the gb bit off more than they can chew.
they promised that the nwt revised would be available in so many languages by now, and they have failed miserably.. english stands alone.
as a result, they are in damage control mode.
OK. I am not sure, but I might be dropping a bomb here.
I am looking for dirt on Watchtower. Legal dirt.
I kind of feel today like I felt when I first called the UN to plead with Paul Hoeffel for a letter describing Watchtower's affiliation away back when. My pulse is up a little.
Start to research this symbol. WTWR listed on the New York Stock Exchange. I am going to make a new thread for this. For more info go there.
the gb bit off more than they can chew.
they promised that the nwt revised would be available in so many languages by now, and they have failed miserably.. english stands alone.
as a result, they are in damage control mode.
Personally, I'm of the belief that Watchtower will never finish this project. Perhaps, English will be the only language that the NWT rev. ed. will ever appear in.
I think their resources are tapped out. I think that their financial troubles go far beyond what we know.
When I compare their behavior, as of late, to other big companies that have had troubles, what I see is a large unseen liability sucking the life out of their asset column, as in the case of a Ponzi scheme.
I am now of the belief that the buildings in NY are being sold to cover a large debt that has gone undisclosed. A debt that the GB foolishly worked up to unmanageable levels and a debt they felt they would never have to repay because "The End" would come first.
In other words, the Watchtower Fable & Trick Society is DEAD BROKE.
the gb bit off more than they can chew.
they promised that the nwt revised would be available in so many languages by now, and they have failed miserably.. english stands alone.
as a result, they are in damage control mode.
I will add to this another piece of information. If you would just happen to be on the jw.borg site trying to find out what languages the NWT rev. Ed. Is available in, you would find that you cannot just pull up that info. Your search criteria must be language specific. So you have to go through every language one by one to gleen that info.
I have no knowledge that the NWT rev. ed. Is available in ANY language other than English.
Furthmore, if you look at some of the languages that have the NWT old ed. available in, you will see that they SLAPPED THE NEW GREY COVER ON THE OLD NWT TO FOOL ONLOOKERS...!!!
I think, with all this smoke and mirrors, they should add a new category on to the jw.org literature desk.
Miracle Wheat !
(1) Cup
(2) Bag
(3) Bushel
(4) BFI Dumpster
(5) Mass Grave
the gb bit off more than they can chew.
they promised that the nwt revised would be available in so many languages by now, and they have failed miserably.. english stands alone.
as a result, they are in damage control mode.
The GB bit off more than they can chew. They promised that the NWT Revised would be available in so many languages by now, and they have failed miserably.
English stands alone. As a result, they are in damage control mode. They want to hide their failure.
In today's Washtower study, they have quite obviously sought to plant the seed, in the minds of the gullible, that the NWT is available in languages other than just English. To make it appear that their ongoing campaign of divine translation is finding success, they suggest that the NWT is available in Bulgaria. Read carefully.
GREAT APPRECIATION
13. What has been the response to the 2013 revision?
13 What has been the effect of this revised English New World Translation? Thousands of letters of appreciation have been received at the Brooklyn headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The comments of one sister reflect the feelings of many: “The Bible is a treasure chest brimming over with valuable jewels. To read Jehovah’s words clearly by using the 2013 revision can be compared to examining each jewel, admiring its many facets, clarity, color, and beauty. The Scriptures conveyed in simple language have helped me to become better acquainted with Jehovah, who is like a father with his arms around me while he reads his soothing words to me.”
14, 15. How has the New World Translation made a positive impact in languages other than English?
14 It is not just the revised English New World Translation that has had an impact. An elderly man from Sofia, Bulgaria, commented about the Bulgarian edition: “I have read the Bible for many years, but I have never read a translation that is easier to understand and that goes right to the heart.” Likewise, after receiving her copy of the complete New World Translation, an Albanian sister commented: “How beautiful God’s Word sounds in Albanian! What a privilege to have Jehovah speak to us in our own language!”
Excerpt From: WATCHTOWER. “The Watchtower, December 15, 2015.” Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. iBooks.
The quotes from Albania in today's Washtower come straight out of the 2007 Washtower concerning the release of the old NWT in Albania in 2006, ten years ago.
Why would an article extolling the virtues of the Revised Edition be quoting dividuals who were commenting on the OLD EDITION?
Can you say scam?
Source w07 11/1 pp 17-21
One elderly man from Sofia commented: “I have read the Bible for many years, but I have never read a translation that is easier to understand and that goes right to the heart.” Likewise, in Albania, after receiving her copy of the complete New World Translation inAlbanian, one local Witness commented: “How beautiful God’s Word sounds inAlbanian! What a privilege to have Jehovah speak to us in our own language!
i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.
however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.
some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.
Is God responsible for earthquakes, wars, famine, plague, pestilence and starvation?
Watchtower has taught at people's doors, for 100 years, that all the negative things on this planet are God's "sign" he has sent us, a 'divine composite sign' to inform mankind that his Son is in 'in town' and we should sit up and take notice.
