by slimboyfat 245 Replies latest jw friends
djeggnog: "No, there's nothing explicitly being called a fact in that article."
I have family members that simply do not comprehend anything that contradicts their version of their JW religious beliefs.
Science, history, archaeology, maths, the NWT, The Watchtower, Awake!, their own official WT website, whatever.
Do you have Kiwi family Your Royal Eggness?
Djeggnog,
This statement that appeared on the masthead of the Awake! magazine before November 8, 1995, did not originate with God, and no one that had read the Awake! magazine back in 1969 would have concluded that these words were quoted from the Bible. If the Society had understood that they was a contingent of illiterate Jehovah's Witnesses had mistakenly thought that this masthead was being regarded by them as if it were an inerrant statement from the Bible, it would have taken steps to remove this masthead much earlier than it did since in no way from it the Society's intention to deceive or mislead anyone to believe that this statement in the masthead was taken from the Bible. The majority of Jehovah's Witnesses did not believe this statement to have been inerrant.
This statement from "The Modern-Day Ezekiel"
"Unmistakably, the Bible pinpoints 1914 C.E. as the time when the "kingdom of the world" became the kingdom of the Lord God and of his Christ. Before the generation that was then alive passes off the scene, the "great tribulation" will strike." The Watchtower January 15th 1974 page 51?
It was a little earlier before the November 8th 1995 Awake. Whilst the generation was a little younger. Seems to give me the impression that the generation of 1914 wont pass away before the great tribulation strikes.
"Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."
I dont think that I commented that this was from the bible only that the Modern-Day Ezekiel was "commissioned to serve as the mouthpeice and active agent of Jehovah" and they said this and as the "mouthpiece" of Jehovah I would have thought it would have been true.
You heard it from idiotnog - the writers of Watch Tower don't have any FACTS, it's all bullshit. Thanks Idiot, you exposed the cult for what it is.
At least in future there will only be 16 pages of speculation for the public to read.
I got sucked in because I was told "that generation were all old and Armageddon would come before they all die". They sucked me in through fear but now I see they condemn others for using the same tactics as them. They then tell you to see what the Bible says and low and behold if you know where to look they too are wrong.
*** w10 8/1 p. 4 What Do Many Fear? ***
Predictions of doom worry millions. Type the phrase “end of the world” and the year “2012” into one popular Internet search engine, and you will discover hundreds of pages of speculation about the end coming in that year. Why so? An ancient Maya calendar, known as “the Long Count,” is calculated to end in the year 2012. Many fear that this somehow signals the end of civilization as we know it.
Many religious people believe that the Bible teaches that the literal earth will be destroyed. They feel that all faithful believers will be taken to heaven, while the rest of mankind will be left to suffer on a chaotic earth or be thrown into hell.
Does the Bible, in fact, say that the earth will be completely ruined or destroyed? “Do not believe every inspired expression,” warned the apostle John, “but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God.” (1 John 4:1) Rather than merely accepting what others say, why not open a copy of the Bible and see for yourself what it says about the end of the world? What it teaches may surprise you.
(Matthew 24:26, 27) . . .; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
When Christ comes it will not be "invisibly" and hidden from view at all. It will be obvious to everyone!
@Leolaia wrote:
But it is explicitly called a "fact".
@djeggnog wrote:
No, there's nothing explicitly being called a fact in that article, "What Future for the Young?" that appeared in the Awake! dated May 22, 1969, for the article clearly speculates that "all the evidence ... indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years."
At the Los Angeles Music Center here in Los Angeles, two actresses -- Barbra Streisand ("Funny Girl"), who was 27 at the time, and Katharine Hepburn ("The Lion in Winter"), who was 62 at the time -- tied in winning Oscar for the first time in this category in the history of the awards show for "Best Actress" for which category they had both been nominated and obtained 3,030 votes each. Along with Patricia Neal ("The Subject Was Roses"), who was 43 in 1969, Vanessa Redgrave ("Isadora"), who was 32 in 1969, and Joanne Woodward ("Rachel, Rachel"), who was 39 in 1969, all five of these actresses had been nominated for the "Best Actress" category on February 24, 1969, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences declared that two statuettes for "Best Actress" would be awarded at the 41st Academy Awards for 1968 to both Streisand and Hepburn at the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion.
