Scholar. Jehovah hates liars.
rem
"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS
by Gamaliel 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
simwitness
I'd like to ignore scholar for a few moments and turn to questioning just why this particular issue even exists.
Why would the WTBS even need to publish the remark about Brown's "connection"?
IMHO, the only reason that the WTBS even included that reference was to contradict Jonnson's published work. This begs the question, Why does the society feel the need to respond to "apostate" materials? "Good little witnesses" don't study outside of the society's marerials, so wouldn't even be aware of the association, or who "Brown" was.
Obviously, the Society felt threatened in some way by this body of evidence, and needed to direcly contradict a statement made in it. By directly contradicting it, they hope to force the reader into just the kind of decision making that scholar represents. The kind that says:
"The Society says this, Jonnson says otherwise, Jonnson is wrong."
Now, the bigger question is: What does this really say about the "Society of truth" ?
If the WTBS has to publish a contradiction to an "apostate's material", and has to fudge the facts in order to contradict it, what does that really say about the society's intentions and honesty? If, as AlanF has posted, the GB and the writing department know that the direct reading of the sentence, especially by the "masses" is intended to show an equality in the two times, and yet they know that that is not what Brown was suggesting, what does that really say about them?
This is such a minor point, such a "trivial matter", yet this is what the society chooses to contradict. Wouldnt it have been just as simple to state that "Brown was the first to do this, yet he did not directly connect the two times ..." and been honest about it? What pourpose, other than to contradict an "apostate's" work could it have served? Being honest in the discussion about Brown's work would not have made the society's position on the two times any different, Brown wasnt a member of the society, nor had the slave been picked, so who cares if he was wrong?
scholar has continually posted the following statement:
If you can't get the facts of modern history straight, how can you be trusted with ancient primary resources?
Obviuosly, The society can't be trusted, because the GB and the Writing department knowingly publish material that is not honest or truthful.
scholar also posted the following:
Jehovah's Organization is one of truth!
If that is true, then the WTBS cannot be a member of that organization.
Scholar,
I want to thank you for your participation in this thread. You have helped again to prove that the WTBS cannot be trusted in matters of modern, or ancient history. You have allowed us, the "apostates" to demonstrate to others just how the society's writing department, and the GB thinks, and how they feel the need to "fudge facts" in order to contradict apostate's works. This is not the only case, this is just one example of thier actions.
I urge all readers to :
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. - 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Have a nice day! -
-
-
czarofmischief
They've sacrificed their 'child' to the Molech who sits in an ivory tower in Brooklyn.
Wow. Quite a turn of phrase, there, Alan... nice...
CZAR
-
Farkel
"scholar" (hahahahahahahahahahaha!)
: and you will see the connection and will declare : Jehovah's Organization is one of Truth!
Yeah? Explain 1925 and 1975 then. Please be specific when you discuss "truth" about those years and what was said about those years from those who speak "truth."
Thank you in advance for you scholarly answers to my humble petition to your worshipfulness, "scholar." (hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!)
If you do not answer this, you are a coward about your so-called "truth" by your very own omission. If you do answer me, then you'd better have your facts in order because I know more about the JWs than you could ever know in your worst nightmare. Why? Simply because I'm not lazy like dubs and I took the time to learn that boring, but important stuff.
Your humble puppy,
Farkel
-
Farkel
scholar,
: No, it is Jonsson who must prove his case as he first raised the issue with much dogmatism
Of course that statement is total dog poo. The one who makes the assertion has the burden of proof. I learned this in 10th grade. Did you get to 10th grade, scholar or did you forget what you were taught in 10th grade? If so, how did you manage to become such a self-proclaimed "scholar?"
Nevermind. Most people see you for the fool you are.
The Watchtower Societeeeeee made the assertion first. THEY must prove it. As a duly indoctrinated fool for them, can you use their logic (hahahahahahahahhaahahah!) and prove their assertion?
With regards to all dates, the burden of proof is on the Watchtower Societeeeeeee.
They have got EVERY one of them wrong to date, except the "invisible" ones. (Anyone can claim "invisible" anything.) That's the beauty of the "invisible" prophecy fulfillments. It's all "invisible!" This of course, includes my own personal and very helpful, but invisible 50 million purple and orange Unicorns who tell me how to post in here and tell me my way to salvation. (They say "Rye Bread" is the path to salvation.) Prove me wrong!
