Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
  • Posts

    7,650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    445

Everything posted by JW Insider

  1. I agree that it makes sense and we can (and should) find lessons in the account for our own conduct, actions, and motivations. I probably sound like a curmudgeon of some sort to point this out, but it's often too easy to ALSO create a lesson that isn't really there. Or mix up one lesson for one context with a lesson that belongs in another context. These are not bad things, it's just that we should realize when we are speculating when we declare that these lessons must be the same lessons that all of us should see. Jehovah had the right to save or destroy his creation because he is the creator. The potter can throw away a vessel fit for destruction and start over. In response to your comments about Lot and Abraham and Noah, there were really NONE who were intrinsically righteous. Just as the scriptures in another one of your posts said: Noah's faith moved Jehovah to "count" him as righteous. Even those declared "righteous" are still intrinsically "ungodly." We are all ungodly. (Romans 4:3-5) 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the man who works, his pay is not counted as an undeserved kindness but as something owed to him. 5 On the other hand, to the man who does not work but puts faith in the One who declares the ungodly one righteous, his faith is counted as righteousness. And by the way, there is no scripture that says that his wife or three sons and their wives were ever even counted as righteous. In fact, the Bible says it was Noah's righteousness that saved them, similar to how children of a Christian parent could be "saved," or unbelieving wives, or sisters whose only "service" at times must be the full-time raising of their family. (1 Timothy 2:15) 15 However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided she continues in faith and love and holiness along with soundness of mind. (1 Corinthians 7:14) 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
  2. Nothing wrong with believing that Noah "most likely" warned his neighbors, or even "undoubtedly" warned his neighbors. I think it's a matter of being able to carefully read all the ways that writers say "we don't really know for sure." I was very surprised to learn from several people in the Watchtower's Writing Department that the expression "undoubtedly" and even "without a doubt" really means that there still is some level of doubt, even if it's something that makes a lot of sense, or we really WANT to believe it. One way to show that we don't really know something for sure is to use the words "without doubt" as when the Watchtower says: in I know this doesn't make a lot of sense to some people. It's much easier to see the point when the expression is more like "quite likely" as in: Personally, I didn't see it at first, until it was explained with some examples. In the most common usage of language we don't need an expression like "undoubtedly" if we are dealing with known facts. You would say, "Two plus two is four" not "two plus two is undoubtedly four." When you are dealing with the most likely meanings that fit our way of thinking and interpretation, we use a slightly different vocabulary. We like to use the most sure language possible even though we know that "interpretation" is always subject to change. Even when we are trying to use the words like "without a doubt" or "without doubt" to sound as sure as possible, the context will often force the writer to admit that small opening of doubt. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples in the Watchtower itself: *** w63 1/15 p. 41 par. 3 The Challenge of the “Good News” *** Without doubt it is your wish to live under that best of kingdoms and eternally enjoy its blessings. If this is your sincere desire . . . Note that even though the premise is "without doubt" the next phrase must still start out with "if." *** w72 6/15 p. 360 God Respects the Family Arrangement *** There can be no doubt about it: Children brought up in the wrong way are almost sure to practice bad things . . . Even though there can be no doubt, the premise is "almost" sure. This doesn't mean that the expression is not sometimes used in the normal way, to mean it's a fact. But we have to be careful when the phrases like this refer to interpretation. For example: *** w06 8/15 p. 17 Baruch—Jeremiah’s Faithful Secretary *** Baruch was without doubt a sincere worshipper of Jehovah, and he “proceeded to do according to all that Jeremiah the prophet had commanded him.” In the above example, this should immediately tell us that we have no scripture telling us that Baruch was sincere. We know it's an assumption precisely because the words "without doubt" were used here. It means that it makes sense, and it's something we would like to believe about him -- because we are giving him the benefit of the doubt. Please don't misunderstand and think I'm saying that it's definitely not true. I'm only saying that the scriptures don't say that Noah gave a warning, and if we say that he did we should admit that we are only speculating. One way the Watchtower shows they are speculating is to use terms like "most likely," or "undoubtedly." So it's more proper to say that "most likely" Noah preached a warning. But even if we believe this wholeheartedly, we shouldn't imply that Jesus said anything about Noah giving a warning. Jesus was making a point about how people were going on with their lives, without a care, and the judgement event came upon them suddenly and without warning. That's why Jesus said that the parousia (judgment event) would be like a thief who does not give you any warning. (Matthew 24:43, 44) . . .If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. The Bible doesn't say that Noah gave a warning, and the Watchtower articles you quoted admit that it may have only been through the action of building an ark that he "preached." The Watchtower does quote a "worldly" source whom we often disagree with to show that some non-biblical Jewish traditions have added the idea that Noah gave a warning, and we would like to believe that this is true.
