Jump to content

JW Insider

Member
  • Content Count

    3,964
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    135

Everything posted by JW Insider

  1. I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again. Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though. There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support. On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death. The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
  2. Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
  3. Looking at today's scripture text, I see that there is a fairly good reference to the concept of "core doctrines" in the commentary. Some have questioned whether this concept of core doctrines is correct, with the alternative being that we should accept ALL doctrines, great and small, with equal vigor. In other words, we should be ready to die for the our current teaching concerning "whether people of Sodom would be resurrected" just as strongly as we should be ready to die for the doctrine of the Ransom. The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. *** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 *** What are the key teachings of your faith? Surely you would stress that Jehovah is the Creator and Life-Giver. You would likely mention your belief in Jesus Christ, who died as a ransom. And you would happily add that an earthly paradise is ahead, where God’s people will live forever. But would you mention the resurrection as one of your most cherished beliefs? We have good reasons to include the resurrection as a key teaching even if we personally hope to survive the great tribulation and live on earth forever. The resurrection is central to our faith. Had Christ not been resurrected, he would not be our ruling King, and our teaching about Christ’s rule would be in vain. (1 Cor. 15:12-19) However, we know that Jesus was resurrected, and we hold firm to our belief in the resurrection. Note that the text reminds us a few things that the great crowd, perhaps, do not get reminded of enough: We might die. The great hope is that "You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World." But since the book of that title came out, most of us who studied that book as JWs are now dead. The key teachings mentioned above are therefore: Jehovah is the Creator, Jesus' Ransom, Living Forever in an Earthly Paradise The Resurrection The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom I would agree that these are definitely the core teachings. Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. This is true whether one focuses on the Kingdom preaching beginning in 29 CE through 33 CE, or the Kingdom's beginning in 33 when Christ began to rule as king (1 Cor 15, Colossians 1, Acts 2, Revelation 1, etc.), or the historical outworking of the Kingdom with renewed emphasis on preaching since WWI, or the focus on what that Kingdom will bring to the new heavens and new earth. But the fact that 1 Cor 15 is quoted above as the context to the teaching about Christ's rule, and that Paul goes on in verse 25 to indicate that "sit at my right hand" is the equivalent of "rule as king" tells me that 1914 might have been left off on purpose. (Because Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33 CE., therefore he began ruling as king in 33 CE. --1 Cor 15:25) That's an easy solution to all the current difficulties and contradictions in the 1914 teaching. But it's not the "difficult teaching" I had in mind. If you look at the text through the Watchtower Library, you will also see that it is somewhat related to the material for the Midweek meeting (December 9-15), which starts out with a discussion of Revelation 11. *** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 *** TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD • “‘Two Witnesses’ Are Killed and Brought Back to Life”: (10 min.) Re 11:3—“Two witnesses” prophesy for 1,260 days (w14 11/15 30) Re 11:7—They are killed by “the wild beast” Re 11:11—The “two witnesses” are brought back to life after “the three and a half days” I'll explain later today.
  4. And he finally explained why he sometimes looks orange. Turns out deregulation will solve his orangeness, too. (Not kidding!) This sounded like something coming out of The Onion, but it was for real!
  5. I'm pretty sure there was never any accusation concerning more than 3 of them out of 17 or 18 contemporary GB members at the time. (Jaracz, Greenlees, Chitty) I do not believe there was the slightest suspicion upon any of the others at the time, nor any of the current members either. Also, even if a child molestor tends to molest boys rather than girls, it is not the same as homosexuality, and this was the accusation against one of the three. Another was long rumored to be homosexual, and was ALSO accused of having been a child molestor. And the third was a man who had evidently been homosexual, but I never knew of any rumor or accusation of an underage partner.
