i hope to send this letter today although i must seriously consider the consequences if i do.. please let me know if i got the ngo info right.. dear brothers,.
i am writing on two matters of major concern to me.. firstly recently i have become aware of the fact that the watchtower society of jehovahs witnesses in new york is associated as an ngo (non governmental organisation) with the department of public information of the united nations organisation.. at first i was very skeptical of the idea , but when i checked it out on the uns web site i found that jehovahs witnesses were indeed listed in partnership with the un.. this is puzzling to me as by belief has been that the un was taught by the faithful and discreet slave to be part of satans political system of things.. here are some quotes from watchtower literature.. *** re 248 34 an awesome mystery solved ***.
the un is actually a blasphemous counterfeit of gods messianic kingdom by his prince of peace, jesus christto whose princely rule there will be no end.. .
sleepy
they'll only send a copy of their answer to the local elders - not a copy of your letter. That's usual procedure with every issue that might contain thoughts and ideas that are "too revealing"... And as Kent pointed out - they'll answer something that is completely different from the questions that you ask. Therefor, there is no (or very very litlle) chance the elders in your congregation will know what you originally have written to the branch office.
cecil
i have been on this site for a bite.
reading posts and where are all the jw's?
we have people who have gotten out of the watchtower, good for all of you.
Ephesians6
Why is it you need a Jehovahs Witness...???
cecil
i need your advice: i have written a letter to my branch office regarding my problems with the 607-chronology 60+ pages with short references about the issue, that i have collected through the past 9-10 years.
at the end of my letter i asked 14 questions 7 questions regarding the biblical evidence against the 607 bce-chronology and 7 questions regarding the historical and astronomical evidence against it.. the letter i received as an answer did not contain anything that could qualify as an answer or even an attempt to answer my questions.
i called the branch office by phone and talked to the brother who had written the answer.
I need your advice: I have written a letter to my branch office regarding my problems with the 607-chronology – 60+ pages with short references about the issue, that I have collected through the past 9-10 years. At the end of my letter I asked 14 questions – 7 questions regarding the biblical evidence against the 607 BCE-chronology and 7 questions regarding the historical and astronomical evidence against it.
The letter I received as an “answer” did not contain anything that could qualify as an answer or even an attempt to answer my questions. I called the branch office by phone and talked to the brother who had written the “answer”. We talked for 30-35 minutes and he explained why he/the branch office could not offer an explanation: The faithful and discreet slave and the brothers at the writing department i Brooklyn know about the information that I refer to in my letter and that they have considered these things already...It’s not new info for them and I should wait upon Jehovah and meanwhile keep quiet about the issue, or... Something similar to what the elders in my local congregation have told me.
During the phone-call I refered to a special problem with our local version of the NWT (Jer. 29:10 is rendered “for Babylon” instead of “at Babylon” as in most (all?) other languages) and the question that I had asked regarding it. A few days later I received a special written answer to this inquiry, saying that there is no difference between the expressions “for Babylon” and “at Babylon” in this verse, if one takes into account what the surrounding verses say.
Needless to say, what I think about these two letters and the phone-conversation...
Now comes the point where I need advice: I don’t know if I should write another letter to the branch office, to tell them what I think about their so-called ”answers” and ask them once more to to at least try to answer my questions. I can imagine that the next letter maybe would contain as much “hot air” as the first. But should I just give it up? They don’t understand because they don’t want to understand… Is that what I have learned? And that’s it? I simply don’t know if that should be it – should I do more?
Please give me some advice, what you would do in my situation. Thanks!
cecil
you may have read from my other posts that i'm going to be a victim of the wt inquisition as i've told an elder that i disagree with the view that god is using an organization and that organization is the wts.
i know the elders will argue the point that we cannot have disunity in the congregation with one member believing one thing and another something else.
they will use 1 corinthians 1:10 as proof that we must be united in belief.
hello stevieb1.
I find your question/this thread very relevant - especially when you take into account, what last weeks wt-study told/taught...
The wt-article studied was "Make Your Advancement Manifest". The article has been discussed in several threads weeks ago, with lots of interesting thoughts. (I'll see if I can find the those threads again...)
