"New" light Vs. "Old"light

by apostate man 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  apostate man

  Some of you may have read a thread I started on Masonry found here at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=22479&site=3 .

  I showed my wife this information and she was shocked to find out there is a pyramid with a cross on it at Russells grave. She printed all information and went to ask her JW dad about it. His reply basically was that WT has had "new" light since they put that pyramid there. He states that they would not do that today, use a pyramid or a cross, and I wonder why they leave it there.

  I am aware of Proverbs 4:18 and have heard that exuse used way too much. Can anybody explain to me in detail where this new light comes from and why it contenuosly is getting brighter. Do JW's have a direct line with God?

  Here is my thought. Gods word remains the same. It is only translated differently. There are many translations hence many religions. So basically JW's religion is a "live" religion changing every day. They may have more in common with one religion one day then more with another the next.

  "New light" to me means more information to support the old information, not to contradict the old information. So basically, Jw's are right, because they were wrong. How do they know that what they believe in today wont be replaced with "new light" tomorrow? And they expect you to die by not taking blood when needed??????????
• 

  chezza

  hi apostate man, very very good point here, does the light gets brighter mean we were in darkness? And if so then what about all the things that were done because of faith in wtbts, i mean they used to celebrate xmas at bethel until the light got brighter of course, how many things will change as they realise the bs they spun has not come about, oh sorry we made a mistake, no the light got brighter, and if jehovah is directing the org then why does he let his people live in darkness, does he want people to fall away because they are dissalusioned, and how many more lives will be lost because of suicide from not being able to keep up with the standards the wtbts sets out.
• 

  Xander

  I have two big gripes with the 'new light' policy:

  1) The society reserves the right to be wrong about anything and correct their teachings later via 'new light'. They still expect you do die over their current teachings. And trying to 'look ahead' of the society at what the changes *might* be is a disfellowshipping offense.

  2) Sure, 'new light'. Great. But, the society teaches Jesus returned to Earth in 1914 to pick his chosen organization. Modern 'new light' means nothing then. If the society's teachings at the time were SO IN LINE with Jesus's intentions that he picked THEM over, say, Quakers or something, then why have they changed so much?

  I mean, at the time when the society believed the Jewish people would actually reclaim their homeland as fulfillment of Revelation, pyramids and crosses were divine symbols, the world was actually going to end in 1914, etc. etc., Jesus found them close enough to divine teaching to be 'his' people?!?! Then what must he think of the society today?!?!? Either they lied then or they are lying now, and since their official statement is they don't lie......

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana
• 

  RR

  His reply basically was that WT has had "new" light since they put that pyramid there. He states that they would not do that today, use a pyramid or a cross, and I wonder why they leave it there.

  Although the pyramid at the gravesite is an embarrassing remainder to the Watchtower, I'm not so sure they can just go in there and destroy it. It is a sort of landmark and many people Jehovah's Witnesses and Bible Students alike go visit it. Interesting. I know more Witnesses who visit the site than I do Bible Students. There is an annual convention of Bible Students in the Pittsburgh area and no one ever goes to see the grave.

  I am aware of Proverbs 4:18 and have heard that exuse used way too much. Can anybody explain to me in detail where this new light comes from and why it contenuosly is getting brighter. Do JW's have a direct line with God?

  Well, they think they do :)This verse is just an accuse to cover over their mistakes. Russell himself never interpreted this verse in the way the Witnesses do today. A creful examination of Watchtower Theology will show their new light is actually old light, a bad lightbulb flickering on and off.
• 

  ozziepost

  And why should they be DF and banished to eternal death for not agreeing with a small part of the flickering light?

  Nice post, apostateman
  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "If our hopes for peace are placed in the hands of imperfect people, they are bound to evaporate."

  
  - Ron Hutchcraft Surviving the Storms of Stress
• 

  Beck_Melbourne

  Hi apostate man

  New light vrs old light...I actually think there are a combination of reasons why new light replaces the old light.

  1. New blood on the GB, hence new ideas, new generation, new minds
  2. Too many court cases and there has to be some adjustments made on their teachings to avoid such catastrophies
  3. GB recognising patterns that occur in congregations and to rectify it may mean 'new light'
  4. New light statement is acceptable as there is no one to blame...better than an apology

  Beck
• 

  lurk

  must admit this subject all thought they havent hidden it makes me wonder what would have happened too
  ppl who said it was wrong to see the pyraminds in this way.there must have been some ppl who could see the pyraminds were egyptian culture and beliefs and so not in any way to do wit the bible. they would have got kicked out for doing the right thing?
  mmmmmmmmmmmmm
• 

  JT

  repost

  just a few gems on the subject:

  Look what Watchower said about this doctrinal reversal:

  “If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two years ago would be regarded as darkness now.