  3. Although we can be sure that Noah would have been required to explain to many persons why he was building such a huge boat, we shouldn't try to make Jesus say something in Matthew 24 that Jesus never said. Jesus never said that Noah warned anyone about the coming flood. The Bible never says that he warned people about a coming flood. So why do we add the idea that Noah WARNED them? It's true that some people might get the idea from the way in which the NWT adds the words "took no note:" (Matthew 24:39) and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. But these words are not in the original Greek, so we shouldn't try to make them imply something that the Bible doesn't say. Below are all the translations, for example, that are provided at blueletterbible.org: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/24/36/t_bibles_953039 So even if there was some preaching about God's righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), which could have been through Noah's example (as implied in Hebrews 11:7), rather than any kind of warning campaign, Jesus was not making any point about a warning, because he had just spent the entire previous part of the chapter saying that there would be no warning. The disciples wanted a warning sign about the judgment event on Jerusalem and Jesus said that there would be no advance warning sign, otherwise how could the parousia come as a thief in the night. So what Jesus says about Noah, should fit what he says about the way the parousia (judgment event) came upon the generation of Noah's day. KJV And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. © Info NKJV “and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. © Info NLT People didn’t realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes. © Info NIV and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. © Info ESV and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. © Info HCSB They didn’t know until the flood came and swept them all away. So this is the way the coming of the Son of Man will be: © Info RVR60 y no entendieron hasta que vino el diluvio y se los llevó a todos, así será también la venida del Hijo del Hombre. © Info NASB and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. © Info NET And they knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away. It will be the same at the coming of the Son of Man. © Info RSV and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. © Info ASV and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man. © Info YLT and they did not know till the flood came and took all away; so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man. © Info DBY and they knew not till the flood came and took all away; thus also shall be the coming of the Son of man. © Info WEB And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away: so also will be the coming of the Son of man. © Info HNV and they didn't know until the flood came, and took them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. © Info
  4. Yes. I remember the "rule" but I never remember anyone ever speaking about specific "anointed" persons actually invoking it. Vaguely remember hearing about a natural disaster somewhere that forced the entire Memorial to be cancelled and then handled a month later, but I think even this became frowned up, especially after a formal announcement in the KM in 1999. *** w60 4/1 p. 224 Questions From Readers *** Of course, an exception should be made in the case of those of the remnant who, because of infirmity or sickness, are unable to attend. Individual portions are to be supplied to these, regardless of their age or physical condition, by a brother competent to discuss the occasion with them briefly. Such are to be considered as both attenders and partakers. Disfellowshiped persons are not welcome. Should they attend and partake, they would not be counted. Likewise, if any newcomers who are not yet baptized partake of the emblems, they should not be counted. What if any professing to be of the remnant should, due to circumstances beyond their control, be absolutely prevented from observing the Memorial and partaking of the emblems? It would seem that the merciful and loving provision that Jehovah made for celebrating the Passover a month later by those Jews ceremonially unclean on Nisan 14 would apply in their case. The individual member of the remnant would therefore observe a personal memorial of Christ’s death on the fourteenth day of the following month, Iyar according to the Jewish calendar, or just thirty days later.—Num. 9:9-14. In the 1999 KM it was announced that everything possible would be done to avoid this, by having elders take the Memorial emblems to anointed persons confined to their homes, etc. Also it was stated that it was NOT necessary for "other sheep" to make any additional arrangements for a missed meeting. *** w93 2/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** If a Christian is sick or is traveling and thus not able to be at the Memorial celebration, should he celebrate it a month later? . . . If one who has each year been partaking is this year confined to a sickbed at home or in a hospital, elders of the local congregation will arrange for one of them to take some of the bread and wine to the sick one, discuss appropriate Bible texts on the subject, and serve the emblems. If an anointed Christian is away from his home congregation, he should arrange to go to a congregation in the area where he will be on that date. In view of this, it would only be under very exceptional circumstances that an anointed Christian would have to celebrate the Lord’s Evening Meal 30 days later (one lunar month), in line with the command at Numbers 9:10, 11 and the example at 2 Chronicles 30:1-3, 15. Those who are of Jesus’ “other sheep” class, with the hope of everlasting life on a paradise earth, are not under command to partake of the bread and the wine. (John 10:16) It is important to attend the annual celebration, but they do not partake of the emblems. So if one of them is sick or is traveling and thus not with any congregation that evening, he or she could privately read over appropriate scriptures (including the account of Jesus’ instituting the celebration) and pray for Jehovah’s blessing on the event worldwide. But in this case there is no need for any additional arrangement for a meeting or a special Biblical discussion a month later. I believe the KM had first began to regularly mention this arrangement for going to the partakers who were confined to home, hospital, etc., in 1987. (As it is already mentioned in 1960.) But I recall that this practice might have fallen off somewhat at least in the late 70s and early 80s, and that there might have been some announcement to bring it back into full effect in 1984, because this is when our congregation began making these arrangements, instead of still making special arrangements to bring infirm, anointed brothers to the Hall. This had proved to be a lot of stress for an elderly person for which my own family had provided the transportation, and I remember the switch-over very well that year. [Not important, but I'd be interested if this was the case for any others prior to 1984, in case it was just a couple congregations in my area who seemed to change their arrangements at that time.] *** km 3/87 p. 3 Preparation for a Special Occasion *** Are arrangements complete to help older and infirm brothers and sisters? Are arrangements made to serve any of the anointed who may be confined and unable to attend? That 1993 WT article was brought up again in the KMS assignments in 1999 when Numbers 9 was part of the Bible Reading. But the main point was not about accommodating anointed with the one-month-later celebration, but only to make sure that it was understood that NO special arrangements were to be made for "other sheep" to have a special meeting one month later. The "Written Review" in December 1999 said: If a Christian of the other sheep class is not able to attend the Memorial of Jesus’ death, he should celebrate it a month later in harmony with the principle stated at Numbers 9:10, 11. (John 10:16) [Weekly Bible reading; see w93 2/1 p. 31 par. 9.] The correct answer was FALSE (he should NOT celebrate it one month later).
  5. Excellent point. When I worked in the Art Department at Bethel I first realized that "food at the proper time" for English readers was at about two months earlier than Spanish readers and between 6 and 8 months earlier than the average audience for other languages. For some of the books, the delay could be several years.
  6. The great tragedy of 'group' drowning deaths is that good swimmers often get tired out and pulled down by trying to save the ones who cannot swim. Survivors are often haunted by the fact that the only reason they survived is that they decided to swim away and not help their drowning friends.
  7. It's true. I remember when some Bethelites began betting on when certain non-anointed brothers at Bethel would start partaking of the emblems publicly before the older members of the Governing Body started dying off. Seriously!! And @Bible Speaks is also right about "chess." When I first wanted to play chess with some of the guys who set up a table around NYC parks, I realized that this was intended to be a money-making scheme for those with the tables. Even a side-bet is possible with some of them.