Paragraphs 7-9 sounded like this
7 In these verses, Paul explained that among the reasons why God made such ample spiritual provisions in the congregation are that all should ¡¥attain oneness in the faith and in accurate knowledge,¡¦ become a ¡§full-grown man,¡¨ and have the ¡¥measure of stature of Christ.¡¦ Only then will we be safe from being tossed about like spiritual babes by false ideas and teachings. Thus we see the close relationship between advancing to Christian maturity and gaining ¡§oneness in the faith and in accurate knowledge of the Son of God.¡¨ There are a number of points in Paul¡¦s counsel we do well to take to heart.8 First, since ¡§oneness¡¨ is to be observed, a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and ¡§the faithful and discreet slave.¡¨ By regularly taking in the spiritual food provided ¡§at the proper time¡¨¡Xthrough Christian publications, meetings, assemblies, and conventions¡Xwe can be sure that we maintain ¡§oneness¡¨ with fellow Christians in faith and knowledge.¡XMatthew 24:45.
9 Second, the expression ¡§the faith¡¨ refers, not to the conviction that each individual Christian professes, but to the totaloity of our belief, ¡§the breadth and length and height and depth¡¨ of it. (Ephesians 3:18; 4:5; Collosians 1:23. 2:7) In fact, how can a Christian be in onesness with fellow believers if he only believes or accepts a certain part of ¡§the faith¡¨? This means that we must not be content with knowing just the basic teachings of the Bible or having just hazy or partial knowledge of the truth. Rather, we should be interested in taking advantage of all of Jehovah¡¦s provisions through his organozation to dig deeply into his Word. We must endeavor to gain as accurate and as full an understanding of God¡¦s will amd purpose as possible. This includes taking the time to read and study the Bible and Bible publications, to pray to God for his help and guidance, to attend Christian meetings regularly, and to have a full share in the Kingdom-preaching and disciple-making work.¡XProverbs 2:1-5.
It was quite interesting to hear the comments made. I have not attended a meeting for several weeks - and I intend to stay away in the future - but when I saw this article I became curious to know, in what way it might be used.
And the way things worked out at the meeting show, that - even if "anewperson" is right: Unity is not the same as "uniformity" - jehovahs witnesses / the watchtower use the word unity and in reality they mean "uniformity". Jehovahs Witnesses are allowed to live their faith, their beliefs and to express themselves freely. But only if it is in TOTAL conformity and "unity" with what the faithful and discreet slave has expressed in the watchtower or other publications by the wt.
How did Raymond Franz put it in his book "In Search of Christian Freedom", page 615:
...Unity based on a forced uniformity, though solid in outward appearance, is actually fragile. Unlike the unity based on truth and on love, the perfect bond of union, such imposed unity has no inner, natural strength, it survives only through manipulation, coercion and fear...
Very well said. And - as a JW through 30+ years - I'm sad to say: How true for Jehovahs Witnesses and The Watchtower...
cecil
has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.
i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.
if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?
Hi scholar.
If it is so obvious that 607 bce is the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem, and 587 - obviously... - is so wrong, then maybe you can tell me why the danish branch office has not yet answered my (60+ pages of scriptural and historcal evidence for 587 bce and against 607 bce)letter, that I send on august 6th. Shouldn't take that long to provide the proper evidence, should it?! Or is it, that there should be a reason why the Watchtower has not provided any evidence for that 607 bce-date for more than 20 years - if one can call the appendix in Let Your Kingdom Come for... evidence?! Why is it that every person I have asked about the evidence for 607 bce answered in one way out of three: 1.: "- I don't care!" 2.: "I don't know - but I have confindence, that it is correct" or 3.: "It HAS to be correct...!"
What is most interesting in reading this thread - at least for me - is the way in which you time and time again with lots of words try to tell how large the amount of evidence is for placing the fall of Jerusalem in 607 bce. Its just that you have not yet delivered a single piece of that evidence! To claim that, as you put it in your very first comment, 607 bce
succeeds because it establishes the Gentile Times concluding in 1914. The other dates of 587/586 are useless in that these are dead ends, going nowhere.and therefor MUST be the correct date is - sorry for the wording - the same old bullshit, that made me feel so sick about our "chronology".
BTW: You wrote
In explanation of this point we find that in order to locate 607 one needs an anchor or a pivotal or absolute date. The Fall of Babylon in 539 gives the chronologist a starting point or a foundation. So already this date which enjoys unamity of opinion is the foundation on which subsequent circumstantial and testimonial evidence can be employed. So you see here that already 607 is off to a good start indeed. By the way, as you are fully conversant in such matters could you give a absolute date for 586/7 so that that we can construct together the mountain of evidence for Jerusalem. Let us work together so that all readers on this board can be well educated in such a matter.Even if I'm sure you are fully aware of this fact, I'll mention it anyway: The pivotal year 539 bce was FIRST determined via the data for the reigns of the neo-babylonian kings (counting forward from Nabopolassar) and not the way the Watchtower does today via persian chronology (counting backward from Kambyses). As Campbell Thompson points out in his book "The Bew Babylonian Empire", p.224: "The date 539 for the fall of Babylon has been reckoned from the latest dates on the contracts of each king in this period, counting from the end of Nabopolassar's reign in 605 bc, via Nebuchadrezzar, 43; Amel-Marduk, 2; Nergal-shar-usur, 4; Labashi Marduk (accession only); and Nabonidus, 17 = 66".