"If you were to speculate back in 1969, the evidence indicated that the oldest of the nominees for this category (Hepburn) or the youngest of the nominees (Steisand) would win the Academy Award of Merit for Performance by an Actress (Best Actress), or one of the other three (Neal, Redgrave and Woodward). Why not? Because all the evidence indicated that only one of these five (5) woman would win Best Actress."
As things turned out, what was speculated based on the evidence didn't turn out to be the case, for not one, but two of the nominees won "Best Actress" in 1969 for their performances in these 1968 films." The fact that two actresses won in 1969 and not just one for "Best Actress" doesn't mean that what was expected to occur didn't occur as if a prediction had failed, but only that what had been speculated based upon the evidence did not turn out to be what actually did occur.
Back in 1969, it was hoped that because 1975 would mark the end of 6,000 years of human history that this year would mark the beginning of Christ's Millennial Reign, and many people had begun to speculate that the end of 6,000 years of human history would also be the end of this system of things. However, these two things turned out to be mutually exclusive events, because with the close of 1975, it is clear that while 1975 did mark the end of 6,000 years of human history, and it is also clear that 1975 didn't turn out to be the end of this system of things as had been speculated by some back in 1969.
Contrary to what many of you here on JWN have said in this thread and in other threads, there could be no prediction as to 1975 by Jehovah's Witnesses to which one could point in our literature in those years that preceded 1975 since Matthew 24:36 indicated that as to "that day and hour," no one could know when the end of this system of things would occur, so anyone that thought the end of this system of things would occur in 1975 was clearly speculating because he or she had no evidence that would back up such a conclusion.
Speculation is never a fact, @Leolaia, even if what one should speculate turns out to be true. Proof that speculating is never a fact is that anyone that had speculated that it would be one of those five women that were nominated for "Best Actress" in 1969 would win was wrong because, as it turned out, not one woman, but two of these five nominees won Oscar for Best Actress in 1969.
@slimboyfat:
Awake! 1969: "If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things."
The mind boggles.
Does your head hurt, too? There's at least two (2) things with which you need to become acquainted: (1) Hypothetical language and (2) context. This statement you quote here begins with the word "if," and "if," as used here, expresses a hypothetical. This hypothetical, mind you, isn't the same as speculation, but speculation happens when one takes a hypothetical like this one and regards it as if it were a fact, which is what many people that read this statement in that Awake! that article, "What Future for the Young?" did, in deciding that this hypothetical was a fact, when had they examined the context of this statement, they would have realized that the article speculated that "all the evidence ... indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years."
I might speculate that it is going to rain today, based on the presence of cumulus towers or cirrus clouds in the skies above, but it may not rain today; it may not rain until tomorrow, but if I were to speculate by telling someone, "It's going to rain today," as if this were an established fact, and it doesn't rain, then you would have every right to be upset that based upon my saying to you, "It's going to rain today," you were beset with carrying around an umbrella all day for no reason.
If you aren't relying upon a weather person on tv, or aren't a meteorologist by some chance, then it would have been better to have prefaced one's remarks with words that form a hypothetical statement, such as "If you leave here without bringing an umbrella with you, you may regret doing so because it looks likeit's going to rain today," or "The cloud formation would seem to indicate thatit's going to rain today," for the inclusion of the words in red type here signify, in the English language, not just a hypothetical, but speculation. Just like I said to @Leolaia, speculation is never a fact.
@castthefirststone:
The Watchtower of 15 December 1953 said this:
The purpose of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society since its inception has been to check not just the "proof texts" every religion has, but every text relating to every doctrine of Christendom. The job is tremendous, and has taken decades. It could be done only with the blessing of the holy spirit, and it is the only way to return to the unity of true worship, the faith of the apostles, and the favor of God. If the Bible actually teaches a doctrine, then and then only should it be accepted. If it is speculation, human theory, some man’s idea, it should be rejected.
Therefore from your Master's own mouth you should reject everything they publish as you admitted it's mere speculation.
Not everything we as Jehovah's Witnesses publish is speculation. The context of the statements that appear in the article, "Should the Religions Unite?" were about the dangers of interfaith movements that amalgamate things that might be regarded as "good causes," but which things contaminate true worship, pointing out that conflicting man-made doctrines cannot be sanctified and why the Society endeavors to check "every doctrine" that Christendom teaches for if the doctrine is found to be "speculation, human theory, some man's idea, then that doctrine "should be rejected."
