Do We Get A Clean Slate When We Die? (Watchtower View Examined)

by Sea Breeze 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Diogenesister
    Diogenesister

    Unbelievably, wt here contradicts "Jesus" who emphatically stated, that this generation (of wt's anointed of 1914) will n-o-t pass away until all these things have occurred,

    If I know watchtower they’ll say “it means until all these types (anti types?🤣)of things have occurred, not literally all !!!

    2 centenarians overlapping by 20 years: 2x100 = 200 - 40 = 160 years +1914 = 2074
    one year to 1975 + 100. not just a proposal, a prophecy by wtbts. inc.

    They’ll also say re: 2075 “we were right!! Just out 100 years....understandable” [shrugs shoulders]

  • waton
    waton
    If I know watchtower they’ll say “it means until all these types (anti types?🤣)of things have occurred, not literally all !!!

    Ds: yeah, they might try to say that because we have them over the barrel (not in the g

    barrel like you) with that flat contradiction of the great teacher, the greatest man that ever lived himself.

    The greatest type/ antitype hype in that prophecy is of course Jesus comparing the end (of the wt 1914 generation} to the great deluge, Noah's day.

    It is not that "all the sign" only has to occur during the life of the generation, but an event even greater than the deluge, and that in destructive power will not occur again, aka Armageddon. That is the " all " Jesus was talking about. No wriggle room here. easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

    PS: and why did all the babies have to pay the price for the lecherous angels, that did not die, did not pay for their sexual sins, and were able go on to kill all those pigs, those swine.

    drowing, is not a nice way to die. have a barrel handy to float.

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    The WT misunderstanding can be seen in the NWT rendering of Rom 6:7. It says "... acquitted from his sin." At least in the older NWT "his" was in brackets ( "[his]" ). But the newer one has taken the brackets out.

    The english rendering in the KIT has "the sin" where the definite article is actually feminine (τῆς) because the greek word for sin is feminine and usually left untranslated, since in english we would not normally say "the sin" unless we were speaking about a specific sin. (Compare here.)

    In Rom 6:7 "sin" is being spoken of as a force operating within a person, so that, when a person literally dies he would no longer be subject to that force. And thus, according to Paul's argument, if a person has figuratively died (thru baptism) he should no longer live as if he were still under the control of sin. His figurative death has "freed" him from sin.

    "Acquitted" is also misleading, and based on the WT's misunderstanding of the passage. But the WT would correctly counter-argue that "acquitted" is a possible rendering of the word. So you wouldn't get anywhere trying to argue with the WT. They are smug in their self assurance that they are right.

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    The O/p claims that they teach that the “heavenly calling” to gather the Anointed closed in 1935. That used to be said , but now it appears open ended.

    Q.Box Wt 5/1 2007 p 30

    “On the other hand, as time has gone by, some Christians baptized after 1935 have had witness borne to them that they have the heavenly hope. (Romans 8:16, 17) Thus, it appears that we cannot set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends.”

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Sea Breeze, that is a great post you made. It does show that according to the Bible's NT the literal bodily death of a sinning human does not atone for sins (or pay for sins or acquit one of sins). Furthermore at least some portions of the Bible's OT written after Jews began believing in a resurrection from the dead also teach that. For example, even Daniel 12:1 - 2 (which teaches the doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous) indicates, according to the Bible, death by a sinner does not pay for the sins of the sinner. I say that because verse 2 (NWT, 1950 and 1984) says the unrighteous that are resurrected are subject to "... reproaches [and] to indefinitely lasting abhorrence." In harmony with my idea regarding Daniel 12: 1- 2, the study note (commentary) in the NASB edition of the "Life Application Study Bible" - "Updated Edition" (2000) says regarding Dan. 12:2 that "This is a clear reference to the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, although the eternal fates of each will be quit different. ..." The NWT rendering of “acquitted” in Romans 6:7 seems incorrect to me. Thanks for drawing attention to that matter.

    You make a good point about what defines whether a person is really a Christian or not. Since the vast majority of the JWs don't believe they have a new covenant relationship with Jesus Christ and since the JW/WT religion teaches that only a literal 144,000 of Christians (with dead ones included in that number) are in the new covenant relationship, then it can be logically argued that JWs are not really Christians. All the time I was a believing JW I thought I was a Christian, but maybe I was wrong to think I was a Christian back then. But, for three years after I completely stopped thinking of myself as a JW, I thought of myself as an independent minded Christian. During those 3 years I conducted my own Lord's Evening Meal (Memorial) service privately by myself. In that service I partook of Jewish passover bread and unfermented homemade red grape juice. [Note: the Bible doesn't specifically say Jesus used wine, it says he used the "fruit of the vine" instead (for example see Mark 14:24 in the NASB), and because I don't want to consume alcohol I have very rarely ever drank an alcoholic beverage.] I partook because I had come believe that according to the Bible all devout Christians are to obey Jesus in partaking of the bread and "fruit of the vine". I made my homemade grape juice by squeezing the juice out of fresh grapes.

    However, even as an independent Christian I accepted much of the liberal higher criticism of the Bible and I saw many problems with the Bible (including numerous contradictions); and shortly after an atheist ex-Christian informed me that the geological fossil record conflicts with Genesis chapter one's creation account (even as interpreted by day age old Earth creationism) and with the biblical idea of a world wide flood, I ceased being a Christian and became a nontheist and metaphysical naturalist. A year after that I became an outright atheist (being convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that not even a deistic god exists, due to learning what scientist Steven Hawking said proves no god existed to start the big bang - or at least that none was needed to start the big bang).

    Bobcat, you are right in saying the NWT Bibles from before the 2013 Revision include brackets (except that the "2006 Printing" edition also excludes all single brackets, but includes some doubled brackets) in some verses. That is also the case regarding the handling of the word "his" in Romans 6:7, except the original NWT (the one in the individual "Christian Greek Scriptures" volume from 1950) and also in the volume revised in 1951) of Romans 6:7 has no brackets around the word "his".

  • waton
    waton
    no god existed to start the big bang - or at least that none was needed to start the big bang).

    djw: perhaps, , but you needed energy, which is uncreated, and a lot of it.

    interesting point about the wine. why should the grapes be fermented, but the bread not?

    Bachus a bible influence?

    afterthought: since we are discussing "sin" good thing the original sin was not refusal to procreate, and pass that pleasure on. and:

    when I am dead, I will definitely not sinning, misbehaving.


Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit