the congregation i'm from is having their meeting tonight.
my husband said that his brother in law, who is an elder, called and said that there were going to be some big announcements tonight and to bring a notepad, because you will want to take notes.. does anybody know about this and what are the announcements?
?.
The Quiet One:
Exactly, Jeffro. Good to drop a hint for the lurkers ;)
What really strikes me as odd about that error is that I would think that a major publishing organisation would have a computerised system that automatically produces the text for the headers based on the actual content for that page. But apparently the text for those headings is produced manually for each page. How very tedious, and obviously prone to error.
the congregation i'm from is having their meeting tonight.
my husband said that his brother in law, who is an elder, called and said that there were going to be some big announcements tonight and to bring a notepad, because you will want to take notes.. does anybody know about this and what are the announcements?
?.
The Quiet One:
"We've just received word that the new Bibles have an error in them (Numbers 32 heading), please form a pile of RNWT's outside the Hall for immediate incineration. We must complete this important work before November 5th, or else onlookers may be stumbled by what looks like a bonfire. There's nothing like a good old fashioned book burning.."
I thought you were making that up. But I checked anyway. Oh dear.
after some considerable thought i have decided that i will no longer post on this forum because i want to return to jehovah.
thank you for all the kindness and many interesting discussions over the years.
i wish you all well in the future and the decisions you make.
slimboyfat (in the last couple of days):
I bet that will get the younger one thinking. There really is no good defense of the Watchtower practice of tearing up families for no better reason than some don't want to be JWs any more.
No just familiar gobbledygook. They like to talk about how Jehovah becomes king even though he is already king.
I always remember an early post I read online that simply said:Matt 8:11 - proof the Watchtower is lying to you!Not much you can say against that.
So, I'm thinking he's either joking or toying with semantics in reference to some 'other' 'truth'. Either that or he's gone insane.
did anyone notice that the graph of publisher growth in the jan 1st watchtower has been deliberately "tweaked" to give the impression of higher growth in the period 2000 - 2010?
i've tried to illustrate this by superimposing the actual graph line over the one from the watchtower ( which is the narrower line in the graph.
) the period up to 2000 exactly mirrors the actual figures but the artist has decided to edge up the last decade , for obvious reasons.
The points on the graph align correctly based on the selection of one point per 10 years, however it does smoothe out the problems during the 70s.
However, annual growth rate (%) is in decline.
i'm trying to discover when jw's first came up with the idea, belief, or just the term "jehovah's organization".. a quick check of available wt cd's shows that the expression was already being well used in 1950. yet there doesn't seem to be any references to a "jehovah's organization" in much earlier jw publications, although i'm having difficulty going back beyond 1950.. has anyone any info as to how this all started and progressed to present day?.
i'm keen to know this.
the organization thing is a major part of jw teachings yet there's no references to such a thing in the scriptures.
It seems to be an invention of Rutherford.
Rutherford's Deliverance (1926) makes reference to "Satan's Organization"
The Watchtower of 1 December 1933 claimed that angels direct 'the Lord's organization'
Without doubt these angels are delegated by the Lord to convey his instructions to the members of his organization on earth. Just how this is done is not necessary for us to understand.
Fairly 'convenient' that it's "not necessary" to understand just how that happens.
articles such at "100 years of kingdom rule" in which jehovah has 'in a sense' begun ruling as king, and jesus in a sense was made king.
even though the kingdom hasn't actually come.
it's not clear if the 1,000 year reign has began or not, if so only 900 years left of jesus rule?
Does the picture on page 12 remind anyone else of the Galactic Senate from Star Wars?
articles such at "100 years of kingdom rule" in which jehovah has 'in a sense' begun ruling as king, and jesus in a sense was made king.
even though the kingdom hasn't actually come.
it's not clear if the 1,000 year reign has began or not, if so only 900 years left of jesus rule?
I noticed the following in the 3rd article in the same issue of The Watchtower (my own comments in blue):
In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians (um... no). The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. Those who made up this group were not merely alive in 1914, but they were spirit-anointed as sons of God in or before that year.
The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. They were not simply alive during the lifetime of those in the first group, but they were anointed with holy spirit during the time that those of the first group were still on earth. Thus, not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” of whom Jesus spoke. Today, those in this second group are themselves advancing in years.
It seems they're saying that the new 'overlapping generations' generation can't be used beyond just the one 'overlap'. Apparently they're trying to rein in speculation about the new 'overlapping generation' allowing an extended period before 'the end'. They drum this point in further by suggesting that the overlapping generation (which is also the same 'generation') is also "advancing in years". ('Discerning' JWs should interpret this as "panic".)
Of course, if they later decide they do want to extend the period further, this 'new light' will simply fade into obscurity.
so i've been sharing some a little at a time with my sister.
she is married and very scared of actually learning too much.
she doesn't want to ruin her marriage.
Phizzy:
1) The Bible does not say that Judah would be desolate for 70 years. (?)
The New World Translation translates Jeremiah 29:10 incorrectly, and interprets the reference to that verse at Daniel 9:2 in a similarly wrong manner. A parenthetical reference to paying off Sabbaths, which was a reference to Leviticus and not 'the word of Jeremiah', is incorrectly used in the NWT (and various other translations) at 2 Chronicles 36:21. The Bible never refers to 70 years of exile.
2) The Bible does say, without time constraint, that the land would be desolate, this too is not an accurate prophecy, like so many Bible "prophecys". Archaeology shows that the land was never completely uninhabited. (?)
It's hyperbole. The Bible also says Babylon would be uninhabited. Hundreds of thousands of people live in Babylon province.
3) 587 for the fall of Jerusalem does not conflict with what the Bible actually says (?).
Yes.
so i've been sharing some a little at a time with my sister.
she is married and very scared of actually learning too much.
she doesn't want to ruin her marriage.
Dutchdelight:
This topic explains it well, although it's a lot of reading. http://thetruthaboutthetruthaboutthetruth.blogspot.nl/2005/11/jerusalems-destruction-587-or-607.html
Ho-hum.
Everything in that article and a lot more dealt with here.
so i've been sharing some a little at a time with my sister.
she is married and very scared of actually learning too much.
she doesn't want to ruin her marriage.
AnnOMaly:
No, as was already explained, scholars associated the 606 BCE date with the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, NOT the fall of Jerusalem. The fall of Jerusalem was commonly placed at 588 or 587 BCE. Russell/Barbour disagreed and insisted the chronologists had made a fundamental error.
Well, yeah. I was too busy thinking about where they got 606 from that I got a bit muddled about what it was actually applied to in the late 19th century. Duh. jwfacts' earlier error must have infected me, but I think I'm just going to blame it on having the TV on in the background. My brain has since returned to normal programming.