You want to conclude that based on what you quoted from this article that everything the Society publishes should be rejected as "mere speculation," because you don't care about things like context, and that's ok; it is your right to conclude whatever it is you choose to conclude as to the things you read, even if you should be totally wrong. The Society knows this and I dare say it has known for awhile that the kind of readers for whom reading comprehension is a problem are reading our literature with no one really to help them to understand what they are reading , which is why there is now a "Simplified" edition of the Watchtower available. (Compare Acts 8:31) You read this particular article you quoted here without understanding, which was as if you were an 11-year-old child for whom the words on a page are just words if he or she reads them without understanding what the statements these words form mean.
When an adult says to me what you just said to me here, @castthefirststone, I could either ask the person, "Why didn't you finish high school?" which might be regarded by that person as being mean, or I could say to the person, "I'm sorry, but you misconstrued what this article was saying," which might inflame the person to want to be argumentative with me in positing what is really going to be a losing argument.
Also [prove] to us that the theory of overlapping generations is not more speculation, but keep in mind everything you write here is permanent and once your Masters decide to change their speculation we will hold you accountable for your comments you made here.
We don't have a theory about any "overlapping generations." This phrase "overlapping generations" is a phrase that "you guys" here on JWN made up. What Jehovah's Witnesses have since 2010 is a new interpretation of Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34 for we now understand the expression, "this generation," differently than we did before the article, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," appeared in the Watchtower of April 15, 2010. If you were to actually read this article, you would realize that this isn't a theory at all, for, as the article explains, the way in which holy spirit itself sheds light upon the word "generation" -- the word used at Exodus 1:6 -- is what has helped us to now appreciate what it was Jesus meant by "this generation" at Matthew 24:34.
At Exodus 1:6, "generation" refers to an event, the life or generation of Joseph, whereas those whose lives overlapped Joseph's during Joseph's lifetime are said to be contemporaries of Joseph. This would mean that all but one of Joseph's brothers were older than Joseph, and all but three of them were by Leah or Leah's concubine, Zilpah, and two of the three by Rachel's concubine, Bilhah, were older than Joseph.
The words "and all that generation" refers not just to Joseph's ten older brothers, but includes with Joseph's younger brother, Benjamin, and Joseph's sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who were all contemporaries of Joseph during Joseph's lifetime. Although Manasseh and Ephraim were of a different generation, in using the word "generation," the holy spirit refers not only to Joseph's 11 brothers who lived during Joseph's lifetime, but refers to all of those who were contemporaries of Joseph when he was born and until he died, which would include Joseph's two sons. Exodus 1:6 uses to words, "all that generation," in describing these 13 men, some of whom were alive when Joseph was born and some of whom were still alive when Joseph died, and contrary to what has been expressed here on JWN, none of these are described as being of Joseph's generation, but they are all described as having lived during the generation of Joseph.
What is important to understand here is that while the lives of Joseph's oldest brothers -- Reuben and Simeon -- overlapped the lives of their younger nephews, Manasseh and Ephraim, this would be irrelevant. What is relevant to our understanding of the way in which the word "generation" is used at Matthew 24:34 is the fact that the lives of these 13 men all overlapped "his generation," the generation of Joseph. So even if Reuben and Simeon's lives should have overlapped Manasseh and Ephraim's lives, when the holy spirit says at Exodus 1:6 "and all that generation," it is referring to the overlapping of the lives of all 13 men during the generation of Joseph.
Similarly, we now understand the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34 to refer to the contemporaries of a particular event, the event that began with the composite sign of Christ's presence in 1914. This event -- the composite sign -- marks the beginning of the "generation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:34, but we no longer use the word "generation" in referring to Jesus' anointed brothers that were alive in 1914 when the sign of Christ's presence began in 1914.
There would have been one anointed group of the temple class that began to discern the composite sign in 1914, another group of the temple class that came to discern the sign when they were chosen in 1924, another group of the temple class that came to discern the sign when they were chosen in 1935, and yet another group of the temple class that came to discern the sign when they were chosen in 1945.
Adding to these four anointed groups of the temple class might be a fifth anointed group, a sixth group and a seventh group of the temple class that came to discern the sign when they were chosen in 1955, 1965 and 1975, respectively, and the lives of some of those in these seven groups might even overlap the lives of some of those in maybe three, four or even five of these seven groups, but this would be irrelevant.
