Understanding Revelation (According to the JWs) (page 8)

isaacaustin

Reniaa said:

If you quote Isaac's skewed "hananiah is a false prophet and so are you" opinion in your letter you will only show yourself as being ignorant of the Bible.

A false prophet by the definition of deut 18 has to claim to speak the very words of God himself basically claiming to be inspired, getting visions or words directly from Jehovah. Did hananiah do this?

Jeremiah 28:1-2

1 In the fifth month of that same year, the fourth year, early in the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, the prophet Hananiah son of Azzur, who was from Gibeon, said to me in the house of Jehovah in the presence of the priests and all the people: 2 "This is what Jehovah Almighty, the God of Israel, says: 'I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.

Yes! he did he wasn't intepreting already written scripture but claiming to say words directly from God himself! Witnesses have never claimed the ability to see visions, to be inspired, to be able to speak directly to Jehovah.

So whoever reads your letter will see that you simply have a faulty Bible knowledge and have been fooled by someone who likes to make claims that the scriptures he quotes actually disprove.

My reply: We have been thru this before. Not much does penetrate your little mind. Hananiah said "This is what Jehovah Almighty has said..."...while the org said what they were saying was "the Creator's promise"....same thing. Hananiah was interpetting already written scripture- the return of the Jews from Babylon. The WT was prophecying on already written scriptures- as though your bs addition to the definition of false prophet holds any water. A false prophet simply has to claim their words are Gods, once they fail they are a false prophet. The WT's 1914 generation prophecy is a perfect parallel to Hananiah and his false prophecy. By your addtions to the definition of false prophet it would be pretty difficult for anyone to be a false prophet.

isaacaustin

...but you are right Reniaa, any brainwashed JW will see Brotherdan's reference to the parallel between Hananiah and the WT as wrong...because that is what blindness does to you.

Room 215

Who cares? They've made at least five stabs at explaining Revelation (The Finished Mystery; Light; Babylon the Great; Then is Finished The Mystery of God; and Revelation, Its Grand Climax); and are batting zero

agonus

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Revelation Climax was the watershed publication that marked the WT's official descent into complete prophetic craptitude. Before that vast tome of fertilizer, the publications at least had a semblance of scholarship - as if they knew it was looney but they at least tried to make it work. To me the whole book just screams, "Look: Freddy is out to pasture, nobody here can hold a candle to him, and it's pretty much on autopilot from here on out". The more I read it the more the desperation becomes palpable, as all linear thought went out the window and the whole thing became a slog of verse-by-verse prophetic free association. I can almost visualize the "thought process" - if you can call it that - "Let's see, what are we on now. Seven bowls? OK, I think there were seven-ish pamphlets released about 60 years ago, we'll throw that in there and make it work, they're out of print and nobody knows what the hell they said anyway. Let's move on..."

Looking back, I thought it would be impossible to top themselves with bash-your-head-against-the-wall self-referential pablum - and yet they did, with those damned Isaiah books in the mid-90s.

And after that I pretty much never looked back.

agonus

360 fucking pages of absolute insanity, and yet we studied it FOUR TIMES in two decades... I was out by the fourth time (the one that needed the revisions).

How did we do it?

agonus

Also that book stood out in my mind as the first of many with incredibly uneven artwork. One illustration would be nearly on par with the best of modern fantasy masters, the next looked like something I drew with colored pencils and stuck on the fridge at age 9. Like everything else since then, it's been zero consistency except for the not-so-subtle message (we're the F&DS were the F&DS obey us obey us obey us).

brotherdan

While there are many MANY things wrong with your post, djeggnog, I'd like to point out just 2.

Now if you were asking me what year "the Lord's day" (Revelation 1:10) began -- the "Lord's day" began in the year 1914

I won't pick on you for the obvious 1914 error, because that goes without saying. However, do you know what "the Lords day" is? It wasn't a year. The Lord's day is this: THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK! It's the day Jesus was resurrected, and it is the day used by Christians to worship. It was a unanimous among ALL early Christians that they called the first day of the week: The Lords Day. I will provide some practical proofs first, and then some historical proofs for you.

1. The Holy Spirit was given on Petacost in Acts 2:1. Pentacost ALWAYS falls on a Sunday: The Lords Day

2. The only example of the Lord's supper being practiced by Christians is in Acts 20:7, on Sunday.

3. "Sunday" is only used in languages such as German, Dutch, and English, whereas Latin-based languages, such as Spanish, Italian, and French use a derivative of the Latin word "Dominica," literally "Lord's Day."

Here are some examples that Sunday (or the first day of the week) was historically called "The Lords Day" by Christians

1. 107AD IGNATIUS: let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 62-63.)

2. 190AD CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: He does the commandment according to the Gospel and keeps the Lord's day, whenever he puts away an evil mind . . . glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself. (Vii.xii.76.4)

3. 300 AD Eusebius of Caesarea "The day of his [Christ's] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord's day (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186).

There is no hermeneutical REASON for concluding that John was speaking about being in 1914 in Revelation. That's just pure silliness.

Also, looking at the context, John said that he came to be in the spirit ON the Lords day. He then is given messages to send to who? The churchs in HIS OWN TIME!!! Look at the context dude! Don't just take what the WT spoon feeds you. They are apostate Christians. They're telling you lies.

Also, by what you said about hermeneutics...you obviously don't know its rules. I'm a bit embarassed for you. You show you don't have the first clue about it. You said: "What do you mean? This is all hermeneutics, or what exactly do you think the word "hermeneutical" means?"

If you are REALLY interested in learning how to interpret scripture SCIENTIFICALLY, then I can direct you to some great sources. Hermeneutics is a science. Do a search in the WT library on the word. They don't mention it at all because....THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT EITHER!

PSacramento

Re: REV 1:10

10 I was 1 a in the Spirit on b the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice c like the sound of a trumpet,

Ok, IF the Lord's day meant 1914 then John was in the spirit in 1914 ??? WTF ?

Since John was adressing this letter to the 7 Chruchs we must look at what THEY knew to be the "Lord's day" and according to the Guy that set thsoe churchs up, Paul, it is The first day of the week - Sunday to us.

isaacaustin

PSac, your understanding can not be correct! If it was it would mean the whole Bible, I mean the whole WT theology is wrong.

brotherdan

Psac, your answer was much more compact than mine...and much better. I sometimes get diarrhea of the keyboard.

Understanding Revelation (According to the JWs)

Share this