(revelation 17:5) “babylon the great, the mother of the prostitutes (plural!
) and of the disgusting things of the earth.”.
btg is spotlighted as being the principal "disgusting thing" which affects christians & christianity, with other lesser "prostitutes" in the background... (revelation 18:4) “get out of her, my people, (christians) if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.".
Study Watchtower, April 2024 par. 4, p. 21 - "A second fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy began in 1919 C.E. when Jehovah’s modern-day worshippers were set free from captivity to Babylon the Great."
Ridiculous historical revisionism. The ‘Bible Students’ didn’t regard 1919 as any special ‘release’ from ‘Babylon the Great’ at all, and they held many beliefs at the time (some of which weren’t changed until decades after) that JWs now regard as ‘false religion’.
(revelation 17:5) “babylon the great, the mother of the prostitutes (plural!
) and of the disgusting things of the earth.”.
btg is spotlighted as being the principal "disgusting thing" which affects christians & christianity, with other lesser "prostitutes" in the background... (revelation 18:4) “get out of her, my people, (christians) if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.".
‘Babylon the Great’ was Rome. The Roman Empire oversaw various subordinate client kingdoms, each with its own ‘king’. Revelation 17:18 accurately describes “Babylon the Great”—that is, ancient Rome—as a city with a kingdom over other kings.
No superstitious nonsense. No mystery.
i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .
is this regarding 1914?
or micheal the arch angel?.
‘scholar’:
Jeffro would not be happy that you state that Jerusalem fell in 586 BCE and not 587 BCE so you have a big problem with this date.
The chronology the other person gave (which was much more accurate than the JW fringe nonsense) included a couple of elements of Thiele’s outdated chronology, but was otherwise accurate and it isn’t such a big problem. 586BCE is still often presented as the year of Jerusalems destruction, but no analysis in at least the last 70 years has preferred 586BCE. Modern scholarship, particularly since Wiseman’s publication of the Babylonian Chronicles, confirms 587BCE as the correct year.
See 586 or 587? for a straightforward examination of why 587BCE is the correct year.
the book reasoning from the scriptures was released in the 1980's, and it was used at virtually every meeting for service, every service meeting, and every theocratic ministry school meeting thereafter.
many jws had copies bound together with their bibles.
it was huge in jw land back then.. at that time, with the reasoning book, jws were trained to keep conversations going in spite of objections, to almost stick their feet in people's doors to keep conversations going, to defend "the truth," to argue doctrine, etc.. compare the situation today with that of the 80's.
Ah… the ‘Reasoning’ book. The funniest thing about it is the unexplained removal in 2018 of the section about what to say if some says they’re a Muslim.
The book is still available on the website, but not in PDF format.
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Thanks Phizzy. I’m glad that the information has not only helped you but that you’ve also been able to help others.
‘scholar’ is so pitifully wrong that the best he can do to ‘refute’ the information I’ve provided is to complain that the many problems with his dogma aren’t only ‘one line of evidence’ (which is just bizarre). He can never discuss specifics because he always gets backed into a corner, so he instead makes trite remarks about ‘pretty colours’ and false claims of plagiarism. His recent desperate attempts to plead ignorance about dating systems regarding the impossible solstice is particularly amusing.
Though extraordinarily unlikely, it would be hilarious to watch ‘scholar’ backpedal if the Watch Tower Society backflipped on 607.
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
eric wilson's video is worth a view.. https://youtu.be/iil4fryuczk?si=f566n0tdqgpqc2ok.
Perhaps the Great Tribulation will not start with a worldwide attack on false religion, but instead, on the so called "only true religion".
The JW concept of the ‘great tribulation’ is already such a mess, they may as well make up whatever they like about it. Its supposed timing, meaning, and order of events bears no similar to what the Bible actually says anyway.
But in the JW context, the ‘tribulation’ probably will at some point be watered down to just an ‘attack’ on JWs (more likely, blaming ‘Satan’s system’ when the denomination just becomes unsustainable), because otherwise it’s something that will just never happen.
Back in reality, the ‘great tribulation’ was in 66-70. Jesus was supposed to come back shortly after that. He didn’t. Time for people to move on.
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
This link contains 'Beliefs Clarifed' which lists all of the changes by year.
Well, the ones they want to mention anyway. See also Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine on Wikipedia.
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
joey jojo:
My money is on another change to 1914.
There was recent frenzy over a translated talk saying that ‘Jesus didn’t sit on his throne in 1914’, but that is actually trivial to their reliance on 1914.
Their chosen reinterpretation of Millerism always required the connection to 1914, but it wasn’t until 1920 that they said Jesus was made king in that year (moved from 1878). And it wasn’t until 1930 that they started saying Jesus’ presence began in that year (moved from 1874). (Note that neither of those extremely significant changes about 1914 is listed in their index of ‘beliefs clarified’.)
Neither of those imaginary events is inextricably tied to a vague statement about ‘sitting on his throne’. Since they’re all imaginary events (or at least conveniently ‘invisible events in heaven’ 🙄) anyway, it is conceivable that they could once again shift ‘Jesus becoming king’ (though this is not necessarily the same as ‘sitting on his throne’), but considerably more difficult now to move the start of his ‘presence’ (despite the fact that the Bible says his ‘presence’ necessarily follows the ‘great tribulation’), because it is linked to their claims about being selected in 1919, about which they have too recently doubled down.
They simply have too much vested in 1914 to drop it altogether. (Though if they did, it would be very amusing watching ‘scholar’ bleat about how 607 was actually wrong all along.)
i was shocked, really shocked.
what i am doing now is so acceptable to the friends around me.. my friends are all doing it.
it is so normal in the society,.
Diogenesister:
Jeffro I really don't think it matters if he's 22 or 23 or 21 and he clearly struggles with English.
Or 25 or 48, who knows. And the standard of English has varied between posts. The point is, the holes were there in the various posts to start with, and there is no credibility.