  8. Yes. The graphic is written incorrectly because it labels the name of each Hebrew letter incorrectly. Not to me. The mistake in the graphic is not a big deal. That's the reason that I said:
  9. This article was very good, but the graphic is wrong. At the top the statement is correct that Hebrew is read from right to left, but then the Hebrew letters in the graphic are written from left to right. This means that: the Hebrew letter just above the 1st 'He" (H) is actually not "He" but "Yod" the Hebrew letter just above the "Vav" (V) is actually not "Vav" but "He" the Hebrew letter just above the 2nd "He" (H) is actually not "He" but "Vav" the Hebrew letter just above the "Vod" [sic] is actually not "Yod" but "He" Also, of course, there is no letter "Vod" where it should say "Yod" Also, it is misleading to say at the top Jehovah (English) Yehovah (Hebrew) We don't have a good idea how "Jehovah" was pronounced in Hebrew, but we are almost positive that it would not have been pronounced "Yehovah."
  10. Careful who you blame for this. Brother Geoffrey Jackson (of the Governing Body) just announced last year in court that Jehovah's Witnesses are now casting off this particular cord, too. In print, at least (and in court statements) I think we will only be considering this "rod" to be a figurative "rod" referring to "instruction."
  11. That's about 7,600 years ago, not 12,000 as stated in the title. 12,000 referred to an ice age that was supposed to have begun melting off much more quickly 4 to 5 thousand years later. When people like Ballard go looking for something specific, they either find it or claim success even if they didn't find it. Not saying his story isn't worth taking notice, but there should be more people looking at the same pieces of evidence to see if they come up with the same story or a different story.
  12. LOL. Every now and then Allen goes on a gift-giving campaign of the same sort with me. I already got three out of three from him, one for each of my posts in this new topic alone. I don't feel badly, however, because I notice that he typically gives them out when he realizes he can't respond truthfully to a point without agreeing, and it's anathema for him to agree. So he has only these two choices. I actually prefer receiving the negative point, rather than be embarrassed for him when he goes off into another dishonest or unscriptural diatribe. There, with that statement, I just gave him a chance to claim a completely different rationale for his reactions. Maybe he will thank me for this one!
  13. ". . . and I sometimes think my children would love me had I used a gentler, soothing tone . . ." I was going to attempt to say something funny, but then this excerpt made me sad.
  14. @Anna I'd love to see a new Revelation book, too. I don't think it would remove types and anti-types completely, because I agree with @TrueTomHarley that Revelation "fairly begs" for these applications. Besides, the new "rule" on avoiding speculative types/anti-types doesn't cover prophecy; it only covers narratives and parables. (We also can make an anti-type prophecy from Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream in Daniel 4, because it shows up in Daniel, a book of prophecy, although we do not make a prophecy out of the "Lion's Den" narrative, or the "Three Hebrew 'Children'" narrative. Also we make an exception for parables that immediately follow a prophecy such as the end of Matthew 24, which is evidently why we treat the "faithful and discreet slave" parable as a prophecy about the Governing Body starting in 1919, although here, too, we make no prophecy out of the specific features of "two women grinding at a mill, one left, the other taken away, etc.") I would love to see a book on Revelation that is done in the style of a standard commentary, so that it contains several possibilities for the meaning of each verse, instead of dogmatic explanations that effectively make the entire book obsolete as soon as something changes. I'd like to see a style that is heavier on expressions like the following (where the ** refers to scripture citations, footnotes, or other references): "This verse in Revelation 11:1 is clearly alluding to similar verses in Ezekiel and Zechariah where the context of those verses discusses the preparations for rebuilding an earlier temple at Jerusalem which was destroyed by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar.** The rebuilt temple lasted from the time of Zechariah** until Herod the Great expanded it in the decades before Jesus was born.** That temple was destroyed in a horrific holocaust by the Romans in 70 C.E. Through the centuries, many have believed that this verse is an indication that a new physical temple will literally be built in Jerusalem before the final visitation of judgment on the world. It was while Herod's expanded temple was still standing that Jesus said: "Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." ** In fact, Paul speaks of Christians themselves as each one a temple** and all being built up together into a holy temple**. Therefore, it appears that we could look for a spiritual, rather than a physical application of the temple spoken of here. Note, too, that there is a specific time element associated with the temple preparation.**ref 1,260 etc** This could be an indication that the verse applies to some specific event in the time period leading up to the final judgment of the world. Perhaps it is a time period that we can identify within the recent history of God's people.** Perhaps it is something we will come to understand in the very near future! Some commentators have even applied it to events that would have been clear to the hearers of this vision who had lived in the first century. Recall that many in that generation had just experienced the traumatic event in 70 CE, seeing Jerusalem and its temple destroyed in a war that took well over a million lives.** In fact, a specific length of 1,260 days might have reminded them of the time period between [etc. etc. etc.] The next verses, however, may shed more light on the meaning of this and give evidence that the fulfillment is not limited to a first century application . . . etc etc etc... Sorry, got carried away.
  15. Sounds like a shibboleth. Closet apostates would likely let their yes mean no. But the answer is an obvious YES. Elders of all stripes should be qualified to teach. But the elders whom we trust the most to teach are the ones included in the "presiding" teaching positions in each of our local congregations. Therefore, by extension, we should also consider it right and organizationally correct, to include our most qualified elders in the the "presiding" teaching positions of the overall worldwide congregation. The Bible does not speak of a separate body within the congregational body, and we cannot speak of this body of elders as our Head or our Leader. Nevertheless, the group of elders whom we refer to as the Governing Body fills a key presiding position in the congregation. Therefore all the following scriptures should apply without hesitation: (1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13) 12 Now we request you, brothers, to show respect for those who are working hard among you and presiding over you in the Lord and admonishing you; 13 and to give them extraordinary consideration in love because of their work.. . . (1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. . . (Hebrews 13:17) 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, . . . (Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. (Romans 12:4-8) 4 For just as we have in one body many members, but the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another. 6 Since, then, we have gifts that differ according to the undeserved kindness given to us, if it is of prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or if it is a ministry, let us be at this ministry; or the one who teaches, let him be at his teaching; 8 or the one who encourages, let him give encouragement; the one who distributes, let him do it liberally; the one who presides, let him do it diligently; the one who shows mercy, let him do it cheerfully. (1 Corinthians 12:27-29) 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they?
