by 67mustang 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
I read an article about a 1989 watchtower that stated the preaching work would be completed in our 20th century, but was revised in the bound volume to say "in our day". I told my brother this and he said, "if it's on the net about JW's it's a lie". I want to prove to him it was a fact. Can anybody give an idea how to do that?
Thanks
Maybe the only way would be to find an 89 unbound wt. Some jw's have kept them that way. You could ask around, if you still have some dub contacts. In the xjw community, the mag goes for about $100, if you can get it.
The book 'the nations shall know that i am jehovah' (1971 i believe) says a similar thing on page 216 par 9. 'Shortly, within our twentith century, the "battle of the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom."
SS
Just to support Saint Satan, here's a paste from the c/d rom.
"
*** kj 216-7 12 "Until He Comes Who Has the Legal Right" ***
Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom. The ancient "soil of Israel" pictures the realm in which Christendom has operated. It pictures the standing and relationship that Christendom has claimed to occupy with God by means of his "new covenant" of which Jesus Christ is the mediator. Now is no time for anyone in Christendom to rely on any righteousness on the basis of his own merits and to boast of his own self-righteousness. Jehovahs "sword" of warfare will cut off from this position that Christendoms clergy claim for her all religionists who depend upon her having an acceptable standing with God.
Sorry I cannot trace the more recent Watchtower. I do remember an incident after a group study once when sweet old sister J. said what comfort she took from an article she had kept that said that the work would be over in the century . We were all skeptical that they would have said it. Keen young brother L . took out his bound volume for that WT. and , guess what , it did not say any such thing .
Sister J was insistant, so Bro L got his car, took her home and they returned with the original article. Yes it did say it ,but the bound volume had been doctored to leave out the statement.
Bro L wrote to the Society because he was miffed that the volume was not a true copy . They replied and said that the words had been altered to avoid any ambiguity etc .
So when is a copy not a copy??
Edited by - BluesBrother on 21 July 2002 12:29:28
They replied and said that the words had been altered to avoid any ambiguity etc .
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-HA! "Ambiguity"??? How about to avoid getting caught in yet another false prophecy? Welcome to the Ministry of Truth. Big Brother loves you!
Robert Frazier
"if it's on the net about JW's it's a lie".
Actually, that's partly true. "if it's on the net about JW's on the official Watchtower website, http://www.watchtower.org/, it's a lie".
Robert Frazier
IF IT'S ON THE NET, IT'S A LIE......believe me, that is typical Witness reasoning! Show QUOTES about JW's on the net and it automatically is suspect.The next statement that they will make is that SOMEBODY ELSE printed that article.Believe only the bound volumes.....apostates snuck in the printing dept. but they were found out. Only believe the latest info.
That's right jj, there are many false Christs......everything is covered!
I remember that article being studied, and I remember walking around in a daze as everyone seemed to be talking about it, but it was clear to me that there had been no supporting argument to cut things off at the end of 2000. Then, as I remember, a few weeks later a letter was read saying that the bound volume would rephrase things and that 'in our 20th century' was a typo. For years I thought my vindicated doubt was a sign of superior faith - but in fact it was a precursor to my enlightenment. If by saying that Paul was starting a work that would be completed in the 20th century the Watchtower meant that we would not be submitting time slips or attending meetings after December 2000, then I have been faithful to the word.
Speaking of accurate info on the Watchtower on the internet, I came across one website* run by "hector3000", a self-styled JW "apologist" (whose website is in open rebellion against Borg directives forbidding dubs to set up such sites) in which he claimed, "Any document posted on a web-site AGAINST JW's that makes Witnesses look real bad, has an extremely high probability of being fabricated." He learned the art of exaggeration to the point of lying well from his "mother", but I'm curious if anyone could substantiate his claim in even one instance. Has anyone here ever seen a quote from the WBTS in any anti-JW website that was not genuine? A lot of them could be called out-of-context, since so many are only a sentence or two, but have you ever found one where the words in the quote really didn't exist in the Watchtower mags or books?
I never have, but I'm just wondering.
Robert Frazier
Mustang: WHICH '89 Watchtower? I might have an old loose copy (not bound). I'd have to dig thru a box or two to make sure, but if I knew which issue I was looking for, that would help! I could xerox it and mail it (no scanner).
To all the others, interesting... always learning with every little juicy tidbit posted by yooz guys. Thanks!
Grits