  But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. ‘new Light’ never extinguishes older ‘light,’ but adds to it.” (WT Feb. 1881,page3)

  Thus, the Society claims that the date 1914, as signifying the end of the Gentile Times, is a "fundamental Bible truth." Equally one might reasonably expect that the Society's claim for the establishment of the Kingdom in 1914 would also be considered to be a fundamental truth.

  That presents a dilemma; if it is indeed the case that "no foundational doctrines of the WTS have changed" as some claim, then, logically we can only conclude that the "establishment of the Kingdom in 1914" is not a "fundamental Kingdom truth," because the date for that event has been changed.

  Holding the position that "no fundamental doctrines have changed" thus requires one to invent quite arbitrary and ridiculous definitions of what is "fundamental." This also produces a tautology.
  Q: Which doctrines have not changed? A; The fundamental ones.
  Q: Which are the fundamental docrtines? A: Those which have not changed.

  This is the only way to validate the doctrine of New Light which is supposed not to affect fundamental teachings.
  In summary, we can conclude that the claims made by the Society for the date 1914, according to the Society itself, are central to its existence. Revising the date 1914, or, better, abandoning this absurd chronology altogether, would sweep away the last vestiges of the authority claimed by the Society for its teaching that it is engaged in a special work that is directed by Jehovah and Jesus and that these are the last days.
  
  The recent change in the teaching on "this generation" in reality represents the abandonment of the date 1914 as a date of significance without actually doing so explicitly. If Jesus came to power in 1914, with, however, no observable effects on this planet, and if the subsequent "last days" period can extend for an unbounded period of time, then what is the good of knowing the date 1914 in the first place? In effect, this puts JWs in exactly the same position as other Christians who do not claim special knowledge of that invisible event in 1914.

  Posted by Running Man [RunningMan] on August 18, 2000 at 10:29:24 {QCmrIpEC7.lLCr7htMtU1l4cklgBgk}:
  In Reply to: LATEST WT "FLIP-FLOP" posted by / You Know on August 18, 2000 at 08:52:33:
  I got the impression that you feel that there is nothing wrong with changing doctrines in light of changing times. Well, I hate to tell you this, but the very source that is changing the doctrines today, has itself thoroughly condemned this practice.
  You said:
  "In point of fact, it is perfectly within the Watchtower's right to change our policy..."
  According to the Society:
  "It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go back to the very doctrines that, by years of study, we had thoroughly determined to be in error. CHRISTIANS CANNOT BE VACILLATING - 'wishy washy' - about such fundamental teachings. WHAT CONFIDENCE CAN ONE PUT IN THE SINCERITY OR JUDGEMENT OF SUCH PERSONS." (Watchtower 5/15/76 p 298)
  "If you are a Catholic, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the church a 'mortal sin' can suddenly be approved? If it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? ... The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? WOULD YOU NOT BE INCLINED TO QUESTION OTHER TEACHINGS OF YOUR CHURCH ALSO?" (Awake 4/22/70 p8)
• 

  JT

  EXAMPLES OF HOW THE LIGHT FLICKERS:

  OLD LIGHT - NEW LIGHT
  ORGAN TRANSPLANTS

  1967-1980: prohibited as "cannibalism" WT 11/15/67 p.702
  Since 1980 - permitted WT 3/15/80 p.31
  VACCINATIONS

  1931-1952 Prohibited as being a "direct violation of the everlasting covenant."
  Golden Age 2/4/31 p.293
  Since 1952 - permitted WT 12/15/52 p.764and AWAKE! 8/22/65 p.20

  ORGANIZATION - ITS IMPORTANCE
  1893 - No organization today WT 1893 p.266
  1894 - Not part of the Lord's plan. WT 12/1/1894 p. 384
  1895 - Beware of organization WT 9-15-1895 p.216
  1955 - Respect the organization Qualified to be Ministers, 1955, p.380
  1957 - Obedience to organization. WT 5/1/57 p.274
  1972 - Submit to headship (Governing Body) WT 12-15-72 p.755
  1983 - Essential part of the Lord's plan WT 2/15/83 p.12

  PYRAMIDOLOGY
  Prior to 1928 - "God's Stone Witness and Prophet" Used to predict dates Thy Kingdom Come, 1891, p.313, 16, 17, 342, 362
  Since 1928 - Satan's Bible; not God's Stone Witness. WT 11/15/28 p.344
  1928 - Satan's Bible WT 11-15-28 p.841
  1930 - Just a pile of stones Light II, 1930, p.286

  ROMANS 13:1 - WHO ARE THE "SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES?"
  1886 - Earthly governments Divine Plan of the Ages, 1886, p.266
  1889 - Earthly governments Time Is At Hand, 1889, p.81
  1932-1963: God and Christ Vindication, Vol. 3, 1932, p.13 and

  The Truth Shall
  Make You Free, 1943, p.312
  1952 - God and Christ Let God Be True, 1952, p.248
  1959 - God and Christ Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p.91
  1963 - Earthly political governments WT 1/1/63 p.31
  1975 - Earthly political governments 1975 Yearbook, p.238 1980 - Earthly political governments WT 5/15/80 p.4