  16. Every time I went back to begin a more complete response to this, I saw you had changed it. This was posted on Saturday, July 1, but your last edit was "5 hours ago." It's been more than 4 days now, so I hope you are finished editing: You said: "Jw insider: Chronology is ambiguous for a reason, Jehovah did not yell from the heavens that His Witnesses is the true faith. Otherwise everyone would be a Witness but for the wrong reasons, Jehovah wants people to worship him from the heart not because of the interpretation of some blogger who gets his info from apostate websites." Working from the last idea you presented in that paragraph, I got absolutely none of this information from apostate websites. I first learned all the basic ideas here from various brothers at Bethel, all of whom worked in positions of high responsibility in Service/Correspondence, Writing, and even two members of the Governing Body who continued to serve faithfully in their positions until death. The brothers in Writing were not apostates either. Two of them (Aid Book researchers) were dismissed from Bethel but at least one of them remained as an elder and a special pioneer when he went back to his own congregation. As I found time to search the scriptures and see whether these things were so, I realized that I was able to get all of it from the Bible itself, while still at Bethel, long before there were any books on the subject, and before the Internet was even a public thing. Also, just for the record, R.Franz was a very quiet person who kept to himself and I never got to know him at Bethel, except through his talks and morning worship. I was aware toward the middle of 1980 however, that he was said to hold some of the same views as some of these others, but I never got any of it from him. By early 1980, a least a hundred Bethelites were whispering about these things including issues with the 1914 doctrine. I also notice that you remind us that Jehovah wants people to worship him from the heart, not because of the interpretation of some blogger. I agree with this of course, and it's exactly why I believe it is important enough to bring up in public. No one should worship because of the interpretation of some blogger. I only respond to this particular point because it's the specific reason that ambiguous chronology has no place in our worship. ---- Previously I gave a response to your statement that "Chronology is ambiguous" but it was not a direct answer to your concern. I think your admission that the chronology is ambiguous is actually quite a statement to ponder. Unfortunately, by saying this you are admitting another kind of "deceit" that I hadn't really brought up yet. When one of your Bible students asks you about how you get the date 1914 from the Bible, do you admit that it's ambiguous? Do you tell the reason you just gave here, why you think it's ambiguous. I agree that it is ambiguous, but if you follow the direction of the Watchtower in such discussions, you are probably not admitting to your Bible students that chronology is ambiguous. In fact, it is well known that the date the Watchtower gives for the destruction of Jerusalem is questioned by 100% of all persons that the Watchtower quotes as experts on the subject. We accept the date 607 with absolutely no evidence for it. None! In fact we get this date by counting backwards from 539, yet all the persons who the Watchtower quotes as experts so that we "know" about the date 539 are the same experts who ALL question 607 as the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, we all have used the ideas that you can count backwards from 539, but 539 is part of the evidence that shows 607 is not possible. If 539 is a real, then 607 is wrong. That doesn't mean that we need to rely on secular chronology. We could always just say that we have our own chronology that we believe is Bible-based. But if that were true, then how could we ever speak about 539? 539 is a secular date, based on the very same evidence that shows 607 is not the date for Jerusalem's destruction. That's a kind of deceit. But putting that aside a minute, notice too that we can find over ONE THOUSAND references that don't ever admit that 607 is ambiguous. *** it-1 p. 133 Appointed Times of the Nations *** The ‘trampling’ on that kingdom of the dynasty of Davidic rulers did not begin with the Roman devastation of the city of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. It began centuries earlier with the Babylonian overthrow of that dynasty in 607 B.C.E. when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and took captive the dethroned king Zedekiah and the land was left desolate. (2Ki 25:1-26; see CHRONOLOGY.) *** it-1 p. 133 Appointed Times of the Nations *** This also confirms the start of “the appointed times of the nations” in the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, 607 B.C.E. *** si p. 69 par. 1 Bible Book Number 12—2 Kings *** Nebuchadnezzar at last executed Jehovah’s judgment by devastating Jerusalem, its temple, and the land of Judah in 607 B.C.E. This could go on for at least 1,500 references just from the latest Watchtower Library CD/DVD. There is no hesitation, and no qualification, and never an admission that this date is used with NO evidence for it. And not just with NO evidence, but AGAINST the evidence of all those the Watchtower considers experts about that time period. The vast majority of books and magazine bound volumes ever produced all mention the date, and never mention that it is problematic and ambiguous. And then there is the history of how we have presented other dates. Naturally as predictions first get proposed they might seem a bit tenuous, and then as we get closer and closer to the expected fulfillment, and we start losing confidence we can find statements that say that we never claimed these dates to be absolute. But look at the in-between time, when confidence was high: The Time is At Hand, p.239: Our Lord's presence as Bridegroom and Reaper was recognized during the first three and one-half years, from A.D. 1874 to A.D. 1878. Since that time it has been emphatically manifest that the time had come in A.D. 1878 when kingly judgment should begin at the house of God. . . . The year A.D. 1878, being the parallel of his assuming power and authority in the type, clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as King of Kings. . . . p.77: In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. . . . will obtain full universal control, and that it will then be "set up" or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions. Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p.226: We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble" Watch Tower, July 15, 1924, p.211: "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures even more clearly than that of 1914; but it would be presumptuous on the part of any faithful follower of the Lord to assume just what the Lord is going to do during that year . . . " I'm sure you are aware that this type of information could also continue ad nauseum. But note that there were times for almost every one of the dates proposed, when there was no question about these dates. Never is the general argument made that chronology is ambiguous. That's enough for the first part of my response to this particular post.
