Jump to content

JOHN DAVIS

WHAT DOES ISAIAH 26:20 MEAN WHEN IT SAYS: GO MY PEOPLE INTO YOUR INNER ROOMS? AND WHAT DOES THE INNER ROOMS REPRESENT?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JOHN DAVIS -
James Thomas Rook Jr. -
5
325

Top Posters


Recommended Posts


An inner room is room with no windows to the outside.

Things done in an inner room are not observable by anyone outside of the house... only by those who "know".

We should be proud of EVERYTHING we do as Jehovah's Witnesses, and HAVE no "inner rooms"

Secrecy is the beginning, and the mother of tyranny.

It is important to be obedient to Jehovah God and his Christ at this time because MANY will try to mislead us.

We should closely follow "Jehovah's Chariot", where ever it leads us ... but be careful of circus clown cars.

follow that chariot    600   .jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JOHN DAVIS said:

what are the inner rooms that isaiah was referring to?

Does not this refer to the action of Cyrus in carrying out the conquest of Babylon? Xenephon records:

"Cyrus then sent the companies of cavalry around through the streets and gave them orders to cut down all whom they found out of doors, while he directed those who understood Assyrian to proclaim to those in their houses that they should stay there, for if any one should be caught outside, he would be put to death. [32]"

Cyropedia. Vol 7 Chap 5 v32.

In answer to your question, the clear lesson is that obedience to Jehovah's instructions is life-important. The detail of just how this will work out during the "great tribulation" remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By JOHN BUTLER
      I do find it kinda' funny that JW's love to talk about billions of people being removed / destroyed / killed / murdered at Armageddon. Billions of people.
      And for what ? Well JW's say it's for not serving God. But they will also say it's for not being a baptised JW. 
      Well we do know for sure that God either deliberately had, or deliberately allowed, the destruction of Jerusalem in circa 70 C E, and for what ? 
      Well the Bible shows us it was for not serving God properly, and for killing God's son. 
      BUT when I suggest that the Governing Body should be removed or destroyed, oh dear, the JW's they get really upset ya know. 
      Governing Body = 8 men.   Jerusalem = how many, men, women and children, thousands of them. 
      But oh dear, now it would be murder. So what was it back then ?  Your see JW's live in a dream world, wrapped up in cotton wool, they just cannot face the real world.
      The Governing Body do not serve God properly. That is clearly visible to anyone that honestly wants to see it. 
      The Governing Body are destroying JW Org, and if JW Org is God's true Organisation then the GB are deliberately working against God and against God's intentions. 
      Humans that deliberately work against God and cause problems for God do not last long on this Earth. 
      The Bible shows much proof of this, such as those that opposed Moses. 
      I am expecting the GB to be removed, one way or another. But only if God really wants to use the JW Org / Watchtower soc for His own purposes. 
      If God does not want to use those Orgs then it would seem sensible for God to set up a new Org for His purposes. 
      The only problem with the GB being 'removed' is that JW's will call it a 'sign of the times' and 'persecution', but if God causes the removal then I'm sure He will put them straight. 
      Those people that say that the GB cannot be removed / destroyed, are those people that worship the GB. And those people that worship the GB may probably need removing too. 
      The world is wicked, it belongs to Satan. The Earth is wonderful and it belongs to Almighty God.
      For God to save this Earth and for Him to save a few humans too, drastic things have to take place. Drastic things have to take place.
       
    • By admin
      Part of a wiki on:
      So I can edit your post?

    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      WHY would Jehovah's Witnesses reject Government  calls for Independent Inquiry into sexual abuse?


    • By TrueTomHarley
      Maybe we finally have this City of Refuge thing down pat after yesterday's study article. The way the Law had it, the accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, where his case would be heard. If the 'avenger of blood' (closest relative of the deceased) killed him before he got there, he was guiltless. He might simply have lost it. Or he might figure there wouldn't have been an accident if the fellow had been more careful or not neglected safety. (aspects of safety on the job were also considered, as in 'What can we learn from this?')   BUT some have said that he could not do otherwise. He MUST put the killer to death. It is not his prerogative to overlook or forgive, because principles greater than just a matter between two humans come into play. Still, it is hard to believe that a man, bereaved himself, would HAVE TO put to death someone, maybe a close friend or even a relative, who had accidentally taken a life.   How does the following work as a compromise? The killer MUST flee to one of the cities of refuge - that much is clear. Why couldn't the avenger of blood take his sweet time in his 'pursuit' - or even walk there with him, if he was really a close chum? Our minds are skewed by the picture in the Watchtower decades ago of the manslayer running for all he is worth with the avenger hot on his heals. Who is to say it was always (or even usually) like that?   The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?   THEN he would be put to death, not just for the accidental killing itself, or even primarily, but for the greater crime of thumbing his nose at God, for it is his arrangement. Put to death BY WHO becomes secondary. Maybe the avenger of blood. But if the avenger simply couldn't find it within himself to do it, it is hard to believe there would not be a posse or something to help him out or even take it off his hands.   Of course, if the real sin is thumbing one's nose at God, the avenger would probably be incensed over THAT and would possibly 'rise to the occasion' on that count, whereas the death itself he would be willing to forgive.   Does it work?
    • By JOHN DAVIS
      WHAT CONVENTION WAS THIS DRAMA SHOWN ? AND WHAT WAS THIS DRAMA ABOUT?
    • By Outta Here
      De.19:15 is pretty explicit:
      “No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established."
      However, increasingly, De.22:25-27 is set against this requirement as a justification for relaxing the 2 witness requirement in modern cases of abuse.
      "“If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her."
      The witness absence factor is compared to a case of murder. We know there were provisions in Israel for this in the form of the cities of refuge procedures (Nu.35:10-32, where the single witness prohibition is stated at v30), and the bloodguilt removal procedure in the complete absence of a perpetrator as outlined at De.21:9.
      With regard to the sexual crime, further procedures were in place in which Jehovah's participation as a witness was invited. These are outlined at Nu.5:11-31. Obviously, Jehovah can serve as a witness in the case of secret sin of this nature (2Sam.11:27) without invoking a ritual,  because he is aware of these things. 
      Does anyone know of instances in Jewish history or commentaries where the matter outlined in De.22:25 was handled appropriately?
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Has the Society ever ruled on what happens if a man or woman abandons their spouse forever ... is the one abandoned stuck forever ?
    • By Bible Speaks
      A New World of Justice
      The Bible tells us what kind of rulership we can expect, rulership that all righthearted individuals now long for. Psalm 145:16 will then find fulfillment in its completest sense: “You [Jehovah God] are opening your hand and satisfying the desire of every living thing.”
      Moreover, Isaiah 32:1 says: “Look! A king [Christ Jesus in heaven] will reign for righteousness itself; and as respects princes [Christ’s earthly representatives], they will rule as princes for justice itself.” 
      Regarding the King Jesus Christ, Isaiah 9:7 foretells: “To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.” 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
       
      IMG_1281.mov
      Two pictures each moving and a GIF 

  • Forum Statistics

    60,849
    Total Topics
    110,849
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,342
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Dafniter
    Newest Member
    Dafniter
    Joined




×
×
  • 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.