Funny things in augusts watchtower

by bohm 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  I have been reading augusts watchtower between simulations today, and i stumbled upon some funny stuff in augusts watchtower.

  First off - the author of the second article makes a bold move by referring to ancient watchtowers. From the first page:

  "No carefull student of the bible can fail to be impressed with the stress that is laid on the death of christ", stated the fouth issue of this magazine back in october 1879. That article concluded on a serious note: "Let us beware of anything that belittles, or sets aside the death of christ, as the offering and propitiations for sin.

  One of the reasons why Zions Watch Tower was first puplished in 1879 was to defend the Bible teaching of the ransom. Its pages provided "food at the proper time", for in the late 1800's a growing number of professed christians began to question how jesus death could be a ransom for our sins.

  uuuhhhhmmm - i thought one of the reasons why "Zions Watch Tower Herald of Christs Presence" was puplished was to proclaim - tada - CHRISTS PRESENCE. Nothing new, but i think its damn balsy to refer to the watchtower as "food at the proper time" and talk about the reasons it was pulished in this way!

  The article continues with a downright lie:

  "At that time, many were falling victim of the theory of evolution, an idea that conflicts with the fact that man has fallen from a perfect state. Evolutionists teach that man is naturally improving and has no need for a ransom.

  No it does not you stupid ignorant person! Evolution talk about how life CHANGE. Evolution can also explain how life devolve as bad mutations are piled up in populations which are unable to select against them. Trying to say that evolution talk about the RANSOM is just stupid. Whats next, cosmology talk about the ransom because it currently predict the sun will burn out and the universe will be destroyed in 'the big rip', contrary to the paradise earth teaching? Dumbass writer. I hold it against no witness they do not understand evolution when they are being so misinformed by 'Gods Chanel'.

  Bonus points for digging up that old watchtower, i got to get back at the simulations.
• 

  bohm

  just an extra note about evolution - the watchtower teach that noah only brought one 'cow' kind on the ark, one 'dog' kind, etc.

  Then they changed, due to (selective) breading, in a way not even the most optimistic evolutionist would suggest.

  Its hard for me to see how these these changes (milk/meat cows, for example) is not an improvement, and how that does not go against the ransom per the authors logic.
• 

  Heaven

  i think its damn balsy to refer to the watchtower as "food at the proper time"

  Totally! This 'food at the proper time' statement always makes me think about all those people, BEFORE the Watchtower came along, never receiving any of this food. Ding ! Ding ! Ding ! Ding! D-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-NG!

  Yes.... that is the sound of my BS detector ringing off it's hook.
• 

  bohm

  link to watchtower from 1879: http://www.archive.org/details/WatchTowerBibleandTractSocietyofPennsylvaniaWatchTowerpubs_0

  its strange to imagine that somone from the writing department has read through russells strange stuff to find this single quote for the article.
• 

  pirata

  One of the reasons why Zions Watch Tower was first puplished in 1879 was to defend the Bible teaching of the ransom.

  That's correct. The first issue of the Watchtower was sent out with a supplement to subscribers of Herald of the Morrning. I put here the relevant passages which describe one of the reasons for the split, a series of articles on the ransom (substitution/atonement) (full text can be found here: http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1879JUL.asp):

  D EAR FRIENDS: My connection with the "Herald" having been terminated rather suddenly, and under circumstances which must seem rather remarkable and peculiar to you, I feel it to be a duty both to you and to myself to offer an explanation of the manner of withdrawal and my reasons for so doing. Quite a number who were personally acquainted with me thought there must be more of the story to tell, and I have received a number of letters asking an explanation. To these inquiries and to many unexpressed of similar character, let me offer the following statement:...

