@Witness My Fury:
Why do you make any assumptions about my relationship with Jehovah?
I haven't made any "assumptions" whatsoever about your relationship with Jehovah. Based on what you have said in this thread, no one need to assume anything about your non-existent relationship with Jehovah.
Why make any assumptions about my belief in Jesus?
So you're telling me that you actually believe in Jesus? I don't believe you believe in Jesus at all.
Is it because you need to convince yourself that those who leave the JWs do so to pursue all manner of illicit pleasures and a godless life?
The answer is no, for I don't know what lifestyle you lead, but one thing I do know is that in this thread you have not acquitted yourself as someone that is putting her faith in Jesus.
And matters of doctrine or chronology could NEVER be the hub of the matter and is only some form of excuse?
An excuse for what? To leave off from putting faith in Jesus? No, there is no excuse for anyone that has learned the truth to stop putting faith in Jesus' name.
The WTS would have you believe that.
Who or what is "the WTS" as you see it? You and others here on JWN constantly refer to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society as if this publishing arm that Jehovah's Witnesses use to produce the literature and media that we use in our ministry were an idol of some sort to whom Jehovah's Witnesses do homage. You (and others here on JWN) use "WTS" as if it were a political label like "Conservative," used to characterize a so-called "family values" Republican here in the US, and like "Liberal," used to characterize a so-called "tax and spend" Democrat.
Apostates -- and by "apostates" I refer to those who had masqueraded as Jehovah's Witnesses, but, as things turned out, were not of our sort -- have for years used the acronym "WTS" as code for either Jehovah's Witnesses generally or the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses specifically, depending upon the degree of venom or vitriol that one has or wishes to project against our religious beliefs, which are no more "cultic" than the transubstantiation doctrines of Roman Catholic and Orthodox, and Protestant clergy during Mass or Holy Communion, when, they say, the priest or clergyman (or the holy spirit if Orthodox) transmutes the emblems they consecrate so that they become Jesus' literal flesh and blood. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah and his "messenger of the covenant," Jesus Christ, came to the spiritual temple in 1918, at which time the faithful and discreet slave was then appointed over all of Jesus' domestics, but we are labelled a cult because we discern this event spiritually, just as we discern spiritually that our first parents, Adam and Eve, and Noah, Abraham and Moses are as real as Jesus and the miracles he performed were, even if our only proof is the Bible. The destruction of Solomon's temple in 607 BC is yet another event that Jehovah's Witnesses, not any "WTS," discern spiritually even if our only proof is that the Bible indicates that the land of Judah lay desolate and uninhabited by man or beast for 70 years until 537 BC. It is God's holy spirit, not any "WTS," that would have Jehovah's Witnesses believe these things.
Why not put some rational thought into it and think for yourself instead of being told what to and what not to believe?
You repeat what others here on JWN say without anything cerebral going on in your head, repeating what these "Franzites" tell you that you shouldn't believe even though there isn't anything rationally sound or scriptural about what they believe, and you dare accuse me of being told what to believe and what not to believe, and being unable to articulate what things I believe and why I believe what I do? Evidently you haven't noticed that in all of my posts, I demonstrate the ability to elucidate my scriptural beliefs as I have here in this thread regarding my reasons for rejecting 587 BC and accepting 607 BC as the year when Solomon's temple was destroyed, pointing out the scriptural basis for my rationale. I've often said that being dense must be a tough gig, for every day these people will get up and go about the business of faking intellectual acuity, believing that no one has noticed the disability they suffer.
You may well convince yourself that these are YOUR thoughts, but they are not. You are not allowed to think. The regular [repetition] at meetings, assemblies, [district] conventions all serve to dull individuality and freedom of thought.
If you are JW as you appear to claim (though it's difficult to be sure you are or not from your distancing yourself from them on the one hand and then claiming to be one on the other)....