  THE REVELATION NAMES "APOLLYON" AND "ABADDON"
  Refers to Satan - The Finished Mystery, p.159
  Refers to Jesus Christ - Then Is Finished the Mystery of God, p.232
  WHO IS "THE TRUE LORD?"
  Jesus Christ WT 9-15-83 p.19
  Jehovah God WT 7-1-89 p.30

  THE "ALPHA AND OMEGA"OF REVELATION 22:12
  Refers to Jehovah God - AWAKE! 8/22/78 p.28
  Refers to Jesus Christ - WT 10/1/78 p.15
  ( A major change in just 2 months!)
  WHO IS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL?
  Not the Son of God - WT November, 1879, p.4
  Jesus not an angel - WT March, 1883, p.456
  The Pope of Rome - The Finished Mystery, 1926 Edition, p.188
  Jesus Christ, the Son of God - Reasoning From the Scriptures, 1985, p.218

  SAYING "HELLO" TO DISFELLOWSHIPPED MEMBERS?
  1970 NO WT 6/1/70 p.352
  1972 NO Organization for Kingdom Preaching..., 1972, p.172
  1974 YES WT 8/1/74 pp.464,465 1981 NO WT 9/15/81 p.25

  WILL THE MEN OF SODOM AND GOMORRA BE RESURRECTED?
  1879 YES WT July, 1879 p.8
  1952 NO WT 6/1/52 p.338
  1965 YES WT 8/1/65 p.479
  1988 NO WT 8/1/88 p.31
  1988 YES "You Can Live Forever..." p.179 (Old Edition)
  1988 NO "You Can Live Forever..." p.179 (New Edition)
  1988 YES Insight On The Scriptures, Vol.2, p.985
  1988 NO Revelation - Its Grand Climax p.273

  WHEN WAS THE 'SECOND PRESENCE' OF JESUS CHRIST?
  1874 - Harp of God, 1921, p.234
  1874 - WT 1/1/24 p.5
  1874 - Creation, 1927, p.289
  1874 - Prophecy, 1929, p.65
  1914 - AWAKE! 4/22/57 pp. 11,12
  1914 - From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained, 1958, p.170
  1914 - God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years..., 1973, pp. 209,210
  1914 - You Can Live Forever..., 1982, p.147

  The Society said in the Watchtower issue of WT 1/15/93 p.5 "The
  Watchtower has consistently presented evidence to honesthearted students of Bible prophecy that Jesus' presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914."

  "CONSISTENTLY"? After examining the above quotes, is this true?
  WHO IS THE "FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE?"
  a. All anointed Watchtower members - JWS in the Divine Purpose, p.68
  b. Brother Russell filled the office of special "servant" - WT 3/1/23 p.6
  c. From 1896 to 1916 - Watchtower founder, Charles Taze Russell The
  Finished Mystery, 1917, p.5
  d. Charles Taze Russell - The finished Mystery, 1917, p.53
  e. Spiritual Israelites: the 'anointed' Society members - From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained, 1958, p.193
  f. The Watchtower admits earlier view that Russell was considered "the
  Servant" Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959, p.69
  g. A "class" of individuals - 1975 Yearbook, p.88
  h. "Russell disavowed being the Servant." - God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years..., 1973, pp.345,346
  i. The Society asserts that it never published a biography of Pastor Russell - Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959, p.63
  j. But here are the Introductory pages of the Society's Biography of Pastor Russell - The Divine Plan of the Ages, 1927 Ed., p.1
  (So, why the cover-up?)
  k. Because in this Biography Russell admitted in private that HE was "the Servant" - The Divine Plan of the Ages, 1927 Ed., p.7
• 

  JT

  These are the Org best quotes around::

  you got to love this stuff

  SOME NOTABLE QUOTES...
  "A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it." Charles Russell in Zion's Watchtower, Feb. 1881,
  p.3

  "It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go back to the very doctrines that, by years of study, we had
  thoroughly determined to be in error. Christians cannot be vacillating - 'wishy-washy' - about such fundamental teachings. What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons?" WT 5/15/76 p.298

  "However, it may have seemed to some as though that path has not always gone straight forward. At times explanations given by Jehovah's visible organization have shown
  adjustments, seemingly to previous points of view. But this has not actually been the case. This might be compared to what is known in navigational circles as "tacking." By maneuvering the sails, the sailors can cause a ship to go from right to left, back and
  forth,..." WT 12/1/81 p.27

  But then they say:
  "...to run "not uncertainly" means that to every observer it should be very evident where the runner is heading. The Anchor Bible renders it "not on a zigzag course." Wt 8/1/92 p.17
  Yet this right to left "zigzag course" is the very direction that the Society has given itself permission to take!
  We have the right to again ask: "What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons?"