  Another objection is that in some cases there has been too much management. Articles sent by Bro. P. and myself, were not to my mind respectfully treated. If I had a right to the paper and I think I had and I wished Bro. P. to have, while Bro. B. had an equal right to write an opposing article, he had no right to cut up and interpolate ours. Nor was an appended answer proper when the writer was an "Associate Editor" and had a right to present his views over his own name. Further, while writing against Substitution, Bro. B. was seemingly anxious to publish letters from subscribers, which mentioned his view commendingly. Among others was one from Rev. W. V. Feltwell, of Philadelphia, a personal acquaintance of mine. In this extract Bro. F. is made to endorse the new views strongly. I was much surprised, and seeing the brother in March, I inquired; why? He informed me that the article referred to had not stated him correctly--that he had written to Bro. B. to have it corrected, and said he, "Didn't you see the correction in the March Herald?" No, I answered. Then he got me his copy. There it was--Bro. B. regrets at any error, &c., and a quotation from Bro. F's. last letter: "I am now and always have been a believer in the vicarious atonement of Christ." This seemed all right and I know that it was possible for any one to make a mistake, when merely making an extract from another's letter, and I was rejoiced to think that the correction was so freely made. But judge of my surprise and sorrow when upon attempting to show it to Bro. P. a few days after, I found that in my March No. a notice of Bro. Rice's paper "The Last Trump;" occupied its place--How was it in yours? We could not understand it, it seemed like double dealing--too much management for a Herald of the Millennial Morning. Alas!, I said to myself; is this the fruit of the new views of the atonement?
• 

  bennyk

  Page three of the Watch Tower Reprints explains why the magazine was being published:

  PROSPECTUS

  This is the first number of the first volume of “ZION’S WATCH~ TOWER,” and it may not be amiss to state the object of its publication.

  That we are living “in the last days”-“the day of the Lord”-“the end” of the Gospel age, and consequently, in the dawn of the “new” age, are

  facts not only discernible by the close student of the Word, led by the spirit, but the outward signs recognizable by the world bear the same testimony...

  According to what the Watch Tower Society now teaches, none of those things were true.
• 

  ziddina

  "First off - the author of the second article makes a bold move by referring to ancient watchtowers. From the first page:

  "No carefull student of the bible can fail to be impressed with the stress that is laid on the death of christ", stated the fouth issue of this magazine back in october 1879. That article concluded on a serious note: "Let us beware of anything that belittles, or sets aside the death of christ, as the offering and propitiations for sin.

  One of the reasons why Zions Watch Tower was first puplished in 1879 was to defend the Bible teaching of the ransom."...."

  They're being awfully coy - and sly - with these statements. On the one hand, they can 'answer' those who have pointed out the WTBTS' fear of its own older publications, with an actual quote (WOW!) from one of the earliest Watchtowers... I can just hear them now, "See! We AREN'T afraid of our older publications; they are the BASIS for our current belief system..."

  Yeah, right...

  This 'cutesey' little quote is also an effort to negate the criticism of the WTBTS by other fundamental Christian groups, because they aggressively downplay the importance of Jesus Christ in the Christian theology...

  Their self-deluding hypocrisy and self-righteousness is sickening...

  Zid
• 

  WTWizard

  Evolution teaches that man is naturally improving? Evolution teaches that man will seek to adapt to the circumstances. If that means developing traits that better fit into today's world, that is what will happen. But, if things change, all that work will have been for nothing--if man evolves for colder climates and the earth gets warmer, evolution now has to take mankind in the opposite direction. If mankind evolves to ward off famine, and there is always plenty to eat, we have to reverse evolve where there is plenty, or we get fat.

  And, I don't believe we need a ransom for anything. "Original sin" is nothing more than a scam. It is what you get when God wants to distress us, and uses it as an excuse. Then, his promise to deliver us by offering a "ransom". Of course, this promise is always close at hand--it has been for 2,000 years and counting. Ultimately, when the sun swallows up the earth 5 billion years from now, we are still going to be waiting for that "imminent" deliverance--Jehovah fully intends to welsh on that promise.
• 

  cattails

  Sounds to me like they're throwing out some bait.

  So that if you get all hot about their twisting what

  was published and leaving part of the truth out then

  they have smoked out the "conscious class" folks,

  those who know better and are disgusted with the

  perpetual half-truths and their revision of history.

  Maybe I'm getting more paranoid, but it just seems

  like the do this type of thing on purpose just to have

  some folks get disgusted and leave the organization.
• 

  Invetigator74

  No carefull student of the bible can fail to be impressed with the stress that is laid on the death of christ", stated the fouth issue of this magazine back in october 1879. That article concluded on a serious note: "Let us beware of anything that belittles, or sets aside the death of christ, as the offering and propitiations for sin.

  Found in The Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence Vol.1 pages 42 par.14 and page 43 par.22