Athletes spend literally 12 hours per day working at their craft, repeating the same activities again and again until they reach the threshold where their body says "no," and then they pummel their bodies and make them ignore their pain threshold as they continue to do the same things over and over. They will then rinse and repeat this pummeling of their bodies seven days per week without letup as they prepare for a gymnastics meet in the Olympics, a tennis match at Wimbledon or a boxing match at Madison Square Garden.
I suppose to those that don't appreciate repetition, mention of the same scriptures over and over again -- like the one at John 3:16 -- is a mindless activity, but I've met many people -- people who are still Jehovah's Witnesses -- that do not understand that John 3:16 is speaking of our exercising faith in the ransom because the word "ransom" is implied in the verse and not spelled out for them, and yet despite all of the repetition at meetings, assemblies and district conventions, these folks still don't realize that Jesus' name stands for the ransom in which we ought to be exercising faith. I really wouldn't expect you to know this either, WMF.
In many ways I'm a pragmatist (if you aren't familiar with this word, you should look it up!) in that I try to keep things simple because I don't want to be guilty of confusing anyone as to what I might say to them, but here on JWN, I don't have to be tactful in what I say as I am when speaking to someone face-to-face, so I speak here with frankness with no need to concern myself with bruising someone's tender feelings as I know sharp, cutting, even abrasive words can do. I don't 'distance myself' from Jehovah's Witnesses; that would be hard to do since I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
But in any event, I won't "sugar-coat" the truth. I will always tell you what the truth is, even if it's hard. If someone confides in me that someone else is dying of cancer, but he or she doesn't want this information to be widely disseminated, I know how to parry questions, and I will not confirm a rumor, even if it should be a true rumor, for anyone that is not entitled to know the truth. As made clear during WWII, Jesus taught Christians to be cautious as serpents, to conceal the truth from those not entitled to hear it, and to not be informants. The purpose of all of the repetition at our meetings, assemblies and district conventions is to teach Christian maturity so that we should not be naive or become overreached by Satan. (2 Corinthians 2:11) All of what I'm saying to you here, @WMF, is probably over your head though.
If I believe someone to be dishonest, I might tactfully tell a person why it is I believe some might not trust him or her without necessarily telling the person that he or she is unreliable or untrustworthy, or that he or she has gained a reputation of borrowing money with no real intention of paying back the loan that they have made on a timely basis. Here on JWN, I have no difficulty calling out someone as being a liar, but in my own life away from JWN, tact is employed.
I'll tell you how it feels to discover that being a JW is based on lies / false chronology and mis interpretation of scripture. It SUCKS.
So this "discovery" of yours as to that on which the religious views of Jehovah's Witnesses are based is tantamount in your mind to someone being fellated? To suggest that someone sucks or that life sucks or that your coming to believe that our interpretation of Scripture is based on lies and false chronology is as humiliating as being forced to fellate someone is not only vulgar, but offensive, since there is absolutely nothing about what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, even if you should disagree 100% with our interpretation of Scripture that is on a par with such a vile description.
That's right it sucks. I did lots of research before reaching this point in my life and did not take this decision lightly as you would wish to believe.
Whatever time you may have spent conducting research as to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and our interpretation of Scripture would seem to have been utterly wasted, and I don't care how serious you were when you made the decision to fade and leave the truth, and then cast aspersions on Jehovah's Witnesses. If you are not doing the work of an evangelizer, then you have gone to the "dark side" and have been overreached by "research" that actually became your undoing as a Christian, and that's too bad.
I carefully made sure of these things. I wanted to PROVE that the "truth" was indeed the truth and so that my best years (40) has not been wasted in just another cult.
Like Eve, you were deceived, and that's too bad for you, for you're gone, as have so many before you, "in the path of Cain." (Jude 11)
So to discover instead that the WTS lies, twists, [suppresses] information, cherry picks, misquotes etc etc just to uphold their delusion of being God appointed and MASTERs of my faith is in fact a hard pill to swallow. If ever you take your blinkers of and SEE then you will know what this feels like, and you will understand for yourself the hurt and anger often on display on sites like this one.