  6. I don't know if anyone provided an update to this story, but the "brother" finally pled guilty, and was sentenced to five years, for three felony counts of child rape with two different victims. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-who-raped-jehovah-s-witness-girls-sentenced-5-years-n1082136 Elihu Rodriguez, 32, of Yakima, Washington, was given five years, the maximum sentence prosecutors had asked for, after Rodriguez pleaded guilty to three felony counts of child rape in the third degree in September. He was also ordered to register as a sex offender. Both of his victims attended the sentencing, which took place Friday at the King County Maleng Regional Justice Center in Kent, Washington. I believe this was the case I was told something about in 2018, which is why I mentioned then that I couldn't say much because it was an upcoming court case. If it's the same one, then someone (parent?) convinced her not to report it because it was just a matter that this 25-year-old was in love with her, and so they told her it was actually multiple acts of fornication, not child abuse or child rape. She agreed not to report on the basis that she would be considered guilty of fornication, too. So the family moved to another congregation, and within months, she got to a point where she decided she needed to report it to the elders. (I don't think it was because she learned about another girl being raped/abused by the man, even though this would make sense.) When she did report it to her new congregation's elders in 2013, they actually called the legal department just as they were supposed to, but evidently someone thought it was going to be possible to treat this as "consensual" and the elders tried to get her to say it was consensual. She refused to agree with the elders that it was consensual, and took it to the authorities. When I heard about this case (or perhaps another one just like it) I was only told the general area of the US, and some circumstances, but no names. I was only told that this was disturbing that someone would try to turn a child molestation case of a "16 year old girl" into a consensual case in spite of the young age. (I was not told that she was actually 14/15.) Years earlier, J R Brown, as a spokesmen for the Society, had tried to minimize a lot of these cases by saying that a lot of them are like cases of an 18 year old boy with a 16 year old girl, which sounded a bit like the old "boys will be boys" excuse.
  7. Some do. Like the Rainbow Mountains, and some of the Caucasus (Svaneti) look more like rocky Alps. I'd love to see those mountains, and I planned to visit Georgia within two or three years if possible. I've never been to Georgia, the closest so far has been to northern Turkey (Ankara, Zonguldak, Samsun). If Jehovah did not intervene, and nature was left to itself, moving the tectonic plates would have caused thousands of violent aftershocks and tsunamis for quite some time after the floodwaters settled. Even on water, during the Flood, the Ark would have to be given divine protection. Settling on a high mountain might protect from tsunamis but not the quakes. I'd like to look up some info on these. Where should I start?
  8. The story has also been told that it was a "black boy" who offered him the newspaper for free: https://mylife-chapter.blogspot.com/2017/08/who-is-richer-than-bill-gates.html When my wife was a school principal, teachers were always putting up posters about, for example, the "Ten Things Bill Gates Says about School" or "What Bill Gates Said Were the Most Important Things in Life" etc. He may have told a story like this, but usually people create such stories so that their own moral lesson comes across with more authority.
  9. This guy over here did at https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=197629 To me, they sound a bit corny in English, but that's always fixable by translating to another language.
  10. OK. I have long believed this explains a goo part of the issues. The Flood has been pointed to for a lot of things. I just have never made the time to study the evidence. I'm sure a worldwide flood would be expected to create a lot of shifting and catastrophic changes. We've even made claims (like Young Earth Creationists) that the pre-Flood atmosphere would have allowed less of certain types of dangerous radiation in, and that the post-Flood radiation would somehow have changed Carbon 14 dating accuracy. I don't think we ever figured out a scientific way this was possible though.
  11. Do you think that's a solution, though? Positing that Satan deposited these fossils to trick us would certainly explain some things, but it also seems like a stretch to me. It's a bit like me claiming that I can lift 100 tons, and then sticking by that claim just because you can't prove that I can't. I already believe that evolutionists can't prove all their claims, but it would be nice if there were some evidence of this depositing that could not be explained better in other ways. For that matter, the fact that so many areas of the world still have UNdisturbed layers of sediment bothers me.
  12. Maybe this will help? Note the last line especially. But also note that HALF-LIFE doesn't mean that all of a substance is gone, does it? It means that HALF of it will be gone in that time. https://teachnuclear.ca/all-things-nuclear/radiation/radioactive-decay/half-life/ The Earth itself is about 4.5 billion years old. The half-life of uranium-238, the dominant isotope in natural uranium, is also 4.5 billion years. When the earth was young, there was twice as much uranium-238 as exists today. Moreover, there was more than 64 times as much uranium-235 at that time than exists today (the half-life of uranium-235 is 704 million years). https://teachnuclear.ca/all-things-nuclear/radiation/radioactive-decay/ As uranium-238 decays into lead-206, it will sometimes decay into a different isotope of its parent uranium isotope and sometimes it will decay into an isotope of a totally different element than its parent. This series of alpha and beta decays is known as the uranium-238 decay series.. Uranium-238 Decay Series Radioactive Isotope Half Life Type of Decay Uranium-238 4.5 billion years α Thorium-234 24 days β Protactinium-234 1.2 minutes β Uranium-234 245,000 years α Thorium-230 75,000 years α [skipped a few] Polonium-210 138 days α Lead-206 (stable) Each radioactive isotope is the parent of the progeny isotope listed below it. Each progeny isotope has a much shorter half-life than uranium-238. This radioactive series will require a little over 6.5 billion years to complete.
