a comment on another thread cracked me up where the poster related what some elder said on the platform that: .
in the new system, we likely will not have genitals.” lol.
i’ve heard so much speculation from many jw’s on what will and won’t be allowed in the new system.
Davros:
A comment on another thread cracked me up where the poster related what some elder said on the platform that:In the new system, we likely will not have genitals.” Lol
Official JW belief, though rarely talked about, is that people may be permitted to have children only during the 1,000 years, supposing that it would not be appropriate to have children after that because those children would not need the ‘benefit’ of the ‘ransom’.
with all the closing of halls.
and all the csa cases.
and all the jws not only slipping out the back door.
neat blue dog:
You're right, there are really over 20 million, if counted by the standards of any other religion.
It is true that the way JWs count their 'membership' results in a smaller number of members 'those in the congregation'. However, their method of counting artificially inflates their growth rate.
you couldn't make it up!
saw this wt quote on a friend's page.
it is from the awake magazine of 1993, march 22nd apparently.
Lost in the fog (quoting The Watchtower, August 15, 1950, page 263):
nor is it dogmatic
🤣
The Watchtower, 15 April 1986, page 31:
□ What is required if one is to become an approved associate of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Such a person must accept the entire range of Bible teachings, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses.
But yeah, totally not dogmatic... 😂
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
‘scholar’:
The NWT is a worry for scholars because it challenges them in a way that they have never had to deal with before and is similar to how WT scholars have a Bible Chronology that with such dates as 607, 537 BCE amongst many others also confounds such scholars causing them much dispute and controversy.🤣😂 Seriously, you’ve got to be just trolling at this point. I needed the laugh. Thanks 🤣
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
‘scholar’:
All translations of the Bible have an inherent theological or doctrinal bias. BeDuhn's examination and comparison of 8 translations acknowledging at the same time the presence of bias common to all that the "NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared ".(Refer p.163).Huh? I pointed out that BeDuhn is himself biased toward nontrinitarianism, so your elaboration about BeDuhn’s assessment is pointless.
Newsflash: Nontrinitarian endorses nontrinitarianism. 🤦♂️
i did a video on this subject once but feel this is a noteworthy topic.
to be honest the old nwt has come under sonsiderable attack from fundie morons attacking it's nt which was translated with a few revisals in 1950.the truth is john 1:1 and 8:58 and other texts, though despite being odd, are within the translation rules as are the inclusion of the word {other} since this was stated in the forward as an interpolation.
jehovah in the nt is odd but certianly lacking as other translations have added more yhwh.. so the ot?
scholar:
The simple fact of the matter is that the translation of Jer.29:10 is accurate and in accordance with rules of grammar pertaining to Hebrew prepositions. Further, whether the phrase 'for Babylon' or 'at/in Babylon' makes no difference to the correct understanding of the 70 years as a period of exile-desolation-servitude in accordance with current Biblical scholarship.
hahahahaha. Aside from issues with the grammar, the NWT rendering and interpretation is completely illogical in reference to the context of the passage. After Babylon's 70 years are ended, attention is given to the Jews' return. It is completely irrational to insist that attention is given to their return after they're already returned. You really are a lost cause.
any truth to the thought that instead of being considered "members" of the jw organization, that they will shortly be considered only as "individuals" of the organization?.
As of this year, they just use vague wording such as “those in the congregation” rather than any specific descriptor.
no kidding!
the return address is the po box for the local kh.
the letter was addressed: .
Maybe she just calls all female ‘apostates’ “Barbara Anderson”. Kind of like calling someone a “Karen”. 🤣
2020-10--publications approved for discard.. .
reply below and i'll meet you back at the pm breakroom for coffee and a link.. .
petra!.
JWGoneBad:
I visited JW online under 'Books & Brochures For Bible Study'...there are 116 items listed...absent is the notorious big red...Revelation Climax!It hasn’t aged well, even with the 2006 revision. I suspect they are working on a complete rewrite for a commentary of Revelation. I’ll consider doing a full review when that happens.