  17. This is a response to your post from Saturday, July 1, as marked above. You were especially focused on the word "deceiving." You ask how it can be proven that the Watchtower is deceiving people. That's pretty easy. Instances have already been pointed out a few times in threads that your I.P. address doppelgangers have participated in. No need to reinvent the wheel here, because we already know how you will spin it. Also, to keep it simple, I'll stick with items that have already been mentioned. But before repeating that example, I wanted to point out that your words about it being "so negative" and "corrupt" and "distorting the majority of their belief" is not how I see it. These mistakes, if that's what they turn out to be, are exactly the kinds of mistakes we should expect. In fact, they were exactly what Jesus told us to expect. A mistake that is repeated often still does not mean that there an intent to deceive. But nevertheless, it produces a deception. I pointed out a letter from a man who wrote Russell and said that he would have married, and continued with farming business, but that since the explanation of the 40 year harvest, etc., from 1874 convinced him to sell and not get married and put everything he could into the Harvest work. I'm sure you don't think this was so bad, even if it changed his life completely. Yet he was deceived into thinking that these teachings promoted by Russell were correct. And he changed his life over these teachings. When Jesus said, look out that you are not deceived in Matthew 24, he was referring specifically to how easy it would be to start thinking of wars and earthquakes as signs of the end, when Jesus said not to think of them that way. He said just to think of these things as things that must take place, but the end is not yet, these are just the beginning. And if we think about the rest of the instructions in Luke 21, then it becomes obvious that it would have been very easy to be deceived very early in this generation, when the Bible speaks of a couple of earthquakes early in the generation from 33 to 70. Also, remember that the Roman nation even under the recent Pax Romana was still in a constant state of "rumblings" or "rumors of war" at the borders. Every province saw soldiers traveling through to reach the outer edges of France, Spain, Britain, Germany, and other nations. There were skirmishes even in Jerusalem, Palestine, Galilee and Egypt as reported in Acts. If they had reacted too soon to these rumors and begun fleeing to the mountains, they would have brought unnecessary hardship upon themselves, their children, their pregnant relatives. They had to learn not to consider these things to be a sign. Not until Jerusalem was surrounded by armies was it time to move out. This is the primary kind of deceit that Jesus spoke about, although he also mentioned false prophets, and false Christs. You mention that: "Bolster and contradictions don't amount to reasoning by scripture, and it makes for bolstering and false claims of their own. Intelliculal dishonesty, therefore, would be the prevailing opinion. And True witnesses should be reminded of the wolf in sheep's clothing with such hypotheticals and personal opinions. Since the same can be said when it comes to deception with personal views within the Christian Congregation." This is absolutely true, and it's why all of us have to be careful even about what we propose hypothetically. I have begun stating it less hypothetically than I did a couple years ago, because I am now convinced in my own mind. (Compare, Romans 14:5) If we are convinced, it is not wrong to speak out in a sure manner: (1 Peter 4:11) 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. . . . But I don't claim that it reaches that level of sureness. Obviously, if anyone has information or evidence that calls this evidence into question, then both alternatives, or other viable alternatives should be compared and considered in the light of Scripture. All I am doing here is explaining why I am convinced that ALL the various aspects of the 1914 doctrine can now be shown to be problematic from a scriptural viewpoint: That includes, of course: The pseudo-archaeology behind the date 1914 (607) A clear non-contradictory explanation of the 70 years The range of meaning of the word "Parousia" Visitation,Presence,Royal Parade The range of meaning of the word "Synteleia" Conclusion/End The range of meaning of the word "Telos" Conclusion/End The range of meaning of the terms for "Last Days" The problem with claiming insivibility of the parousia The problem with claiming that signs would give us advance warnings The problem of exhausting all common meanings of Generation The references to the Kingdom in the first century The references to Satan falling from heaven in the first century The reference to "sit at my right hand" changed in the Bible to "rule as king" The "stand"/"sit"/"stand"/"sit" sequence in explanations The references to Christ as King in the first century The references to inconsistent and unnecessary types and antitypes in a second fulfillment of the tree dream The contradiction about Nebuchadnezzar's restoration as Christ's Kingdom, the Gentile representing the Jews, and vice versa The problem with Jesus referencing Luke 21:24 (Gentile Times) and giving them a length of 3.5 times, not 7 The problem of forcing 7 times to equal 2,520 years, when all references to the 3.5 times (half the length) is said to equal a number closer to 1,260 days The dual offices of Melchizedek The list can go on and on... But you are absolutely right that deception is possible in any doctrinal proposal. This is why we must prove to ourselves and make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. We won't always be right, of course, but if there are questions, then we admit the questions. We admit where we are using conjecture, and where we have no doubts.