  13. I tried to find some of that info and Google led me to https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/modern-fossils-with-dinos/ One problem is that this showed up: In 2005 researchers in China identified a small dinosaur known as Psittacosaurus amongst the stomach region of a fossilized furry mammal that resembled a Tasmanian devil. (Hu, Y. et al., “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature: 433, 2005, pp. 149-152.) To find such an advanced predatory mammal came as a surprise to these researchers. The evolutionists had long maintained that the only mammals alive at the time of the dinosaurs were very small, like the supposed human ancestor that resembled a squirrel! Nothing in this article could show that some of these other animals ONLY lived in "modern" times, which takes us right back to the problem of animals eating other animals.
  14. It had words? In what language? Who wrote them? Shostakovich? I saw that someone had recently added their own words, when I googled lyrics for it. (Sometime after Stanley Kubrick used it, I assumed from a very quick scan.) But I never saw words in the original context of the work.
  15. I'm a bit confused then. The eyes of both predators and prey didn't being moving (evolving?) until after Adam's fall, 6,050 or so years ago?? [or post-Flood, 4,400 years ago?]
  16. Googling it, I see that animals that move in groups "include elephants, lions, wolves, bees, and ants." So I don't see how anyone can claim that animals that move in "herds" do not eat meat.
  17. I've interacted with Harry Peloyan, and thought him to be honest. But I do believe the Evolution book (1967) was almost entirely his own work. He never told me, but he dropped enough hints. Do you think he was behind the 1985 book? I can believe that Peloyan enjoyed making secularists look bad. I find it hard to believe, however, that Peloyan admitted that he used "dishonesty" to make secularists look bad. But he did make it through Harvard, and I therefore can't believe he didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. Today, one could be kicked out of Harvard for some of the same quoting tactics.
  18. OK. So maybe these radioactive materials were and are good after all. Perhaps they are artifacts of creation to let us know that God is on a higher plane and his thoughts are greater than ours. One could surmise that the area of the original garden paradise was under God's control, and that as man would have needed to expand, the instructions for how to handle dangerous materials would have been forthcoming. Or perhaps all such dangers were safely buried until the Flood? At any rate, I think we have to admit that animals behaved violently long before Adam sinned. Creating an environment good for man might have required a lot of death and destruction of very minute things as small as bacteria and some of the larger animals too, like a T-Rex, Saber-tooth Tiger, or a hippo, great white shark, lion, or crocodile. Perhaps this creates a reminder of the strength and power of the God who created them. (See Job on Leviathan, Behemoth, etc.) Whether or not man would ever sin, he should still have reminders of the awesome creation and Creator. His having the animals in subjection would not be very impressive if all animals were like pet sheep, even in their natural states.
  19. You are right that there has been a movement to "normalize" all this supposed sexual fluidity and new definitions. These supposedly progressive "culture warriors" are out there trying to get anything and everything made acceptable. It's a real mess. And it is also working as a trap for stupid Americans (apologies to stupid Americans) who think that this is some wonderful bandwagon to jump on. Even in many colleges and universities, so-called places for progress and freedom, many of these "culture warriors" have tried to suppress speech, etc.
  20. This would mean that you think the dinosaurs died out about 4,400 years ago? I heard you mention a couple of these. The ones I looked up didn't pan out. The claims about them were not very scientific. And obviously this is where I would hope that new answers will show up, and hopefully this is where WTS writers will be especially helpful. While I was at Bethel there was no one who knew much of anything about this type of science. If there was, he or she didn't speak up when the Evolution book was ready for an update.
