@Vidqun:
For one to understand this argument you have to know about the beasts, and what the Society’s interpretation of the beasts are. That’s why I gave you the summary, to save time.
Ok.
@Vidqun wrote:
Another telling example is the Society’s identity of the beast "ascending out of the abyss" of Revelation 11:7. At Rev. 17 it is clearly identified with the League of Nations and the United Nations (Revelation Climax-book, Chapter 34, p. 248).... But at Rev. 11:7 it is identified as the great political beast of Revelation 13:1 "ascending out of the sea" (Revelation Climax-book, Chapter 25, pp. 167, 168).
@djeggnog wrote:
(1) Are you saying here that you believe the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3, the beast on whom the harlot sits, is also the beast described at Revelation 11:7?
@Vidqun wrote:
Yes, that is what I am saying, contrary to what the Society are saying. See explanation at Rev. 17:8.
The "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3 is described at Revelation 13:14 as an "image" of the beast described at Revelation 13:1 that came out of the sea, which is to say that it wasn't the same beast at all, but merely a reflection of it. As to mention of the beast that the apostle John saw coming out of the "abyss" at Revelation 11:7 and being mindful that "interpretations belong to God" (Genesis 40:8), we looked elsewhere in the Bible to interpret this word "abyss" (just as we did by looking elsewhere in the Bible and using Exodus 1:6 to interpret the word "generation" used at Matthew 24:34), where we came to appreciate that the equivalent Hebrew word was "abyss" used by the psalmist in describing the Red Sea at Psalm 106:9 is "watery deep," therefore, the beast that had come out of the sea would logically be the same beast.
What this means is that the beast at Revelation 11:7 cannot be the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3.
That means Rev. 11:7 has nothing to do with 1914-1918, viz. the Society’s explanation. The League of Nations was only formed in 1919. And if it did not take place, then it would be referring to a future, which is a frightening thought for a JW.
How do you read? Paragraph 21 of the Revelation Climax book begins with the words, "From 1914 to 1918 the nations were occupied with the first world war" in commenting upon the "two witnesses" (Revelation 11:3). Revelation 11:7 says: "And when they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will make war with them and conquer them and kill them," which we believe has everything to do with the war years for on July 4, 1918, and after World War I had ended, Rutherford and seven others were forced to serve long prison sentences on false charges, which action by the beast 'conquered and killed" the witnessing work. Again, the beast that comes out of the abyss is not the "scarlet-colored wild beast," for it was the political wild beast, described at Revelation 13:1 as having "ten horns and seven heads" that were responsible for killing these "two witnesses" after the hostilities of World War I had ended.
You indicate a belief that the League of Nations was formed in 1919, but with reference to the "scarlet-colored wild beast," we read at Revelation 17:8 that it is "an eighth king, [that] springs from the seven," again referring to the ten-horned, seven-headed political wild beast, which again demonstrates the fact that "scarlet-colored wild beast" is a different "beast," and cannot the same as the beast of Revelation 13:1 of which the "scarlet-colored wild beast" is but an image of it.
@djeggnog wrote:
(2) Are you saying here that you believe the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3, the beast on whom the harlot sits, is also the beast described at Revelation 13:1?
@Vidqun wrote:
I don’t say that. The Society says so in their publications, which is false. See quote from the Revelation-book.
Because you had not stated whether or not you believed the "scarlet-colored wild beast" to be the same as the beast at Revelation 13:1, I thought I should ask you what you believed to be the case instead of assuming what you believed, and so if we forget about what the Society's publications state on this point and just concentrate on what the Bible says, it becomes clear that your view is a mistaken one. The "scarlet-colored wild beast" is an "image" of the beast at Revelation 13:1, for unlike the beast at Revelation 13:1, the "scarlet-colored wild beast" didn't come out of the sea. At Revelation 13:14, the wild beast "misleads those who dwell on the earth ... [and] tells ... [them] to make an image to the wild beast that had [received] the sword-stroke" to one of its seven heads (Revelation 13:3) "and yet revived" from that sword-stroke. The "scarlet-colored wild beast" never received this sword-stroke; the beast at Revelation 13:1 did.
What this means is that the beast at Revelation 13:1 cannot be the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3 either.
The conclusion one reaches is that the Society has no qualms in twisting the meaning of the Scriptures, i.e., God’s Word, to accommodate some of their core doctrines, e.g. 1914.
I don't see that the Society has twisted the meaning of Revelation 11:7 or any the Scriptures for that matter. What I see is a misunderstanding on your part. You are the one that would identify "the beast 'ascending out of the abyss' of Revelation 11:7" as "the League of Nations and the United Nations," when the scarlet-colored wild beast at Revelation 17:3, identified as the "the League of Nations and the United Nations," is the image of the beast ascends out of the abyss at Revelation 11:7, the image of the beast that ascends out of the sea at Revelation 13:1. At Revelation 17:8, where it makes mention of "[t]he wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss," is, in fact, a reference to the "the League of Nations and the United Nations."
