by Marvin Shilmer 3 Replies latest jw friends
Watchtower – Council Approved by God?
Today I uploaded a new article to my blog addressing an observation made recently by historian Zoe Knox in comparison with what Watchtower says of its Governing Body. Unfortunately for Watchtower, something does not add up.
My article is titled Watchtower – Council Approved by God? and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/01/watchtower-council-approved-by-god.html
Marvin Shilmer
Marvin, thanks for posting this!
I love this point:
The biblical pattern would have Watchtower’s Governing Body disclose its deliberations. But, as observed by Historian Knox, Watchtower fails to follow this model. Watchtower does not disclose the deliberations of its Governing Body.
Funny I never thought of it myself. Well done!
00DAD
BTW, you have a typo in the paragraph following the one I quoted above. It says "so" when the contents indicate you meant "to".
00DAD
Thanks for pointing out my typo. It’s corrected.
Another snippet from Zoe Knox’s article reads:
“This reconciliation of the spiritual and the secular indicates that the organization is adept at recasting (and, as we shall see, resurrecting) failed narratives and adapting contemporary events to reaffirm Charles Taze Russell’s interpretations of biblical chronology, first expounded in the 1880s.”
Knox's article is on Watchtower's “King of the North” and “King of the South” theology. It’s unreal how Knox took on a review of that particular theology! I can only wonder what on earth historians will take away from the information. It's just as confusing today as it was then!
It seems the Watchtower Society is Knox’s pet project. Why else would anyone take time to review that nonsense?
Marvin Shilmer
Another snippet from Zoe Knox’s article reads:
“This reconciliation of the spiritual and the secular indicates that the organization is adept at recasting (and, as we shall see, resurrecting) failed narratives and adapting contemporary events to reaffirm Charles Taze Russell’s interpretations of biblical chronology, first expounded in the 1880s.”
Actually, the "organization" that came into existence after Russell died rejected practically all of Charles Taze Russell's conclusions concerning Biblical chronology. The chronology now used by the JWs from creation to the destruction of Jerusalem is totally different from that Russell had adopted. Rutherford rejected practically all the dates that Russell had adopted, such 1799, 1874, etc.; although they do teach that the Gentile Times ended in 1914, they have rejected Russell's conclusion that the time of trouble began in 1914. Russell himself, of course, rejected some of his earlier views on the ending of the Gentile Times, but the only time prophecy that is even similar to that which Russell presented is that of Daniel 4. Russell died in 1916, still believing the the time of trouble had begun in 1914 -- he never said anything about Christ returning in 1914 as the JWs teach.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=1301
Russell, however, did not speak for any kind of "governing body" of an organization. Russell preached against the kind of organization that Rutherford later created, and he preached against the kind of Armageddon that is bad tidings of eternal destruction for most of the people. Russell's beliefs about Armageddon were almost the opposite of what the JWs preach.
