by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Okay, let me make sure I got this.
Vine is used as a source to prove a point in Watchtower literature. Vine believes in the Trinity, Hell, Rapture, Cross, Communion, and Prayers to Jesus and yet the Watchtower chooses to use him as a reference? I can see using the guy as a reference if there was just a small difference, but it sounds like Vine believed in a totally different version of Christianity.
Jehovah's Witnesses were not the first to come up with the idea of the Lord's return as an invisible parousia or presence. Sir Isaac Newton, Joseph Seiss and Benjamin Wilson all believed it. B.W. Keith brought it to the attention of Nelson H. Barbour and subsequently Charles Taze Russell. But Russell believed the parousia had begun in 1874 (not 1914). That is why the very first issue of Zion's Watch Tower in July 1879 had the subtitle "Herald of Christ's Presence."
3rd,
You wanted Daniel to say, " Hey look boys and girls, 7 times is 2520 days and applying a day for a year as in other cases in the Bible we can arrive at the end of the Gentile Times, 1914." So you want to walk outside your door and find the treasure sitting on your front porch and not have to look at the map and dig for the treasure.
Aren't you being a bit pharisaical here? You know very well you didn't "dig deep" and study hard to come up with all this nonsense. You got it from the pages of Watchtower literature and from having it drummed into you at meetings and conventions. Yes, you went for a "walk outside your door" and found all this bunk "sitting on your front porch." Your map was the spoon feeding you got from the your fellow JWs. You certainly didn't "dig" into the Bible to discover it. No, you had it dished out to you, and you swallowed every bit of it without thinking deeply at all. After reading several of your posts, I really doubt you have the humility or honesty in your heart to admit this.
Frank
AS:
I saved your post. I have to read and think about what you have said. It is quite a task. In all honesty, I have doubts about the hs. because the numbers dont add up as 3w shows, 2 copies that possibly do not match and 3ws argument assuming the hs as inspired. Whether the wts chooses to use it or not to support other dates does not prove that the hs is reliable. Because of the possible flaws of the hs, it puts into question even the other info that you say the wts derrives from it. IN all fairness to you. I would have to go back to the post and reconsider what you said and ews argumenst as well. 3ws argument, that just because hs documents a historical event does not substantiate the other info it records, makes sense.THe stuff 3w says that the hs says about the gods can be discarded. What is the basis for authenticating what the hs says about the fall of Jer? I don't know. But at the very least if the numbers it uses dont add up and in there are 2 copies that dont match I cannot put my confidence in it. My humble opinion.
One major problem that I have is the 70 years. X-539= 70 X=609 609-2= 607 not 587
Anyway AD you seem to be connvinced on the hs. I would not bet my life on the hs if it was a toss up between the hs and the Bible, I would take sides with the Bible unless there was striking evidence that would prove the hs or that it would disprove the Bible. I want to make it clear to you that I am not arguing with you, you know more about the hs than I do. You started the topic. If it was not for you, I would not even know anything about the HS. COJ also vaguely mentions the hs, but I only noticed coj reference because you made me aware of it AD. otherwise I would just have read over it. THis is off topic here I do not wasnt to be disruptive.
AD I reread your post. I see what you are saying about the 20 year gap. What does 3 w or scholar say about this. I see what you mean. Where is the other king? That makes sense. There is no proof to support the 20 year period.
3w did you post anyhing on the 20 year period?
thirdwitness: Times means what the Bible says it means. Thats it.
Thank you for finally admitting that. It took you long enough. A time is less than a year, not more than a year according to the Bible. You used the very verses that prove that to be true.
thirdwitness: You want it on a silver platter.
Or consistently applied. That would work, too. If the 1,260 days means 1,260 years I might see a correlation. But you say they don't, so...there is no correlation. Also, having the understanding of the second fulfillment explained in the context would be helpful, but it isn't. And it isn't explained anywhere in the Bible. It is only explained on your Web site and in the pages of the Watchtower publications. And it is crystal clear to anyone who agrees with you and as cloudy as a muddy bog to anyone who disagrees. Which is to say, only those who are fooled by it believe it.
But none of this settles the issues regarding the basic doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. Here is a yes or no question for you: Do you know the Scriptures that support each of the requirements for Jehovah's Witness baptism?
If so, just say "yes." Don't even bother sharing them with me. Share them with saki2fifty. He was looking for them and couldn't find them. Also, share them with Shadow, who was an elder until recently, he couldn't find them either. And I will give you my dad's email address and you can share them with him. He couldn't find them either, even though he served on his first Judicial Committee long before I was born.
You see, if the basic doctrine is taught as being based on the Bible and it isn't really based on the Bible, there is every reason in the world to suspect that the complicated doctrines also aren't based on the Bible. That is why I believe you really ought to shy away from the complex doctrines until you have proven the basic doctrines. I will never credit your interpretation until I am convinced you teach what the Bible says.
AuldSoul
AuldSoul, I'm still waiting for thirdwitness' scriptural support for Satan pre-emptive time o' trouble on earth. Evidently, Satan KNOWING he was going to be kicked out, came down and stirred up trouble. (WW1) I've never seen any statement in the watchtower or bible to support this, so it sounds to me like he is harboring private ideas.
ackack
3rd Wit,
I still want an explanation about the deaths caused by the WT doctrines concerning the many flip-flops and changes on vaccinations, organ transplants and the blood issue.
Was the WTS wrong before they instituted these beliefs...or after they changed them ?
Were they "the only conduit" from God, before they instituted these beliefs...or after they changed them ?
The Governing Body... the FDS is blood-guilty over the deaths of the JW's they misled to their deaths !
I don't care at all about 'dates', although I realize it's important and will help some JW's get out of this cult.
Rabbit
Fisherman: ...and in there are 2 copies that dont match...
I was afraid his ploy would work, and it has to some extent. You are confusing what he wrote about the Adda-Guppi Stele with the Hillah Stele. The point that I drew attention to from the Adda-Guppi Stele was that both copies show the devastation of the temple at Harran as occurring in the 16th year of Nabopolassar, which would mean 54 years prior to 555 BC was Nabopolassar's 16th year.
The Hillah Stele doesn't say anything about the fall of Jerusalem. It serves to eliminate the possibility of a 20 year insertion of an unknown Babylonian king(s) between Nabopolassar and Nabonidus. It tightens up ANE chronology to such an extent that the known kings fill up all available slots of time perfectly. And there are bank transactions, contracts, receipts, herd growth ledgers, real estate documents, and a host of other dated materials for every year during the entire period.
Every year, that is, except for each and every one of the extra 20 years the Watchtower Society stuck in, without even doing the courtesy of explaining clearly where the 20 years should fit in ANE chronology, or explaining the distinct absence of any archaeological data chronicling the events that took place during that 20 years. thirdwitness never has and never will account for the extra 20 years.
The Bible doesn't disagree with the Hillah Stele, it supports the Hillah Stele. The Watchtower Society's warped interpretation of the Bible disagrees with the Hillah Stele.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