Note that there are no "overlapping generations," since if any of these group should belong to a single generation, this would also be irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that all of the anointed groups of the temple class are contemporaries of the generation of the sign that began in 1914.
@Leolaia wrote:
But it is explicitly called a "fact".
@djeggnog wrote:
No, there's nothing explicitly being called a fact in that article, "What Future for the Young?" that appeared in the Awake! dated May 22, 1969, for the article clearly speculates that "all the evidence ... indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years.
@Black Sheep wrote:
I have family members that simply do not comprehend anything that contradicts their version of their JW religious beliefs.
And your point is what now?
Do you have Kiwi family Your Royal Eggness?
Why do you ask? How would your eliciting such information from me as to whether I have any family in New Zealand or wherever be at all relevant to the topic? I'd rather you not go too far off the proverbial reservation.
@djeggnog wrote:
This statement that appeared on the masthead of the Awake! magazine before November 8, 1995, did not originate with God, and no one that had read the Awake! magazine back in 1969 would have concluded that these words were quoted from the Bible. If the Society had understood that they was a contingent of illiterate Jehovah's Witnesses had mistakenly thought that this masthead was being regarded by them as if it were an inerrant statement from the Bible, it would have taken steps to remove this masthead much earlier than it did since in no way from it the Society's intention to deceive or mislead anyone to believe that this statement in the masthead was taken from the Bible. The majority of Jehovah's Witnesses did not believe this statement to have been inerrant.
@Ucantnome wrote:
This statement from "The Modern-Day Ezekiel"
"Unmistakably, the Bible pinpoints 1914 C.E. as the time when the "kingdom of the world" became the kingdom of the Lord God and of his Christ. Before the generation that was then alive passes off the scene, the "great tribulation" will strike." The Watchtower January 15th 1974 page 51?
It was a little earlier before the November 8th 1995 Awake. Whilst the generation was a little younger. Seems to give me the impression that the generation of 1914 wont pass away before the great tribulation strikes.
Yes, and the statement that someone quoted from in the Awake! article dated May 22, 1969, entitled "What Future for the Young?" also appeared even earlier than the article, "'Keep Close in Mind the Presence of the Day of Jehovah,'" that you quote here from the Watchtower dated January 15, 1974. If your point is that Jehovah's Witnesses no longer subscribe to a belief in "the generation of 1914," you would be correct, but I suspect that your point is that Jehovah's Witnesses should have struck with our former interpretation of "generation" because for whatever reason you cannot shake from your mind our former interpretation of "generation" and the basis for your criticism is that it is hard to beat a dead horse when we have lost interest ourselves in beating that horse.
You were accustomed to finding fault with Jehovah's Witnesses for their belief that the end of the system of things would occur before "the generation of 1914" had all passed away, but we no longer believe "the generation of 1914" to be that to which Jesus was referring at Matthew 24:34. I'm not going to argue with you about an interpretation of Matthew 24:34 that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot and do not defend any more (because our interpretation was wrong), but you may feel free to keep reminding us of our former interpretation and what things we used to believe if you like.
Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses now realize that "the generation of 1914" does not exist, but that, instead, there exists "the generation of the sign" that began in 1914. "The generation of 1914" referred to people living in 1914, whereas "the generation of the sign" refers to an event than began in 1914.
I dont think that I commented that this was from the bible only that the Modern-Day Ezekiel was "commissioned to serve as the [mouthpiece] and active agent of Jehovah" and they said this and as the "mouthpiece" of Jehovah I would have thought it would have been true.
The book 'The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah'—How? was released back in 1971 when Jehovah's Witnesses believed and taught that "the generation of 1914" existed, but the fact that we are not inerrant, not inspired by God to write what things you read in our publications doesn't mean that Jehovah is not backing our efforts to obtain a better understanding of his word, despite our not discerning for such a long time the meaning of the word "generation" used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34.
If you are of the opinion that a prophet of God cannot get something wrong, I can only remind you that after his resurrection, Jesus' disciples in the first century AD didn't appreciate at the time that the kingdom was heavenly, not an earthly kingdom, nor did they know that his kingdom would not be established in the heavens until the end of the Gentile Times in 1914. But they were told by Jesus that it didn't belong to them to obtain "knowledge of the times or seasons," but when received holy spirit, they would bear witness of him "to the most distant part of the earth." (Acts 1:6-8)
Jesus' first-century followers didn't always understand everything they needed to know at first, but eventually they were aided by the holy spirit to understand things which they did not formerly understand, and likewise, Jehovah's Witnesses understand things today that we did not understand accurately until the 1930s, or say, in 2010.