  18. I usually avoid trying to explain myself in any detail, but with this specific confluence of comments, I'll take that risk. I've said several of these things before, but this time I'll do it without scriptures, so that no one need take it too seriously. First, I believe that we all have a Christian duty to test, prove, make sure, and question. Some don't believe that, and that's just fine, too -- for them. Second, as you might imagine, I am not really anonymous to everyone, after giving away enough of my history, experiences, background, family history, age, year of marriage, year of baptism, past locations, current location. So I would agree that much of this is a lot like writing a long drawn-out letter to the Society. I have already talked openly (on this subject) to a few current members of the Writing Dept, which includes two of the current GB Helpers. These are brothers I have known long enough to feel "safe." I have also put some of my questions in writing, but I do admit that these have also been effectively anonymous. I am a coward! I no longer have any direct contact with any GB members. I have talked to Brother Lett longer than any of the others, but that was in his most recent assignment before being asked to join the GB. If this is considered bragging, I don't consider it so, but it's only right that I present enough of my background, my biases, and my reasons. Third, I chose this forum because the number of participants is low, especially the number who will engage in doctrinal discussions. I do not choose to have such open discussions with anyone in our congregation, or any other congregation. My wife, parents, a former Bethel roommate, a current Bethelite, and an uncle who is a circuit overseer, are the only regular exceptions. This is because if someone reacted in an immature way to something I said, or I was misquoted or misunderstood, then unnecessary problems could arise. On a forum, I can try to choose my words more carefully, edit when I go too far, etc. But more than that, a forum gives everyone deniability in the sense that no one has to accept that I'm telling the truth. Some who have studied and questioned the same issues will recognize that I am trying to tell the truth, but if someone else here does not wish to deal with the same questions then they can (and will) simply dismiss me as a crack-pot or apostate or haughty braggart. That's actually the beauty of a forum. I don't have to feel that I am presenting anything to anyone who doesn't want to hear it. A forum provides this "utility" by default, because there will always be someone with the views of bruceq, or AllenSmith, coming to the rescue to provide what they feel is a proper warning to others. Just in case that's not enough, I always try to utilize a fairly direct presentation style and a much-too-long-and-wordy style that will also provide a turn-off to those who don't want to deal with it, and will act as a kind of filter to make sure that those who wish to follow really do wish to follow. Fourth, on the issue of apostate (ex-JW) websites or books. I don't go to or refer anyone to apostate websites. I don't quote from ex-JW websites. I own 5 of the books people consider to be highly apostate, but all of these books are also books that the Society also owns. Also, the 5th of these books, was recommended by Brother Harry Peloyam while on the phone to the Society to get an answer to a question I had on the Hitler/Rutherford letter. He literally recommended M. James Penton's book on Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich. I have two books by Raymond Franz, one by Carl Olof Jonsson (which I purchased in the midst of a discussion with Rolf Furuli), and two books by M. James Penton. I also bought two books by B. W. Schulz, although I have never checked to see if any of the writers/researchers are ex-JWs or apostates, yet. The Society's Writing Department, while I was there, kept at least one copy of most of the apostate books in a separate cabinet from the main libraries. After I left Bethel, I'm told by someone who has used them, that they purchased at least two copies of all these same books I just mentioned for the "apostate cabinet." In any particular topic, I have waited for someone else (e.g., Allen Smith) to begin quoting books by Raymond Franz (or, if necessary, Carl O. Jonsson) before quoting from them myself. From what I remember, there has been no quoting from apostate books or sites by anyone on this particular topic. Fifth, I have already admitted that I handled research assignments for both the Art Dept while working there for 4 years, and simultaneously handled research assignments for Brother Schroeder for just about three full years at Bethel and 2 more years after leaving. This involved a lot of reading of both the older and the newer publications and even proofreading some materials that came from the Teaching Committee. It's not like I was in the Writing Department, but I was in the Bethel and Gilead libraries almost daily and sometimes even in Brooklyn and Manhattan libraries at times. This did put me in contact with many members of the Writing Dept and several became life-long friends. And, yes, I grew to dislike a couple of them, too. Sixth, I'm a firm believer in transparency. I think that so many things would be much easier to understand and we would be seen as much more honest if we just stated what we know, without trying to hide anything. I think that in these days of search tools and databases that nothing remains hidden anyway. So we might as well get out in front of some of the issues that we wish would just go away. I think there is nothing wrong with showing the human side of people we have worked with, and admitting our own foibles, too. Knowing that Jehovah has worked with imperfect people and still accomplished so much is not anything to be ashamed of, just as it wasn't something that the Bible tries to hide from us when discussing various Bible characters. Seventh, Anna actually noticed the very point that triggered this particular conversation. I have had similar conversations here before, but never put all the potential related items out there to deal with at the same time. In fact, I've argued against doing this in the recent past. I think that it's easier to get through items of dirty laundry, or embarrassing episodes, or problematic doctrinal proof-texts, if we deal with them one at a time. But in this case, I put out several issues related to 1914 all at once. That's because the video about 1975 that has been brought up really does refer to putting the scriptures ahead of current teachings when something doesn't seem right. In this case, what doesn't seem right (to me) is the fact that every single feature of the 1914 doctrine is "problematic" in some way from a scriptural point of view. It actually seems surmountable when we deal with just one at a time, so that wouldn't have made the point as well about what "seems" wrong. Well, enough for now . . .
  19. Here is the ACTUAL original article that was faked in the image @Bible Speaks attached. It was actually published about January 1914, not October 1876 as depicted in the fake version, a time period when Russell had spoken about losing faith in 1914 because it was becoming more difficult to believe that all the things they expected to occur could still occur in the next few months. In the Watch Tower publications Russell even spoke about how a person living 100 years from now (that would be 2014) might look back on what he had written and have a laugh about it.
  20. Unfortunately, the image that was attached to this article is a good example of how Biblical chronology predictions are almost always accompanied by deception of some kind. The way it works is that whenever predictions are wrong they are minimized and whenever predictions come close to being true they are exaggerated. There was a time when we could get away with this in our publications, and there were many claims in the Watchtower over the years about how, many decades in advance 1914 was predicted to be a time for the start of great trouble. The problem with that claim is that many decades in advance 1914 was predicted to be the END of a time of great trouble. Only as 1914 approached with about ONE decade left, was this idea partially adjusted so that it was now expected that there would be no time of trouble interfering with the 40 year harvest, and that the "trouble" would START after October 1914 or some time 1915. It would result in the complete collapse of most human institutions and even the end of the Gentile nations by about the end of 1915. We can no longer get away with this kind of re-writing of our history, because this is the Internet. People can check things. We have to be more careful! THE ABOVE "BIBLE STUDENTS MONTHLY" is a FAKE! It appears to have been faked for the purpose of minimizing the false predictions for 1914 and maximizing the true predictions.