Watchtower arrives at this monstrosity by twisting 2 bible verses, Matthew 24:7,8.
In support of their erroneous teaching that the war in 1914, and subsequent diseases and suffering, was the beginning of Jesus visit to us, marked divinely by all the most negative this you can imagine, the New World Translation was used as a tool.
Matthew 24:7,8 were separated from the framework of the text using spaces, to introduce into the impressionable subconscious of weak minded listeners, that these verses are 'stand alone' and support Watchtower dogma.
Through false teaching, the idea was then introduced into the weak minds of would be converts, that the wording of verse 8 indicates that the "Nations" rising in war against other nations spoken of in verse 7 are different wars from the "wars and rumors of wars" spoken of in verse 6.
Foolish translators like those who translated the Youngs Literal Translation gave credibility to this demonic propaganda when they changed the words in their rendering, in verse 8, to refocus person's attention, using slight of hand, on a false aspect.
Jesus did NOT say "sorrows". That is a lie. Where YLT actually bastardized the text in their version, Watchtower bastardized their version using the Watchtower rag and false teaching.
Why is it that people today accept the objectionable factoid, that earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons, floods, war, disease, starvation and, when you're finished, planes hitting tall buildings, are an "act of God"?
People today shell out loads of money for insurance that covers nothing. They have been duped by insurance companies into accepting this bullshit. And religion has been their biggest ally. Number 1 on the list is the door to door, God-did-its of Watchtower Fable and Tricks Society.
Ill bet Warren Buffet has read his share of Watchtowers and laughed, all the way to the bank.
i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.
however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.
some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.
David, interesting point about Catholicity having no prerequisite on this topic. Quite different from Watchtower, where their foremost and primary doctrine used to support their hierarchical grip finds its twisted roots.
Having made it my own personal 'requisite ' over the last three decades, and having arrived at a somewhat unique viewpoint on it, I have come to see a few errors in thought that are common to all who have espoused their stance. Including Watchtower.
Some others have put forward views that have yet other common threads in them that are equally unsupported when you poke a stick at them. This includes actual bible translations that have altered the text in ways that support their views on the discourse.
I am of the belief that if the truth of Jesus' words can be arrived at and published, then readers "will know the truth (when they read it) and the truth will set (them) free".
i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.
however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.
some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.
David Jay. I've investigated that angle years back. When you're done, there's no reason to think of these verses as anything but an invented moral lesson from some ancient nameless clergyman.
And certainly no reason to spend any more time struggling to adopt somebody else's value set.
it's gotta mean more than that, for me.
Thanks though.
i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.
however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.
some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.
Thanks wolfman for that link. I did see that awhile back. It's a fine effort. However, it foments the same old superstitions that I have sought to get away from.
The idea that God is behind natural disasters has proven harmful to mankind and beneficial to insurance companies who seek to de-risk themselves, relegating more and more to "acts of God". They get rich of this superstition. I received another such letter this year as my insurance company further de-risked, assigning local flooding to "acts of God". So I will not be covered.
Jesus did not say that 'earthquakes and the like' were signs. Rather they were anti-signs. "Be not terrified" for "the end is not yet" as "these things are but the beginning of pangs of distress" ( an idiom )
He was pointing out to superstitious listeners that natural calamities were no reason for fear, and certainly no reason to take flight, prematurely.
The article you linked to says that "earthquakes" are "the beginning of sorrows". This is from only one version of the bible, an incorrect translation. The literal translation is "beginning of birth pangs" and that is not sorrowful. My wife's first birth pangs were an exciting event for us both, the start to the best day of our lives.
Hardly sorrow.
Thanks again, but that interpretation is very incorrect. Been there, done that.
i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.
however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.
some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.
Vander.
Concerning what you said here.
"Actually I am saying that verses 27 -30 are all on the subject of 67-70 AD. Jesus mentions His second coming parousia in passing ..."
I'm sorry, as we see from those verses, Jesus is doing no such thing
29 “Immediately after the suffering of those days ( supposedly Jerusalem 70ce) the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven and the powers of heaven will be shaken.
30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, (in 70..?) and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, (in 70...?) and they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ with power and great glory. (In 70..?) 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather (in 70..?) his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
You are most definitely saying that the second coming was in 70ce while at the same time trying to say it's future.
You are going to have trouble convincing Christians to believe the above verses were fulfilled in 70ce.
i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.
however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.
some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.
Vander. Thanks for your continued interest in this topic. Your skin has some calluses.
Looking over what you have posted, you have taken Mt. 24:29 out of context. In verse 27 we find the "coming of the Son of Man" described well, which you say is future, in verse 28 the 'rapture', which you say is future, and you apply 29 back to Jerusalem of the past, only to apply verse 30 to the future once again. I really don't think it's reasonable to arbitrarily select verses that way. It smacks of twisting Jesus' words to fit your pre-conceived ideas. And I feel sure that his disciples wouldn't have thought in this manner.