I can tell you what I "know": I know that you have been deceived, that you think you know more than those that have studied the Bible for years about the truth, when your "knowledge" of the truth is a false knowledge that violates the holy word of God. You didn't receive God's word as you should have, namely, as the word of God, so have allowed the ridicule you received from those opposed to the truth, and their misleading inspired utterances and teachings, to persuade you to esteem Jehovah and Jesus with contempt, and to forfeit the hope you once had as a preacher of the good news because you failed to guard the trust that you once had. (1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:12-14)
No one is trying to hoodwink you here Egg. The WTS has already done that job on you.
Of course, with you having been"hoodwinked" and deceived yourself, you must believe that you're right and that I'm in the wrong. I'm ok with your believing whatever it is you choose to believe about me, @WMF.
@TD:
I understand why Jehovah's Witnesses would not accept all the Babylonian Chronicles, but don't you accept the Nabonidus Chronicle? JW literature seems to generally speak highly of it, since it is the most important piece of evidence establishing the coregency of Belshazzar (?)
I told you in my previous post that Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the dates indicated in the Babylonian Chronicle, but we are aware that others that do not concern themselves with how the dates in the BC conflict with the Bible. Now I'm telling you that Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the dates indicated in the Nabonidus Chronicle either, even though we are aware that others that do not concern themselves with how the dates in the NC also conflict with the Bible. We view what the Bible says as inerrant, so any discrepancy between it and secular sources are resolved in favor of the Bible.
@Bungi Bill:
[In referring] to the Babylonian King lists, Insight to the Scriptures and Babylon the Great has fallen, God's Kingdom Rules offer that information on the various [regnal] years without qualification:
If you can you prove this, then, please, do so. I've already pointed out to you in a previous post that you read something in the Insight book and totally misunderstood that what you read wasn't a statement of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, but what secular sources believe. The same thing is true as to whatever you read and thought you understood (but didn't!) in the Babylon book.
- i.e. nowhere does either publication put a disclaimer on that [regnal] data, to the effect of "these are the views of some researchers, but are not subscribed to by Jehovahs Witnesses." Rather, such data is presented as being accepted by the publishers of both books (The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society).
Prove this.
Most of what has been said on this thread in support of 607 BC tells us much more about the individual poster than it does about the subject under discussion. From following this thread, it does not take much to realize that religious fanaticism is as prevalent among the Jehovahs Witnesses as it is amongst any other religious group:
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm fanatical about my beliefs.
PS: I identify 100% with Witness My Fury's feelings on discovering that "being a JW is based on lies / false chronology and mis interpretation of scripture." It "sucks" all-right; and that is putting matters lightly!
This sounds just as vulgar when you say this as it did when @WMF used this expression. I wonder how you feel about other religious groups, like Islam. Do you think Islam to be a religion based on lies, on false chronology and on misinterpretation of scripture.
@AnnOMaly:
Why are you studiously ignoring TD's points? I particularly look forward to you addressing them.
I don't believe I ignored any of @TD's posts, but if I did, it would be my prerogative to do so. Why don't you not concern yourself with what I'm doing?
* This includes the time when the BSs/JWs based their calculations on the 'drop dead years' 538 BC as the fall of Babylon and 536 BC as the first year of Cyrus and the return of the exiles. (Cf. The Truth Shall Make You Free (1943), p. 151; ZWT 1896, May 15, p. 105 [R. 1975].)
Jehovah's Witnesses no longer use the book The Truth Shall Make You Free. In the event you didn't know, we don't use the Vindication, Light or the Time is at Hand books either; older publications are retired when some of things contained in them become stale and when adjustments are made in our understanding of the Bible. Much of the information in our older publications is now outdated and requires supplemental explanations that are available in our newer publications. Maybe you knew this already, but I thought I should mention this to you anyway.