  21. Maybe 12% of women, the article says. BTW, If anyone wants to see the original article in English without the Google translation it's also on their website. From the July 2012 issue: http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision
  22. So, now, on to the next part of your post from 6/30/17: You say that "for Ezekiel's prophecy when only using 1260 in Revelation as a guide, you would end up in 653 AD" (Muslim rise). For some reason you also mention 66CE (Vatican?), and 100CE (Church fathers?). I believe you mention those early dates because you are pointing out that 66 to 100 (and therefore 70) is not a good time to think of Jesus as "king." Of course, the Bible contradicts this idea in a verse you have so far scrupulously avoided. (1 Tim 6:15) In Ezekiel's prophecy, I'll assume you are talking about the following: (Ezekiel 21:25-27) 25 “But your day has come, O fatally wounded, wicked chieftain of Israel, the time of your final punishment. 26 This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Remove the turban, and take off the crown. This will not remain the same. Raise up the low one, and bring low the high one. 27 A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I will make it. And it will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes, and I will give it to him.’ I could apply a couple of others of Ezekiel's prophecies, such as Ezekiel 37:1-14 which has some parallels to Revelation 11, and perhaps even show other places like Ezekiel 4:6, where the prophecy uses a day for a year. So you can correct me if I am missing something here, but I think you are taking 1,260 years from 607 BCE which would bring you close enough to 653 CE. So, assuming that the pseudo-archaeological date of 607 BCE was correct, you probably believe that 1,260 years from this starting point would be the only possible definition of the Gentile Times. And since this ends up near 653 CE, you probably believe that Jesus could not, therefore, have been serious about the Gentile Times being 3.5 years, or 42 months in length. As you are already no doubt aware, the Watchtower does not really use the idea of a day for a year as a "rule" because the "three and one-half times" that Jesus assigned to the Gentile Times are not changed to years anyway. They are treated as 1,260 literal days. (And it can never be admitted in the Watchtower that Jesus assigned this length to the Gentile Times because that would mean that Jesus contradicted the Watchtower.) *** w14 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers *** It extended from 1914 to the early part of 1919. This period of time includes both the 1,260 days (42 months) and the symbolic three and a half days referred to in Revelation chapter 11. To get it a little closer, we see that the dates were given in the most recent Revelation commentary as: *** re chap. 25 p. 164 par. 12 Reviving the Two Witnesses *** The John class had to preach this message for a definitely stated time: 1,260 days, or 42 months, the same length of time that the holy city was to be trampled underfoot. This period seems to be literal, since it is expressed in two different ways, first in months and then in days. Additionally, at the beginning of the Lord’s day, there was a marked period of three and a half years when the hard experiences of God’s people matched the events prophesied here—starting in December 1914 and continuing to June 1918. The start of December 1914 through the end of June 1918 is about 1,307 days. The end of December 1914 through the start of June 1918 is about 1,248 days. The middle of December 1914 through the middle of June 1918 is about 1,278 days. So that wouldn't be very far off from 1,260 days. Can we get a little more exact to see why these months are being mentioned? *** dp chap. 17 p. 296 par. 18 Identifying True Worshipers in the Time of the End *** The prophecy is quite explicit as to when the 1,260 days would end—when there is “a finishing of the dashing of the power of the holy people to pieces.” In the middle of 1918, leading members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, including its president, J. F. Rutherford, were convicted on false charges, sentenced to long terms of confinement, and imprisoned. God’s holy ones did indeed see their work ‘dashed to pieces,’ their power broken. When was holy "saint" Rutherford convicted, sentenced and imprisoned? Did one of these events happen on a day in June 1918? *** w99 2/1 p. 17 par. 14 Our Treasure in Earthen Vessels *** On June 21, 1918, Brother Rutherford and seven other leading Bible Students were jailed. . . . On appeal, they were released on March 26, 1919. So the probable 1,260 day run ends close to June 21, 1918 meaning that it started close to January 8, 1915. (see http://www.convertunits.com/dates/from/Jan+8,+1915/to/Jun+21,+1918 for a quick check of the calculation.) That means that you can't really reach back all the way to the year 1914 from the time they were imprisoned. In order to reach back into the year 1914 you'd have to go back at least 9 days before the imprisonment. Of course, nothing all that special happened in December 1914 anyway, so it's obvious that they just wanted to try to reach back into that year for the "optics" even if the 1,260 only reached back to the beginning of 1915. In the book "Our Incoming World Government - God's Kingdom" Fred Franz dealt with this problem using the Jewish names for the months, but this didn't really hide the problem for anyone that went to the effort to look at the actual Jewish dates he used. They were often even farther out of range than the current "miscalculation." Then the publications just apparently give up on trying to assign the next mention of days in the same vision of Revelation 11: (Revelation 11:11) . . .After the three and a half days, spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon those who saw them. These 3.5 extra days, are assigned to a period that goes from about June 21, 1918 when they were imprisoned to around March 26, 1919 when they were released. *** re chap. 25 p. 169 par. 24 Reviving the Two Witnesses *** The corpses of the two witnesses were suddenly alive and active again. It was a bitter pill for those clergymen to swallow, the more so since the Christian ministers whom they had schemed to put in prison were free again [March 1919], later to be fully exonerated. The 3.5 days are merely compared with the 1,260 days and said to therefore refer to a "shorter period of time." Imagine that! Trying to get within a 9 days of 1,260 days, and then saying that the next 3 and one-half days refer to a period of about 278 days! The first calculation is within 1% correct. The second calculation is off by about 8,000% Imagine, if the 2,520 years could be that far off. It's like saying that Jesus could have received his kingship in 1914, or if we were to use the same level of accuracy we use in Revelation 11:11, then perhaps it could be as late as the year 200,000 CE -- nearly 200 millenniums from now! ---------- So then you go on to say that the prophecy should have been fulfilled in 653 AD, and yet we are still here living under a corrupt government. That entire idea should be rejected wholeheartedly if we take Jesus seriously. First of all, Jesus said the Gentile Times had not started yet when he gave the prophecy in Luke 21. Remember that he said that: (Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations [Gentiles] until the appointed times of the nations [Gentiles] are fulfilled. (Rev 11:2,3) . . . and the holy city will be trampled on by the nations [Gentiles] until 42 months (1,260 days) are fulfilled. [paraphrased] The