One cannot disprove a negative. This is simple logic, and I had to use some bad humor to make a case about it. Sorry, folks. I did my best.
Farkel
-
Earnest
As "scholar" has referred to page 208 of The Even-Tide as the evidence that J.A.Brown did connect the Gentile Times with the seven times I thought it would be helpful to scan the page for consideration (above). I can see that it can quite easily be a first impression.
In the paragraph from the preceding page Brown says:
The time of these monarchies [the tyrannical monarchies of the old dispenation] are fixed by the "seven times" of the symbolic image [of Daniel, which is shown to be 2520 years elsewhere in The Even-Tide]...it must be maintained that the forty-five years of Daniel are the period of the second judgement; and commencing in 1873, are attended by the sitting of that judgement, and by the general resurrection, the last hour of which terminates with the "seven times" of the monarchies...in 1917.
In the next paragraph Brown says:
The Saviour himself, speaking of the signs of his second coming, foretels all these events; and upon that memorable occasion, when he predicted the treading down of Jerusalem, and "that the Jews should be led captive into all nations," during the times of the Gentiles, obviously refers to the sitting of the second judgement, at which he is to appear as the Judge.
Although Brown is primarily talking about the forty-five years of Daniel as being the period of the second judgement he does refer to the seven times and makes the point that both periods end in 1917. If I was familiar with the idea that the "seven times" are the Gentile times (which I am) then it would be very easy to read it as if Brown connected the times himself.
Of course, I would be mistaken to do so. In his Dedication in volume one of The Even-Tide (scannned above) he clearly explains:
The "times of the Gentiles," during which Jerusalem is to be trodden down of the Gentiles, as declared by Christ, and by the apostle Paul, as well as by the Prophet John, in his vision of the two witnesses, are therefore unquestionably the "time, times, and a half," predicted by the Prophet Daniel, when your desolation is to cease; and he defines these times to be twelve hundred and sixty days or years.
What is my point ? That it was an easy mistake to make in the discussion of the End of the Gentile Times in the Proclaimers book. Carl Jonsson was quite correct that Brown did not connect the two periods in the sense implied by the passage in the Proclaimers book but others did later in the nineteenth century and so it seems to me an irrelevant blip.
However, it is clear that "scholar" was quite aware of all these facts before maintaining that it was a fatal flaw in the "Jonsson hypothesis" and I regretfully concur that he seems to be, in Winston Churchill's parliamentary phrase, a verbal inexactiduner. If the writers of the Proclaimers book were likewise aware of these facts, then they are also inexactiduners.
Earnest
-
AlanF
You're right, Earnest, that it was an easy enough mistake for the author of the Proclaimers book to make. Ten years ago I made exactly this point to GB member Albert Schroeder (along with many other things), but in the usual Watchtower way he failed to do anything.
I must still comment, though, that the fact that the author italicized his statement about a connection between the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times" proves to me that he made it in order to contradict Carl Jonsson's statements in GTR. With that in mind, a competent author would read the complete source reference if he wanted to contradict what such a thorough researcher as Jonsson had stated. As you yourself have found, had he done so, he would have found that Jonsson was correct, and it would have been pointless for him to make such an italicized claim.
Of course, we can see both the inordinate level of bias and the gross level of incompetence on the part of "scholar" here. Even when direct quotations from source references are made, he refuses to see the facts.
Anyway, thanks for posting the material from the book Even-Tide. My microfilmed copy is barely legible.
AlanF
-
Farkel
Earnest,
: If the writers of the Proclaimers book were likewise aware of these facts, then they are also inexactiduners.
The lead researcher for the Proclaimers book discovered stuff like that, and the WTS executed her, spiritually. They spiritually executed her husband, a long respected elder who did nothing else wrong but DARING to defend his wife against the mighty WTS! But for a different reason. She disovered much more evil in the WTS that just manufacturing false prophesies and making up stuff from dates.
She told me years ago that the Writing Department re-worked the FACTS that she had dug up to fit with WTS doctrine. That was HER Crisis of Conscience: the WTS cared more about IMAGE than facts. She left Bethel.
Alan is my friend, but he won't admit to it, (I wouldn't either if I was he!) and we both know and have spoken with the lady I mentioned.
If you haven't read Alan's excellent review of the Proclaimer's book, then I suggest you do. It's close to exhaustive.
I would have read it, but I just don't like the guy.......
Farkel