@Witness My Fury:
He's off doing research * Ann....
I'm a mature Christian. I'm a Bible scholar with no need to conduct research on subjects that I have already researched and studied. Plus, research isn't for everyone; some end up abandoning their beliefs being persuaded by contradictory opinions that erode their faith after they have conducted a little research because they think that they are mature Christians when what they was is naive. It is often those that are naive and easily persuaded to another opinion that become deceived.
When I speak to you as when I speak to anyone else here, I speak from the heart, and do not cut and paste the words of others, not even from any of our own publications, except when my response is directly related to something in our publications.
@MeanMrMustard:
Don't forget that threads like this one are open to the public - you don't even have to be a member to view it. It does far more damage to the WTB&TS, IMHO, to have an active witness come onto a forum like this and try, as hard as he (or she?) can to defend 607 BC with every argument he (or she?) may have, being met head on by posters that can reveal how shallow and deceptive the 607->1914 world view is. Many lurkers come and read the thread, and for those who are trying to decide, it can make a big difference.
Ok.
Let eggnog try... that's why the GB wants him (her?) off sites like this.
Can you prove that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't want me to post messages to JWN? Is JWN an apostate website because you assert that it is, or would that be @Simon's call to make? If @Simon hasn't intimated that JWN is an apostate website and I'm clearly not an apostate, but am actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses and regularly post messages to JWN, then what's your proof that this is an apostate website?
It just becomes an [embarrassment] for them.
What's an embarrassment for whom?
The GB doesn't want eggnog on here, not because of the spiritual dangers we might pose to eggnog. Rather, it is because eggnog does more damage than we could on our own.
Can you prove that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't want me posting messges to JWN? I don't believe you can and the only "damage" I'm doing is overturning some of the nonsense and ridiculous statements that some of the posters to JWN make here without any opposition from one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I do think its also proper to document just how much eggnog is deviating from the [official] WT partyline, including the GB's admonition not to post on sites like this.
Document away, but what you're saying is utter nonsense and are more likely to be believed (as true) by the naive and the ignorant that haven't a clue as to what Christian freedom consists and the difference between an admonition and a command. (Here's a hint just for you, @Mean MrMustard: Commands are found in the Bible.)
djeggnog, if 607 is false, then the events attached to 1914 never [occurred].
This is stupid logic. Only someone ignorant would think this statement of your to be logically sound; it isn't.
No invisible return of Jesus, no subsequent appointment of the WTB&TS as God's organization.
What on earth does Jesus' invisible presence, or return, have to do with your belief that the year 607 BC that Jehovah's Witnesses assign to the destruction of Solomon's temple is false? What's the connection between these two events?
In other words, if 607 falls, then it reduces the GB to just a bunch of men, no more appointed by God than my cat...
The governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses are, in fact, "just a bunch of men," but they have been called and chosen by God to be his spiritual children, and they will soon join the rest of these adopted sons of God now in heaven since Jesus' return to become co-rulers with the Lord Jesus Christ despite what you believe about these men. Not everyone that has read the Bible will respect the words it contains as having been inspired of God, so it is not surprising to hear viewpoints expressed like yours.
And if that is the case, then the entire idea of a "ministry" to convert people to be JWs is a meaningless and false ministry.
I agree with your hypothetical, "if" what you say here should be the case. As to Jehovah's Witnesses being involved in a false ministry to convert people, not one of Jehovah's Witnesses has been given the authority by Christ to convert anyone over to Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses are commanded to preach, but we do not do this in order to convert anyone. Our hope is that those listening to us will prove to themselves that what God's says in his word, the Bible, is the truth, and will repent and turn around or convert from their former course of conduct, take in accurate knowledge of both God and Christ that their faith might increase, and upon their dedication to God, submit to water baptism and thus become one of Jesus' followers that they might be saved.
We do not engage in forced conversions so as to make the people to whom we preach Jehovah's Witnesses.
@djeggnog
