Posts by bennyk

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

bennyk

"scholar" writes:

Ann O Maly
Post 944
But those predicted events did come about with the outbreak of World War 1 and the ending of the Gentile Times as corroborated by the media of the day and several clergyman some years later. Thus, those Bible Students were forever vindicated for their integrity.

So "scholar" is now claiming that the media of the day and several clergymen (some years later) corroborated Russell's claims by stating that the 'very elect had all been changed by 1915' and that 'natural Israel was restored to divine favour under the New Covenant'. Very interesting. And -- of course -- he also feels the Bible Students were forever vindicated for their integrity because they promulgated false prophecies in millions of copies for decades, and then lied about it. That is "scholar's" definition of 'acting with integrity.' Apparently, "scholar" has found it too challenging to be 'modest, honest, and sincere.'

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

bennyk

"scholar" writes:

Your mischevious misuse of the quote from a 1913 WT does you no credit but at least simply proves that those early Bible Students acted with integrity and that is something lacking with apostates and a a quality that you would do well to imitate.

It may be "mischevious", but I fail to understand how it was a "misuse." I simply took Russell at his word... Please explain how promulgating false prophecies in millions of copies for decades, and then lying about it is 'acting with integrity.'

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

bennyk

"scholar" writes:

The clincher for such an approved methodology is the fact that the Gentile Times expired in 1914 CE based upon the scholarly determined 607-537 BCE scenario.

The "Gentile Times" did not expire in 1914.

The non-fulfillment of Russell's "expectations" "prove[d] [Russell's] chronology wrong.

The non-fulfillment of Russell's "expectations" "work[ed] irreparable wreck to ... the epoch called 'Gentile Times'...

But let us suppose a case far from our expectations: Suppose that A.D. 1915 should pass with the world's affairs all serene and with evidence that the "very elect" had not all been "changed" and without the restoration of natural Israel to favor under the New Covenant.(Rom. 11:12,15.) What then? Would not that prove our chronology wrong? Yes, surely! And would not that prove a keen disappointment? Indeed it would! It would work irreparable wreck tothe Parallel dispensations and Israel's Double, and to the Jubilee calculations, and to the prophecy of the 2300 days of Daniel, and to the epoch called "Gentile Times," and to the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days, the latter of which marking the beginning of the Harvest so well fulfilled its prediction, "Oh, the blessedness of him that waiteth and cometh unto the 1335 days!" None of these would be available longer. What a blow that would be! One of the strings of our "harp" would be quite broken! Watch Tower Reprints, p.5368 (December, 1913)

3

reply from friend on 607...1914..etc

by isaacaustin in

jw
friends

i have had an ongoing discussion with a friend on the validity of 1914, as well as the chronology leading to it...i roundly refuted the wt drivel quoted and got this response....notice the changing of topics...as well as admission he can not refute.... .

i am so sorry that i have used the wrong term when talking about the scriptures in num.

and eze.

bennyk

Your friend writes:

I will not deny that the Bible students of the time had incorrect expectations of what Christ's coming really entailed, but they were aware that something special would take place then nonetheless. Let's not forget that the apostasy has been in full swing for so many centuries and the light of truth was obscured for so long. It would take time to get the correct understanding on things and adjustments would have to be made and humbly accept the discipline.

Or, rather than 'humbly accepting the discipline', the Watch Tower Society could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by lying about their insight. "The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence to honesthearted students of Bible prophecy that Jesus' presence in heavenly kingdom power began in 1914." ( Watchtower, 15. Jan. 1993, p. 5) Not true. "Based on what [Jesus] said, along with the words of Daniel and John, Jehovah's witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance,* as marking the start of 'the conclusion of the system of things.' " ( Awake! 22. January 1973) Likewise, not true.

What can we conclude from these statements? Why not take the Watch Tower Society at their own words --

"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true." (Watchtower, 01. December 1991, p.7)

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

bennyk

But let us suppose a case far from our expectations: Suppose that A.D. 1915 should pass with the world's affairs all serene and with evidence that the "very elect" had not all been "changed" and without the restoration of natural Israel to favor under the New Covenant.(Rom. 11:12,15.) What then? Would not that prove our chronology wrong? Yes, surely! And would not that prove a keen disappointment? Indeed it would! It would work irreparable wreck tothe Parallel dispensations and Israel's Double, and to the Jubilee calculations, and to the prophecy of the 2300 days of Daniel, and to the epoch called "Gentile Times," and to the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days, the latter of which marking the beginning of the Harvest so well fulfilled its prediction, "Oh, the blessedness of him that waiteth and cometh unto the 1335 days!" None of these would be available longer. What a blow that would be! One of the strings of our "harp" would be quite broken! Watch Tower Reprints, p.5368 (December, 1913)

16

1925 - What the Society was really teaching.

by Ultimate Reality in

having trouble w/ images.

please delete & i'll repost.. .