verb "will be trampled" is in the future tense. Both Jesus and Luke knew how to use verbs and could have easily chosen the correct verb tense if he wanted to express ongoing action that started in the past but was continuing. (Also, it should be noted that you are still living under a corrupt government today, even though you are 103 years past 1914.) The solution is not to start the 1,260 days in 607 or anywhere near 607. Another solution is not to change the 1,260 days into years. Despite the fact that the Watchtower calls this a "rule" they break it for every single reference to any modern prophetic fulfillment except the 7 times. They don't even use it for 3.5 times, or even for the 3.5 days, or the 1,290 days, or the 1,335 days. Not much of a "rule" is it? You also asked: "And who were the 2 witnesses, and why has God allowed an additional 1900 years to pass." I'll discuss a possible alternate view of Revelation 11 under another topic heading. As to why God allowed an additional 1900 years to pass, I think we all know. (2 Peter 3:8, 9) 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. It's the same as asking why the Babylonian Captivity (in our current explanation) lasted about 1,900 years. You also asked: "when did the great commission end in order to fulfill God’s promise of a better Kingdom. Mark 16:15" My Bible no longer includes Mark 16:15, but if you are referring to the same commission in Matthew 28:18-20 where Jesus announced that "ALL authority had been given him in heaven and on earth" and he therefore commissioned a disciple-making work, then it has not ended for any of us who take on preaching and teaching as our primary ministry in the congregation. It goes on for the same reason stated in 2 Peter 3. Your questions are basically pointing out good reasons to realize that you should not start the Gentile Times prior to Jesus announcement that they would begin some time in the future, not in the past. You said: Therefore, scripture would be a book of inconsistent stories, and prophecy's, since all that Jesus promised for his father’s sake, would have been complete, and humanity continues in the same path So, those opinions ARE NOT SCRIPTURALLY SOUND!!!!! I think we can just as easily see that it's the 1914 doctrine creating a book of inconsistent applications of prophecies, and changing explanations. And since humanity continues in the same path after 1914 as they had before, and since all that Jesus promised for his Father's sake is still not complete, you are arguing for reasons why Jesus could not have started his kingdom in 1914, either. Then you say: Knowledge is afforded to those that seek the kingdom of God. Therefore, those that believe their own opinion, is part of this world, and have NO heavenly kingdom interest. Therefore, there is no difficulty expressing God’s word to the nations, by scripture, and those that proclaim in the name of their own opinion, overshadow true knowledge. So, Christians would do better to accept the word of God, and through those that God commissions, rather than allow masked opinions peak their curiosity. If we are truly seeking the kingdom, we will not fall for just any opinions, but will base what we know on the Bible, and admit what we don't know. If it turns out that we have been preaching 1914 just because it was the tradition and opinion of men, then it won't seem right. Pieces of the puzzle will begin to unravel through study of the Scriptures, respect for the Scriptures, prayer, meditation, discussion with others, and serious inquiry. Christians should accept the word of God through those whom God commissions, the Bible writers themselves. It's a dangerous thing when we start accepting what men say without question. The Bible tells us to test everything, make sure of all things, and to be noble-minded by questioning. Why would anyone decide to shirk such a wonderful and enjoyable responsibility? (1 John 4:1) 4 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . . (Philippians 1:8-10) . . .. 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ; (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21) . . .. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. (Acts 17:11) . . .Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·niʹca, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . . (Philippians 4:5) . . .Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near.
  23. These are excellent points. But let's look at this more closely. Let's say, just as an example, there was an angel who vanquished all opposition to Jehovah's rulership by killing 185,000 Assyrians in one night. This might even be one of those occasions when one could say, "Jehovah has become King." But would you ever express this fact by calling that angel a king? Also, if you are able to say, as you did, that Jehovah's Son could express rulership in executive action, then why be so concerned to claim that he is NOT really a king holding the office of king? Perhaps that's exactly what makes him a king in the Bible's terminology. How can you even use an expression like the "kingdom of His Son" without thinking that the person for whom that Kingdom is named is not truly a king? Would you ever say "David's kingdom" and claim that David was not really a king? Also, notice that Jehovah is already a king when some event or action causes Jehovah to become king. So, why do we need to make sure then that Jesus is NOT a king when the Bible speaks of him as becoming king? Trying to make use of this idea that Jehovah can be said to become King even though he already is King is irrelevant, then. It doesn't prove Jehovah was not a King, so it can't be used to prove that Jesus was not a King. So when you say "why cannot Jesus do the same?" what you really mean is something like the opposite. You mean something more akin to "why can't we say Jesus is NOT a king when he becomes king." And why do you think everyone who holds this idea that Jesus can be called king but not really be a king has avoided the fact that his title in 1 Tim 6 is "king of kings" in the first century? Doesn't this make him more than just a king over the kingdom of his congregation? Why is he called "ruler of the kings of the earth" in the first century? The Watchtower publications freely admit that Jesus was at least king of the kingdom over his congregation. And we believe Colossians was written around 61 CE. (Colossians 1:13) 13 He [God] rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, Of course, the Bible says nothing about Jesus having two kingdoms. And since God's "beloved Son" is Jesus, this verse actually says "He . . . transferred us into the Kingdom of [Jesus]." It is pure conjecture and speculation to claim that Jesus has a second Kingdom, not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. What is really happening here is pretty obvious, which is that Jesus has been bringing Kingdom subjects into his Kingdom since the first century. To me, it's more like when there's a fire on the back of someone's head, but that person is more interested in semantics and ignores the obvious.
  24. I realized that there were several more name changes as soon as I looked up a couple of the other languages for that last post to Queen Esther. Our Kingdom Hall has a French and Spanish congregation and they both use Caleb and Sophia (Sofia). My sister is in Copenhagen and she told me it was Caleb and Sophia there too, and I just looked it up and realized it wasn't true, it's just that they listen in English. Perhaps that's why Queen Esther also didn't mention Philipp.
×
×
  • 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.