I believe the League of Nations "was" on January 10, 1920 after the hostilities of WWI had ended, then "is not" in September 1939 at which time the League went into an abyss of inactivity when WWII began, and then became "is" once again when it was revived on October 24, 1945, as the United Nations after the hostilities of WWII had ended.
Seeing how Bible prophecy came to be fulfilled, I don't see how anyone would even think about leaving the truth, even if it should turn out that we have to make another adjustment in our understanding of Matthew 24:34. We are just too close. With you yourself having been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, @Vidqun, you know so much more about where we are in the stream of time than do those outside of God's organization that have no idea what these things in the book of Revelation mean and you can be instrumental in helping many of these folks, including your own relatives, gain life. It seems rather foolish to me that anyone to be making such a big deal about our having to make an adjustment in our viewpoint as to what Jesus meant by "generation" at Matthew 24:34, just because we want to get it right.
In connection with translating, don’t know whether you are aware that the NWT is an English translation, i.e., it was translated into English first, an English Bible for an English audience. So all the other NWTs, in the different languages, were translated from the English version. Feel free to check this out if you don’t believe me. So the English NWT is of cardinal importance in establishing the meaning of a word or phrase. No point in going to the NWTs in the different languages. These are all based on the English NWT.
This is just a strawman where you wish to find fault with a process that is faultless. However, the English language NWT represents the translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Bible texts. It would be unreasonable for any Bible translator that has produced a Bible translation in English to chuck that work and start over in order to produce another Bible translation in Spanish or French or in some other language. I take your point though that it makes no difference how many other languages the NWT has been translated.
And do not underestimate Webster. It is very informative, tracing the root word back to Greek, Latin, or from where it developed from, e.g. generate – generated, generating [L. genero, generatum, to beget], etc. So for the English speaking person, it is of the utmost importance. There we can agree to disagree.
Ok.
@Billy the Ex-Bethelite wrote:
According to the WT encyclopedia "Insight" on my 2010 WT Lib CD, here's what generation means....
@ScenicViewer wrote:
You said to Billy the Ex-Bethelite, after he quoted from the Insight book (published in 1988), using the 2010 Watchtower CD,
"It does occur to me, @BillyEB, that since you have the "2010 WT Lib CD," you could just as well have quoted something more current, such as something from the above-referenced article, which would have been consistent with how Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Matthew 24:34, instead of quoting something that is now useless, obsolete."
Yes, I did say this.
If the Society considers information in the Insight volumes to be "something that is now useless, obsolete", then why are these volumes still being published in the Watchtower CD for present day distribution and study? Billy's point was that Watchtower's beliefs are ever changing, and he made that point regarding the past and present meanings of generation; the fact that you now consider the Insight books to be "useless and obsolete" demonstrates that.
Actually, @BillyEB's point was absurd: He was questioning why it is that the "now useless, obsolete" articles he quoted in his message from the Insight book on his copy of the "2010 WT Lib CD" had not been excised from the cd, why it was he was still able to quote the articles that provided what Jehovah's Witnesses had previously understood the expression, "this generation," at Matthew 24:34 to mean. In fact, you have done the very same thing here that @BillyEB had done, except he was trolling me, and I know this for reasons I don't feel any need to explain to you, Dad. Furthermore, you are off-topic. I really don't care to hear what you might opine as to what I wrote in response to @BillyEB's post.
@djeggnog wrote:
It does occur to me, @BillyEB, that since you have the "2010 WT Lib CD," you could just as well have quoted something more current, such as something from the above-referenced article, which would have been consistent with how Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Matthew 24:34, instead of quoting something that is now useless, obsolete. You're not a stupid guy, so tell me: Are you just trolling me or was there some point you wanted to make? If you are just having fun, that's fine, too, but perhaps you might consider getting yourself a ball. I enjoy coming to JWN, but I don't come here to have fun or to troll anyone.
@ScenicViewer wrote:
Honestly Dj, why do you engage in such name calling? Billy is anything but a troll.
You are entitled to believe @BillyEB to be anything but a troll, but this is what I have determined to be true about the man. Should I feel a need to ask for the advice of someone that has since 2006 shown a complete disloyalty to God's organization in rejecting both Jehovah's sovereignty and Jesus' lordship, you will be the one I will tap. Being that I am an adult that is presently in full control of my mental faculties and know a troll when I see one, I don't need your help in determining when someone posts off-topic messages for the purpose of derailing a thread.
While some trolls may even seek to annoy someone, their posts are for the most part designed to derail the threads they join. You have been a member of JWN for less than a year, but since I've been here a little longer and this is not my first "rodeo," it just may be that I have a bit more insight than you do about @BillyEB's antics on here and trolls generally. To quote @BillyEB, he wrote:
Now, take the opposite of what they have published in Insight and voila! You have their exact current interpretation.
