? I think that you can count on fingers of one hand, it is so small number of non-JW who would, who was talking about 1975 in religious manner, in that period of time when WT Society publication put effort to emphasized 1975 as very important year to humankind in connection to Bible prophesies about Last days, Armage
    1 point
  2. OK, I'll give you one more chance. You never know. The thousandth try might be a charm, for you. So, you claim that the following things I said show this lack of understanding: He only relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he admits to it, and to the extent that he relied on their teachings and made them such an important part of his own. From what he admits to alone, he ended up being deeply "indebted" to the Second Adventist, but for the most part he only borrowed their chronology. Most of the other Watchtower doctrines had been originally initiated by other religious group
    -1 points
  3. It takes a pretty sad puppy to upvote his own madness.
    -1 points
  4. @BillyTheKid46I found this on internet: It seems how Structures in WT are well educated in talking about end of the world. :))
    -1 points
  5. What you have done here is so absolutely amazing that I took a picture of that portion of your above post, and copied it here. You have quoted a portion of what I said in purplish-colored text where I say that he ONLY relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he relied on them. A tautology. But then you offer the PERFECT quote in support of that statement. I would have used this exact quote myself, but you not only used it, you CORRECTLY HIGHLIGHTED exactly the portions that highlight the support for what I said. Almost as if this was some kind of Watchtower Study and you were asked to und
    -1 points
  6. I remember when Allen Smith said the same thing, and although his posts are gone, the same thought is still found under one of Allen's alternate accounts on this forum: By coincidence, he (Allen) often used the same odd spelling "Advents" that you often use. There is one other thing that Allen Smith said a few times, and I often asked him what he meant, but he never responded. Since you are apparently saying the same thing, and claim to be continuing the work of Allen Smith, perhaps you can at least tell me what you mean by it. It was Allen's idea that we need to believe that the
    -1 points
  7. In observing BillytheKid46's irrational and hateful posts, I have noticed a correlation between them and the Dilbert Cartoon of the day. It seems that whatever Billy is talking about ... the cartoon of the day explains his perspective from the viewpoint of reality. It's just AMAZING! Of course, coincidence is NOT causality, but it sure is spooky how many times the Dilbert Cartoon of the day explains whatever it is Billy is talking about. Of course, it may be a coincidence that there is no photograph of Ernest Borgnine, and Elizabeth Taylor in her later years, together ... some say
    -1 points
  8. Strange. This sounds like another echo of Hermanesque projection. I hope that's an indication that you understand this same point after several years of repetition. George Storrs says he was influenced by Henry Grew's pamphlet against the doctrines of immortality of the soul and against hellfire. He resigned from his church in 1840 and as of 1843, per Wikipedia (and his own statements, of course): Storrs became one of the leaders of the Second Advent movement and affiliated with William Miller and Joshua V. Himes. He began publication of his magazine Bible Examiner in 1843 and con
    -1 points
  9. Where? Nowhere. Because I never made any insinuations about you misspeaking about Russell's real ideology for 1914. And I'm sure you already know that I have never held a conclusion that his view was about the literal "end of the world." Russell had always clearly explained that his view of 1914 was never about the literal end of the world, or even Armageddon specifically. He often chided those Adventists who believed it was a literal "burning of the world." Russell never believed that the "burning" was literal, or that it would even be half-baked, for that matter. I don't see why yo
    -1 points
  10. This might be a good time to explain again that this original topic was not about whether the Watchtower writers were being honest back in 1966 through 1975 about the expectations for the weeks, and months surrounding 1975. It was supposed to be about whether we are honest NOW in the way we defend those past expectations for the mid-1970's. When this topic started it was back around a year ago when we were still discussing a video produced for the "Don't Give Up" 2017 Regional Convention. That was part of the point. With all that was said and known and documented by those who live
    -1 points
  11. LOL! I saw that coming as soon as I asked you that question: In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520? And not just Barbour and Paton, as we have seen. It was MOST of the persons Russell spoke about and mentioned in the Watchtower publications during those early years. Also, Russell was definitely NOT clear on how far he wanted to distance himself from the entire Second Adventist movement until a few years later. When Russell first chose to financially support and contribute to Barbour's Adventist "Herald" journal and "Three Worlds"
    -1 points
  12. LOL. I saw that coming as soon as I asked the question: In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520? Nearly the same thing happened when I asked Allen that question. You haven't shown where. A proposition given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I know you made that claim. But without evidence. The problem with your theory is that when Russell and Barbour continued the Herald, it was still very much an Adventist publication. That didn't change. The book "Three Worlds" that they published in 1877 was steeped
    -1 points
  13. At least you understand the point that, as you say, "omitting a strong fact is another way of lying by them." I agree 100 percent, and it's really the ongoing theme here. The article you mention is exactly what I had in mind when I said: Yes. We've also discussed this exact idea before. We've also discussed the typical life cycle of these predictions. For example, Russell made a lot of predictions about October 1914, then the November 1913 Watch Tower began hedging because it just didn't look like everything that was supposed to happen still had time to happen. So Russell began wr
    -1 points
  14. Fortunately, Dilbert anticipates your every word BTK46 .....
    -1 points
  15. [I'm separating this post from the one it was combined with above:] Back in 1956, when Armstrong's "1975 in Prophecy!" magazine was written, the Watchtower was still teaching that 1976 was the end of the 6,000 years. Note the words highlighted in blue and red in the following three Watchtower articles, especially the part about how long it took Adam to name the animals. The first link is to the Feb 1, 1955 Watchtower "Questions From Readers" on jw.org.
    -1 points
×
×
  • 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.