by fearnotruth22 53 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Nethinim?I thought those were the evil giants before the flood who built the pyrmaids?
Ahem, those were the NEPHILIM. But there have been people in the Watchtower Society's early history who studied Egyptian pyramids very closely and came up with the year 1914 and other weirdness. But that's a whole 'nother subject.
Bradley,
I totally agree with you:
1914 remains but fades into insignificance
blood remains but new loopholes will be found, while alternatives will settle the issue finally
other sheep will take over the GB, even now only 3 of 10 GB members were born before '35, all it needs is taking the Nethinim doctrine to an other level
LL
In the meantine, according to present medicine, blood transfusion is sometimes the only lifesaving treatment, I hate the thought of having someone elses blood mixed with mine and inside my body, so if science can come up with alternative blood treatment during these situations, no problem remaining a jw on this issiue. Is there any Wt artticle stating that sometimes blood is the ONLY lifesaving choice in some cases,All of the publications I remmember studying state that blood is never the lifesaving choice and that alternative treatments are the same or beterr or safer.
The Wt has exposed careless medicine and tainted blood, and I have known indiciduals wjho have been infected and chronically harmed with tainted blood, I would raether die very fast than slowly like these people I know with hepatitis or aids, or who knows what.
Infections and chronic harm caused directly by the infusion of blood aside, it is great to be alive and medical science has been a friend to humanity and should not be vilified. I think that it is the intention of the Md forcing a transfusion on an individual to keep him alive and not for a sinister reason. JW docs give blood to nonjws I heard. If blood treatments were in fact harmful as far as docs know, how can a jw doc in good concience transfuse anybody at all knowing that it will cause harm.One has to keep the proper perpective as to the issue that Jw's do not refuse blood because of medical reasons but foe religious beliefs and such beliefs are justified with blood causing harm. People forget about the rligious reasons and focus on the medical reaosons convinced that the risk of blood transfusion is too great and the medical reasons taughy by the WTconvinces the individual to reject blood on religious grounds, but being convinced of the medical dangers. The average Jw believes that blood treatment is always contraindicated and that alternative blood will do the trick. But if the average joe publisher knew for a fact and understood that blood was the "best thing for you" under cetain situations and that the medicine was safe and effective and no harmful or permanent side effects then joe or josephine publisher with these facts in mind would be more favorably inclined to accept blood in life and death situations for their son or number one.
It pains me deeply if any bro had to die needlessly because of doctrine.
I would like to see a documented case of any individual that was harmed because of not accepting a vaccine because of Wt teaching.
I beleive the WT will retain the 1914 date as it wouldnt do any good to drop it and lose face with the most loyal in the group.
I say this because the SDAs have retained their date 1844 and it is still beleived by many. Why change something they beleive is working.
The 1844 date in the SDAs does have a history though as the doctrine has been challenged by many through the years. The most recent challenge was by Dr Desmond Ford who was the professor of religion at Avendale college in Australia. Des is very well respected among Adventists and he was given 6 months leave to prepare a paper on the investigative judgement and to present it to the church leaders from around the world. The paper was rejected by the church and Des was fired from his job but is still a member of the SDA church. Des then joined Good News Unlimited an independant Adventist group. Many SDAs no longer beleive in 1844 or the investigative judgement and if it is disscussed in bible study there is usually differences in beleif to outright hostility by some. Barry
Des Ford is a doctor of theology not a medical doctor. Barry
1914 is a fundamental teaching. The basis for many other doctrines Dont think that it can be abruptly touched without affecting the whole structure, hence it will stay until time passes and facts forces the change (assuming that the gt wont come : ), just as in 1914 when Armageddon did not come then , forced another change. However it aint over until the fat lady sings and bros have not given up hope that armygedon will come "soon"
The SocietY's reaosns for emduring with 1914 is that it is a conclusion based on Biblical pivotal dates which can be trusted far more than science. Bible is right no matter what science says
Yes.
"Market. Market. Market. The King and his Kingdom."
Fearnotruth -- let's apply some logic to the 1914 doctrine.
1914 is a fundamental teaching.Only for Jehovah's Witnesses. No other "fundamental" religion holds to this date. It is fundamental to the religion but is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. 1914 is based on an interpretation, not on pure Biblical text.
The basis for many other doctrines Dont think that it can be abruptly touched without affecting the whole structure, hence it will stay until time passes and facts forces the change (assuming that the gt wont come : ), just as in 1914 when Armageddon did not come then , forced another change.This is why the Watchtower continues to teach it. They're afraid that if they pull the 1914 doctrine away, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. This shows the danger of date-based prophecies. JW's aren't the only ones who have ignored the Biblical instruction that "no one knows the day or hour". When 1914 wasn't the "day or hour" for Armageddon, they had to come up with something else -- and in 1925 they did! They then invented the idea that God's Kingdom mystically, invisibly came to rule in heaven. (I believe this was revealed, or rather invented, by Rutherford in the book "Government".)
However it aint over until the fat lady sings and bros have not given up hope that armygedon will come "soon"
Your wordng "the brothers have not given up hope" shows again that it is a man-made doctrine. If Armageddon doesn't come soon, they may have to invent a mystical Armageddon that has already come, but invisibly and only to those with eyes of faith. If you think this is far-fetched, it's not. It would only follow the pattern established by this same organization after Armageddon didn't occur in 1914.
The SocietY's reaosns for emduring with 1914 is that it is a conclusion based on Biblical pivotal dates which can be trusted far more than science. Bible is right no matter what science says
The Biblical pivotal dates, 539 BCE and 14 AD are established and accepted by historians. Truth is truth, and if an idea doesn't agree with known truth, it must be changed. You say you fear no truth, so here goes... If you try to establish 607 BCE based on the fixed 539 date, you fly in the face of all the facts. All non-JW historians have established the date of Jerusalem's first destruction (at the hands of the Babylonians) to be 587-586 BCE, and not 607 BCE. The 587-586 BCE date is not "scientific", but rather it is historical fact. The 607 BCE date for Jerusalem's destruction is not "fact" but rather Jehovah's Witness doctrine. The 607 BCE date is wrong -- and it has nothing to do with the Bible being right or wrong. Do more research on the subject outside of WT publication sources to see what I mean. For a background of what I mean, please see http://www.607v587.com . But the JW leaders are afraid to admit it, because they don't want their whole house of cards to come a-tumbling down. Time to face the facts.
Des Ford is a doctor of theology not a medical doctor. Barry
Can he fix a sick religion? If so, the WT Society definitely needs a house-call.
Des has his hands full with the SDAs but im sure if he were approached he could give the WT some help many of the doctrinal positions are similar eg the year day principle is not found in the bible and is used pragmatically. In many places where it is used the word day is not even mentioned. Barry