Actually, here's what the OP asked:
(@Bubblegum Apotheosis:)
Would someone please explain the current interpretation of the Generation.
@BillyEB's response is disingenuous, because instead of quoting from the Watchtower article, entitled "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," dated April 15, 2010, which is found in the "2010 WT Lib CD," he quotes a few things from the Insight book, which are, as I said, "useless, obsolete," an outdated interpretation of Matthew 24:34. What @BillyEB did here is this thread is exactly what "disingenuous" means. The point I'm making here is that the OP didn't ask what it is Jehovah's Witnesses formerly believed before we abandoned that interpretation and embraced the interpretation we now have regarding the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34, so @BillyEB's post was off-topic, and every subsequent post he makes in this thread along these same lines would also be off-topic.
His counter arguments to your points make a great deal of sense. And your remark that he should get a ball to play with, after admitting he is not a "stupid guy," is just plain insulting.
This comment of yours is ridiculous, but even if any of his "counter arguments" should make sense to you, I don't feel bound in any way by any of the conclusions you might have reached about them, and as far as I am concerned, you can feel free to roll a ball with @BillyEB, but I don't want to play games with the guy. Furthermore, Dad, I don't make decisions based upon what I think others might approve or determine to be "plain insulting." Like I said, you are off-topic.
If you are to be taken seriously, why do you make these childish remarks? They are completely off base and suggest you have no better response to a well reasoned post than to fire back with name calling and insults.
I suppose I could take offense over your telling me here how you think my remarks to @BillyEB to be "childish," but you are an adult and are just as entitled as I am to believe what you want to believe, and just as entitled as I am to draw whatever conclusions you believe to be appropriate about me. In a recent thread in which the man proved to be quite disingenuous, I had to withdraw from it because (a) he was off-topic, (b) he was trolling me, and (c) he proved to dishonest, which is why I have described @BillyEB as being "disingenuous." I know exactly what my words mean, Dad. I would suggest that you adopt a child of your own, so that you might teach that child whatever it is you think to be right and wrong.
I really think you owe Billy an apology, not that I expect you go give him one.
Then by all means, @ScenicViewer, you can give an apology to @BillyEB on my behalf, if you really think he needs one, but I don't apologize to trolls.
To finish off your remarks to him, you declared yourself to not be a troll. I am a little stunned at some of the things you have said on this site, in this thread and others.
Please don't be stunned. One other thing: I didn't say I wasn't a troll, but what I did say was that "I don't come here to have fun or to troll anyone."
I have known [Jehovah's] Witnesses for over 40 years, and I don't think I have ever met one as insulting as you. You're not a troll? You don't come across as a sincere JW either.
I don't? You may have been a born-in and you may have been in association with Jehovah's Witnesses for over 40 years, but you only think you know Jehovah's Witnesses, for you think all Jehovah's Witnesses are exactly the same and should behave in exactly the same way. Some Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are more intelligent than are others and some handle the information that they are given differently than would those with little or no education, because some things are hard for some to understand. You're way off-topic here, but as a parting short, I'll just say this:
You remind me of those who will leave God's organization to go absolutely nowhere because of having a weak conscience that permitted them to accept a blood transfusion, who fearing death were in bondage and they gave in although not really wanting to do so (Hebrews 2:15) or who would shun their own family members because of the conscience of one or more of the elders in their local congregation, who are not masters over anyone's faith (2 Corinthians 1:24) advise them to do so, or because one or more of the more influential in the congregation, who are utterly devoid of a Bible-trained conscience that can distinguish between right and wrong should strongly suggest, based on something they read in one of our magazines or heard someone say, that you should violate your own Bible trained conscience that informs you is unloving to be shunning members of one's own family just because someone else's conscience thinks doing this to be the right thing for you to be doing.
A baptized relative that knows the truth, but who deliberately teaches things that run counter to what he knows the Bible teaches is an apostate, for which he or she should be disfellowshipped and shunned by his own baptized relatives, but for all other disfellowshipped relatives, we should mark them, but 'not treat them as if they were enemies. We should instead continue to admonish them as brothers and sisters.' (2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15) Your own conscience is telling you it is unloving for you to not embrace the joy that occasions the birth of one of their children to whom you are related, unloving for you to not attend the funerals of our own family members based on viewing what is only a suggestion designed only to protect your spirituality to be a rule that forces you to treat members of one's own family as if they no longer mattered or were really dead. No, all Jehovah's Witnesses are not exactly the same.
I agree with Paul: Why on earth would anyone permit their own freedom in Christ to be judged by another person's conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:29) Paul also wrote: "Do you not know that if you keep presenting yourselves to anyone as slaves to obey him, you are slaves of him because you obey him...."? (Romans 6:16) I may not come off to you as being "a sincere JW," but besides being judgmental, who are you? I mean, you're not @Simon, you're not a mod, you don't run JWN, so who are you to me that I should listen to you? Are you the Pharaoh?
@djeggnog
