Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 08-12-2012 WT Study (SHORTLY)
by blondie 33 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
BluesBrother
Nineteen paragraphs of absolute baloney! One could say that "You could not make this stuff up! " but they have done....
The article is also sloppily written and hard to understand, giving rise to misunderstandings among those that I know.
Billy picked up an important point....What happened to the King of The North?
"Daniel's Prophecy p285
"Hence, in the prophecy’s fulfillment, the enraged king of the north conducts a campaign against God’s people. In a spiritual sense, the location “between the grand sea and the holy mountain” represents the spiritual estate of Jehovah’s anointed servants. .....................................................28 The final campaign of the king of the north is not directed against the king of the south. Therefore, the king of the north does not come to his end at the hands of his great rival. Similarly, the king of the south is not destroyed by the king of the north. The king of the south is destroyed, “without [human] hand,” by God’s Kingdom. (Daniel 8:25) In fact, at the battle of Armageddon, all earthly kings are to be removed by God’s Kingdom, and this evidently is what happens to the king of the north. (Daniel 2:44) Daniel 11:44, 45 describes events leading up to that final battle. No wonder “there will be no helper” when the king of the north meets his end!"
This study article completly ignores this King, I guess, how much can you get into nineteen paragraphs?
The overview of history could be written anyway that the writer chose to write it. They are not historians are they? In fact this article reads like one written by a junior person...?
There is a big hole in their identification of Rev. "Scarlet colourd beast, The Image" Par 13 says
13 "This wild beast [The two horned beast said to be Anglo America ]promotes the making of an image of the wild beast. John wrote that the image of the beast would appear, disappear, and then rise again. That is exactly what happened to an organization promoted by Britain and the United States, one that was intended to unite and represent the world’s kingdoms. *This organization appeared after World War I and was known as the League of Nations."
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_members
"Despite formulating the concept and signing the Covenant, the United States never joined the League of Nations."
To my mind that simple fact blows their explanation away. The U S A could not give life to something it refused to join.
Back in the day, after the many group study nights on these subjects we would discuss it animatedly. I did not hear any interested comment yesterday. They all seemed glad that a difficult study was over.....
Thanks to Blondie for making more sense of it...
-
sir82
During the WT study I attended, in the paragraph about the "8th king", a comment was made repeating the usual blather about how Knorr "prophesied" in a talk in 1942 that the "beast that was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend" would be an "updated" League of Nations, which then proved to be the UN.
I.e., JW legend has it that Knorr had a direct link to holy spirit and "predicted" the rise of the UN when absolutely no one else was even dreaming of its existence.
Of course, anyone with a slight grasp of history knows that's all bunkum. Talk of the "United Nations" was quite wide-spread, and covered by the news media extensively, in 1942:
http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/1941-1950.shtml
12 June 1941 Inter-Allied Declaration
"To work together, with other free peoples, both in war and in peace"
Signed in London on 12 June 1941, the Inter-Allied Declaration was a first step towards the establishment of the United Nations.14 August 1941 Atlantic Charter
On 14 August 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the United States and Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom proposed a set of principles for international collaboration in maintaining peace and security. The document, signed during a meeting on the ship H.M.S. Prince of Wales, "somewhere at sea", is known as the Atlantic Charter.1 January 1942 Declaration by United Nations
On 1 January 1942, representatives of 26 Allied nations fighting against the Axis Powers met in Washington, D.C. to pledge their support for the Atlantic Charter by signing the "Declaration by United Nations". This document contained the first official use of the term "United Nations", which was suggested by President Roosevelt. -
Calebs Airplane
You gotta love paragraph 5... it tries to give the impression that 1914 brought about some mystical fulfillment of Bible prophecy regarding the US and the UK... In fact, the WT writer makes a sad attempt to convince readers that the UK and the US formed some kind of special bond in 1914 and jumped into WWI holding hands... But the reality is that the US didn't even get involved in WWI until the war was already in its 3rd year and even then they were not a part of the "Triple Entente" (the alliance between Britain, Russia and France)... in fact, the US didn't really formalize an alliance with the UK until many years AFTER the conclusion of WWI.
Attention WT writers: Maybe you should put your UN Library Card to good use and do some real research before publsihing such nonsense...
-
JW GoneBad
Yah, with WWI raging-on the Anglo-American World Power had nothing better to do than to as par 6 states: ‘oppress God’s people, ban some (not all) of their publications and throw some of WT representatives of the faithful slave class into prison.’ And then they ‘Killed’ the preaching work for a period of time.
WT’s GB in par 6 come across like Drama Queens!
-
whathappened
Thanks again, Blondie. I pay more attention to your Watchtower Study than I ever did when I was at the K.H. Very interesting comments everyone.
-
Splash
@JWGoneBad
They didn't 'kill' the witnessing work, they "as much as killed" it.
The wording used is highly significant.
Anyone know why?
Splash
-
Mall Cop
Ambiguous:1) Having two or more possible meanings. 2) Not clear; indefinite; uncertain; vague.
Need I say more?
-
Mall Cop
Ambiguous:1) Having two or more possible meanings. 2) Not clear; indefinite; uncertain; vague.
Need I say more?
-
Mall Cop
Repeat for emphasis.