  21. If you are referring to me here, then you should know that I am not disappointed in Jehovah, nor in Creation. I am only disappointed that our explanations are not able to keep up with the evidence. I can't think of another way to put it, but this is an area where we must currently reject evidence, some of which I have gone to see for myself, hoping the evidence was more ambiguous. There are many ways to resolve the existence of God and even MOST of the evidence. But we are clearly oversimplifying the process of creation if those unresolved pieces of evidence are real. And I have no problem with imagining that Jehovah created many thousands of species that we have not yet seen, and that creation was a much a grander and more wonderful process than we could imagine. I still think there is a good explanation out there somewhere. I am disappointed, not in the Bible, but in the fact that some WTS writers, especially in the past, had misused the writings of evolutionists instead of dealing with the evidence itself. I wasn't referring to the case that TTH mentioned. But I didn't think this point was generally in question.
  22. On the overall subject of evolution, I don't pretend to know the answers. I think that a lot of the evidence on both sides has been misunderstood, but every time I try to look into it myself, it seems that the "wrong" evidence is winning. My mother believes that Satan, who keeps transforming himself into an angel of light, was given powers/permission to hide fossils in whatever places he wished to cause confusion and division. (Perhaps a hint of this in Satan's argument over Moses' body in Jude 9.) I don't like this theory at all. I've mostly heard it from young earth creationists, and was actually surprised to hear it from my mother. It brings up so many questions about the timing of such "miracles" that Satan was allowed to perform. Were these fossils moved at the time of the Garden of Eden? Is Satan still allowed to perform these miracles today? I've heard my father (in fact I've been with him at museums) back in the years when he tried to explain the feathers on certain non-flying dinosaurs as feathery-looking ferns and/or other leaves and plants. I've now seen enough of these fossils up close so that I realize he is just grasping at straws. I have always assumed that there is a bigger puzzle here and that none of us are ready to deal with all the facts and evidence yet. Although my own son (the math/physicist) tells me that the sum total of the evidence does currently fit the evolution theory, with some minor exceptions not yet understood, but which will probably still fit among the current theories, with minor adjustments. To my son's credit, he does not believe the current theories are necessarily final, and they don't prove there is no God. But here is the most surprising thing about my son's belief: The current theories are the ones that HONEST scientists are forced to accept based on rules of handling scientific evidence. It's not the same as scholars having a vested interest in keeping things going because of power and influence. In fact, if a scientist could come up with a new theory that fits the facts and evidence, he would become the new Darwin. It's probably the "holy grail" of scientists to be able to topple a current theory with a better explanation for all the evidence The problem is not the scholars, or the theory, it's that this theory is the RIGHT one from the perspective of science. It fits the old evidence and the new evidence, so far. The best the Society can do is to look for inconsistencies and disagreements among certain scientists, and make the most of these issues to show us that there is still some room for disagreement over certain bits of evidence. I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists, however, or quote a religious view from a different kind of scientist who clearly never dealt with evolutionary theory. I'd like to think that the WTS writers were only being careless when looking for ways to discredit evolutionary scientists, but the clever way in which words have been selected for quotes, with other words left out, tells me that the writers have sometimes understood the original intent and stooped to dishonesty. I'm not sure why a WTS writer would ever think this was a reasonable solution for us. But it tells me that the WTS is not ready to explain the overall evidence yet. This reminds me of a problem I've had with uranium. What GOOD is it? Radioactive substances were clearly on the earth when Jehovah declared each successive day "good." And after the sixth day he could look back and see that everything he had made was good. Was it good because humans might find that some radioactive elements could be made to produce heat like coals? Obviously not! Were all radioactive elements and substances kept out of man's reach so that he would never come across them? Perhaps it was so that man would someday harness these powers and create a safe source of energy? This implies that Jehovah wanted mankind to develop technologically, and as indicated by the Tower of Babel, perhaps controlled the pace of that progress until today or some time in the near future. But if we don't really need it until the new system, why not make it in the new system, in much the same way that he provided quail or manna. And why would we need it in the new system, anyway? I can understand how Jehovah could have made all animals subject to man such as in a Garden of Eden. Even animals that are violent with one another can still be trained to be peaceful in their interaction with humans. But perhaps this is the same argument that AlanF is making about thousands of years of animals being violent and unloving with one another. I have less problem with that, than with all the things that would seem to be poison to us, and which we would only learn about through dangerous, even lethal, experimentation. Does EVERY poison and danger have a good side? When did certain plants and elements become poisonous to us? Only after Adam's sin?

×
×
  • 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.