what is a "bombshell" about that statement?
Chappy, that statement is noteworthy because of its source. The source of that article claims it holds a special place in God's temple as the "faithful and discreet slave," and has implied on numerous occasions that every utterance coming through the Watchtower's pages is divinely inspired.
Even though the logical deductions in my initial post for this topic conclude that a more advanced civilization could have existed in ancient times, this is still supposition. There is no real evidence.
However, in reading the latest article I wonder whether the Society's statement about the ancient world in Noah's era was indeed considered by the writer as coming from "divine inspiration"? What if the statement was just supposition based on similar reasoning to my own, or an entirely different basis? Then does this mean everything written in the Watchtower is presented as an editorial opinion that may or may not prove factual? Then why are congregation members disfellowshiped for "apostasy" if they disagree with the Watchtower's published editorial opinions?
Conversely, what if every word the Watchtower publishes is NOT considered an editorial opinion but is considered absolute truth, thus placing those who disagree with truth on the side of apostasy? Then the statement I quoted from the latest Watchtower is the absolute truth and is not subject to debate. Anyone who disagrees with that statement -- perhaps arguing like you said that no mention is made in the scriptures to support that statement -- has committed apostasy by disagreeing with a true statement.
A litmus test is that if you walked up to an elder with this latest Watchtower open to the first page -- with the statement I quoted highlighted in yellow -- what would happen if you said, "This statement is wrong; no references in the scriptures support this statement"?
Would the elder reply, "I respect your opinion, and wondered the same thing myself. However, as we know, those who write these articles are imperfect and prone to error. We shouldn't take what they say as the final word on any given matter. Every Christian denomination is the same. You have to use your own conscience to ultimately stand before God in deciding what is right and wrong, because the Society is never going to dictate right and wrong based on their own interpretation."
I say this is a reasonable answer one would expect from most Christian denominations. However, most Jehovah's Witnesses know that if they challenged the statement I quoted in the current Watchtower, they would face a judicial committee for challenging words that were divinely inspired by the faithful slave. Later, if the Society retracted it, those who were DF'd would remain so. One elder explained why those who were disfellowshiped for disagreeing with the Watchtower and later proven correct, were not reinstated. He said something to this effect:
Paraphrasing elder's comment from memory: "The real issue, you must surely know after having been baptized for many years, is the Society's universal sovereignty that Christ Jesus has given them over the Earth. Our obligation as Jehovah's people is to wait for them to correct any errors in teachings, and bear the burden of accepting and yes even teaching these errors to others until a correction is published. In this manner we recognize the faithful and discreet slave as our intermediator between those who are not under the covenant -- yes that means most of the great crowd of unanointed Christians -- and the one who purchased the anointed remnant from sin. We are the sheep belonging to those anointed remnant, who in turn belong to Christ Jesus their Lord."
Needless to say I was stunned, but managed to push these troubling comments, as they say, "out of sight, and out of mind" as all good Jehovah's Witnesses are expected when faced with crisis of conscience.
Derrick
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
-- William Blake (Auguries of Innocence)