@Amelia Ashton:
I got sucked in because I was told "that generation were all old and Armageddon would come before they all die". They sucked me in through fear but now I see they condemn others for using the same tactics as them. They then tell you to see what the Bible says and low and behold if you know where to look they too are wrong.
You are, of course, free to believe what you choose to believe. However, I prefer it when someone admits having made a mistake. I've never considered any human being to be perfect or impervious to mistakes. If you have ever believed that human being, for whatever reason, must be perfect, then you were a fool to do so, since no one -- not me, not you, not any human being -- is perfect. We study the Bible and do our best to encourage others to remain in the faith and we cannot make the end come any faster than God had determined the end will come.
In the meantime, there are many people that are turning to Jehovah being desirous of being saved, both themselves and their families, so if the end had occurred in 1995 or in 2005 or in 2010, then those who have since joined God's organization in worshipping Jehovah in spirit and truth as followers of Christ Jesus, and those who may have lost their way, but have since returned to God's organization may have all perished, so what you might think to be delay has proven to have been a good thing for those that are happy that the end of this system of things did not occur sooner.
When Christ comes it will not be "invisibly" and hidden from view at all. It will be obvious to everyone!
Before I respond to this, let me say that there must be more than 200 people whose messages I've read here on JWN that are masters at cutting-and-pasting from the Society's publications in order to find fault with many of the things the Society has printed over the years since they were unable to comprehend the meaning of those things they read and were too embarrassed (or whatever) about asking someone to explain to them the things that they only thought they understood! They do a lot of cutting-and-pasting on here because they don't know the difference between speculation and truth, and now I'm hearing that they didn't know that some of the things that they had read in our publications was speculative. They don't know how to examine the context of a statement often because they are uneducated and do not understand some of the things that they read, but it's the Society's fault!
I will say this though: Jesus stated at Matthew 24:36 that no one would know when "that day and hour" would arrive when the great tribulation would occur, so it was foolhardy on the part of anyone to ignore Jesus' words in this verse and believe that Jehovah's Witnesses somehow knew "that day and hour." If we did know, then that would have made the Bible a liar since we would have been able to determine "that day and hour," would it not? But thinking is not something that many of the folks here on JWN are any good at doing, but criticizing others for being wrong about one of our interpretations is such a sin against those people that believed those interpretations to be factual!
Christ has already returned invisibly, but he has not yet come. When Jesus does some, his coming will not be invisible, for when he does come, everyone on earth will know; his coming will be obvious to all! I know you don't know that there is a difference between Jesus' return and his coming, and maybe after you have read my response, you still won't know the difference. Oh, well....
Many of our interpretations over the years have undergone a bit of tweaking, but we are always willing to abandon any interpretation -- even those that we may have thought to have been scripturally sound -- if it should become apparent that we are wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are simply not going to dishonestly try to make something that we discover to be a wrong interpretation a right interpretation, and when we are wrong about something, we are not going to hide our error from anyone. We are going to send a letter to all of the congregations in the world and print an article in the Watchtower magazine because we are about the truth and because of who we are, namely, Jehovah's Witnesses.
@djeggnog
You are joking, right?
And your point is what now?
What? Do I really have to spell it out for you? You don't comprehend? Gawd. You really could be any one of a number of my family members who play the game of pretending to comprehend whatever they want, regardless of the grammer, context, source, or intention of the author, in order to pretend that the image of the Watchtower that they are trying to paint is not contradicted by their own church documents. Current, or past.
slimboyfat - You are joking, right? (sorry, I'm not sure how to quote here)
No, he jokes not. It's impossible to reason with this person. It's been pointed out to this person the Awake! article that stated, in writing, the FACT that young people alive at that time would not grow old. That was a lie. It wasn't misleading, it was a pure and utter lie. This person defends that, he should be completely ignored.
I find it hard to believe he really believes as he argues because it is so ridiculous. Maybe he thinks he is funny or he is confusing people. Wherever he is at mentally it does not look like a very happy place.
I thought the same as you mate but now having read more of this persons comments I now think they mean every word of it. Terrifying that individuals like this exist.
Your question was from a level headed individual, from a common sense stand point. When part of a barbaric religion common sense is chucked out the window.