Therefore if you, by using "circumstantial and testimonial evidence", employ 539 bce as a pivotal date in support of 607 bce you are missing the point, that originally 539 bce was derived from the neo-babylonian chronology itself - and that logically 539 bce therefore directly supports 587 bce as the date for the fall of Jerusalem and NOT 607 bce.
cecil
hey i need help.
i am stuck trying to explain when the 144 thousand without any refference material.
i am stuck in a remote lacal debating a couple of things and this topice came up.
Dearest Cecil, first please let me say that I am a 'she'. And if that 'stumbles' you dear one, may I ask you to remember the words of the prophet Joel, as reiterated by Paul(?) at Acts 2:17, 18 regarding what would occur BEFORE the 'portents in heaven and signs on earth', before you allow yourself to form an adverse opinion as to whether I have the 'authority' to share what I have been given with you, a man? Thank you. I make this statement because of your assumption that I am a 'he himself'. I am sorry, I am not, but you will have to take that issue, if indeed it IS an issue, up with my Father. I am merely a slave of Christ... and I obey him, not Paul.
sorry for calling you a HE. No problem for me here...!!! I'll have to read what you wrote as an answer, when I have time later today - and will let you know what I think of your answers.
cecil
(who is a HE - even if his real name is not cecil...)
think about it, i think it's jahveh's first commandment.. thou shalt have no other gods besides me.... or words to that effect.
look it up if you like.. so god is admitting that there are other gods besides him.. how then can he claim that he is the almighty alpha and omega?
the one and only, el suprimo?.
Hi OlderTom.
I think its obvious: Jahveh didn't want anybody to make anything else a god. By worshipping anything else than Jahveh or giving anything else the place in ones life that was Jahvehs, one would create a god/gods beside him.
cecil
hey i need help.
i am stuck trying to explain when the 144 thousand without any refference material.
i am stuck in a remote lacal debating a couple of things and this topice came up.
Interesting thread...
I have been thinking a lot about the 144.000-issue lately. I find Shelbys (AGuests?) contribution very interesting. But I have a problem with Shelbys point of view. Maybe he himself can explain that - others are wellcome too.
If the 144.000 are fleshly Israelites, and the great crowd is a second group, with hope for heavenly life as well - who is going to live on earth? What is going to happen with the rest of mankind, who has no heavenly hop (no hope at all?!)? Are they going to be those to live on mother earth (after all: If everybody serving Jehovah God is ressurected to heavenly life after death and everybody not serving Jehovah is supposed to die in Armageddon - who wil be left to live on earth. Who could the heavenly brothers of Jesus Christ help as priests and kings, if nobody was left on earth?...) Will both the 144.000 AND the great crowd CONTINUE to have heavenly life - even after their work as priests and kings is done after a period of 1000 years? Will they become superior angels (as taught by the WT today) or are they going to return to live on earth afterwards (that could be a completely new point of view) - maybe given the possibility to choose to get their human lifes back...?
A lot of questions - answers appreciated...
cecil
i know its a very popular question but wat is the real answer to "if god is so mighty can he make a rock so big even he cant lift it"
Fred
"Our universES"??? and "the empty space BEYOND our universe"??? sounds interesting...
cecil
215 years or 430 years?
the july 15th wt study some have been talking about (not sure of which issue of the wt is involved) was quoted as saying this, "when the israelites headed for freedom after spending 215 years in egypt, much of that time in slavery, a vast mixed company also went up with them.
(exodus 12:38) ".
Hi folks.
1. The June 1st WT (July 15th WT study) does say what Hippikon wrote/quotes in the above-mentioned thread.
2. June 1st WT (July 22nd WT study):
"BY DIVINE inspiration the apostle John was able to look some 1,800 years into the future and describe the enthronement of Christ as King. John needed faith to believe what he saw in vision. We today have clear evidence that this foretold enthronement took place in 1914..."
May I ask: What's that 'clear evidence' ...?!?! Do You Know the answer?!?!
cecil