2009 - "since 1925, jehovah's witnesses have recognized that world war i and the events that followed amount to sure evidence that christ's presence in heavenly kingdom power began in 1914" (w.09, 3/15, p.16).

bennyk

"The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence to honesthearted students of Bible prophecy that Jesus' presence in heavenly kingdom power began in 1914." ( Watchtower, 15. Jan. 1993, p. 5)

Or not.

16

1925 - What the Society was really teaching.

by Ultimate Reality in

having trouble w/ images.

please delete & i'll repost.. .

2009 - "since 1925, jehovah's witnesses have recognized that world war i and the events that followed amount to sure evidence that christ's presence in heavenly kingdom power began in 1914" (w.09, 3/15, p.16).

bennyk

The Society's teaching was still in flux.

In 1922, the WTS dumped 1878 as the year for Christ's enthronement. In his famous talk "Advertise, Advertise, Advertise" (as recorded in the 01. November 1922 Watch Tower), Rutherford stated that "Since 1914 the King of Glory has taken his power and reigns." (p.337) However, "Brother" Sullivan stated: "[I]n 1914 he took unto himself his great power and now [at least by 1922] reigns." (p. 337) This did not (neccessarily) mean that he had been reigning since 1914, because Rutherford had explained earlier in his talk: "We believe, therefore, that the day of preparation ended in 1914; and that in 1918, or thereabouts, the Lord came to his temple." (p. 334) "The context shows that the throne here mentioned could not be the Millennial throne of Christ, but that it does refer to the throne of the Lord Jesus Christ, his position of authority as the representative of Jehovah after taking unto himself his great power to reign when he comes to the temple." (p.335) It appears there was a difference between taking the power (1914) and beginning to reign (1918).

Likewise, on page 326 the 01. November 1926 Watch Tower states: "In 1918 Jehovah God placed upon his throne his beloved and anointed King, in fulfillment of prophecy. (Psalm 2:6-8)"

3

the weirdest question ever

by Adrianoblue in

jw
friends

have anyone ever heard of jehovahs witnesses who are not associated with the wts?.

i slightly remember a small group here in germany who called themselves "the new jehovahs witnesses".

they basicly did the same (preaching from door to door, and gathered now and again), but obviously did`nt agree with some of the wts-teachings.. another thing i observed over the years, is the fact that ex-jws who wanted to come back to the congregation, started off by attending the meetings, and then later on (after being accepted again), done the field-service.. but, i have never noticed ex-jws doing it vice versa.

bennyk

have anyone ever heard of jehovahs witnesses who are NOT associated with the wts?

http://the-true-jw.oltenia.ro/index-ger.html

25

Favorite drummer?

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

this thread was inspired by my listening to the band mastodon lately.

i just find their drummer brann dailor amazing.

other drummers who have impressed me in the past have been jimmy chamberlin of smashing pumpkins and dave grohl of nirvana.

bennyk

Barrie James Wilson. (R.I.P.) He was the best.

"Mitch" Mitchell. (also, R.I.P.) Distant second.

11

Congregation "Bible Study" Comments - Week Commencing 18 May 2009

by LUKEWARM in

jw
friends

*** lv chap.

5 pp.

50-53 how to keep separate from the world ***.

bennyk

Sad Michael writes: Was not the first century GB a group of spirit annointed older men who wrote letters to instruct and direct as well as correct and counsel with a view to the building up of the clean congregation in order to further the spread (preaching of) the good news ? 1 cor 5:9

I would dispute that. The "Christian Greek Scriptures" demonstrate that the early Christians were guided by the Head of the Congregation, the Lord Christ Jesus, not some "Governing Body." But even if we were to assume from Acts chapter 15 that some manner of governing body existed in the first century, we would note that it would have been composed of “the Apostles and older men.” (vs. 6) And the authority of the Apostles was unique: we cannot clothe anyone today with their authority. Even the Reasoning book (p.37) notes: “ Apostolic Succession --Definition: The doctrine that the 12 apostles have successors to whom authority has been passed by divine appointment.... Not a Bible teaching.” (Italics in original)