Jump to content
The World News Media


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About PeterR

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. BTW - who do you think is more likely to be influencing Google - the God of this system of things, or the God of the Universe who already gave us his Word? I actually don't have a strong opinion on this, but one can be sure that if JWs were ranking low on these things the average JW would be blaming the other guy.
  2. Just as I say, the JW tech team has done some excellent SEO work on this. Or you might attribute the SEO to a higher power. I don't know. However, it's also irrelevant to what was actually being talked about as I explained.
  3. My experience has been that people who reach these conclusions are simply people who read the Bible without preconception. Nobody personally told me to read Matt 24 differently to how I'd always been taught it my whole life. As I both studied deeply (often as preparation to give talks), and listened to others giving the standard JW explanations, I found questions emerging over certain timing issues involving "presence/parousia", "coming", and "generation". Pieces were starting not to fit too well. I prayed and read and prayed and read. Then the passage became much more clear. I compared
  4. I'm not aware of one comment on here that disputes either point. The difference is that some people here castigate others for not accepting specific human calculated dates as part of Jehovah's timeline, whereas others accept the idea that it's proven folly to ignore Jesus' words about this subject.
  5. I don't think this is objectively true at all. Do a Google search on "the last days" or "the last days bible" (adding "Bible" focuses a bit better on what we're talking about). Admittedly the JW team has done some good SEO work to get their own page near the top - but that is JW's talking about their own beliefs. It's not the "everyone else" you refer to. Many people are talking about the last days, and in the first few pages of search results I couldn't find one non-JW source that was making reference to JW belief. You can see from the results that lots of Christian groups
  6. Alright. So then if that's the totality of it your answer seems to be that he threw down Satan sometime around 1914. That would seem to square with the Appendix B1 of the revised NWT where this is the limit of the claim. When the rNWT was released I was surprised that it made no mention of Jesus becoming king in 1914 when giving the timeline of "The Message of the Bible". I was long taught to believe that a 1914 enthronement was one of the most important events in history. But both you and the writing committee seem to be implying that a rethink may be called for in that department. And i
  7. BTW - do you realize that many references to scholars and commentators in JW publications are references to the work of clergymen?
  8. Sure. So Satan is cast down. Again our difference is probably only over timing, although your minimalist answer means I'm only making an educated guess. I presume you believe that Satan was cast down AFTER WW1 started, and yet I'm guessing you use Rev 12:12 to support the idea that earthquakes, disease and war increased significantly as a result of his casting down after a particular date in the 20th century which falls after the Great War started.. Is that correct? If so how do you support your understanding of the timing?
  9. Perhaps someone is trying to tell you something Eoin. Someone has shown you how all the scriptures fit together harmoniously. You appear to reject it only because it doesn't fit with your preconceptions, and because you don't like the source. It's worth noting that those who accept a clear reading of these scriptures believe just like you do that Jesus has received his Kingship and authority, and are awaiting his return to fully exercise that authority. The only thing we differ on as far as that's concerned is when he received the authority. But the Bible is pretty clear on that.
  10. TomHarley - I'm only referencing your terminology. Are you willing to address the actual issues raised? Or is it fair to assume that you're not interested in doing that, and are now just releasing "chaff and flare" to divert from those issues? I try to be extra patient online, because I really don't know what challenges people might be facing. I've largely ignored all your personal insults on this and other threads. But if you're just willfully distracting from the purpose of the discussion and the points raised then I'll stop wasting my time attempting to have any reasoned conversat
  11. TomHarley - You can write whatever you like. But I'm not going to use your self-awarded designation of "True" when you post wild assertions that are far from true, with a view to trying to get people to buy into an argument resting on the what you've falsely asserted. If what you wrote isn't literal then you cannot rest your point of principle on it in the way that you did. It's just nonsense. The whole crux of some of these discussion is how honestly certain facts have been presented. You're writing that many JWs might be "nuts", but at least they're "100% honest". But if the ones i
  12. Yes, it is the quote I pull. Because it's key to your whole thought process in this passage.
  13. None? Ever? What basis is there to believe such a sweeping statement when the Bible says every man proves to be a liar. Most JW's are not malicious liars. I can accept that. But "none are liars"? Really? Are they somehow prevented from this sinful tendency by a 24/7 intervention of the holy spirit? When a JW does lie does that simply mean he wasn't really a JW? A bit like the Calvanists say that if one of the "saved elect" loses their faith then they were never really "saved elect" in the first place? It's known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy I believe. The convention vi
  14. If I was theoretically in "a room" at some point, you have no idea whereabouts at the table I might have been sitting TrueTomHarley. Nevertheless, it's not relevant to the points I'm making and I have no inclination to be baited by your throwing mud at the wall to see if anything sticks. You are constantly diverting from the scriptural aspect of the discussion and making it a personal matter, which although not surprising to me, ought to be a red flag to readers. This is a common tactic when a person has no scriptural or moral argument. Slander is a very strong accusat
  15. That was quite an outpouring of speculation. Let me put one thing to rest. I have not personally been wronged in this matter. Neither has any of my family. I'm not sure why you would want to grant me a premise I never implied.
  • 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.