Posts by Earnest

4

I remember reading somewhere a long time ago

by mickbobcat in

that rutherford or russell were into phrenology.

anyone have any info on this and is there anything in the tower or other publications going back about it?

thanks.

Earnest

Anony Mous : The first two articles seem to suggest that phrenology is true ...

The second article is talking about the shape of the brain, not the shape of the skull which is what phrenology measures. The pertinent section in the article is discussing that those who possess particular qualities of mind are naturally drawn to God. It is not talking about measuring the skull or the brain in any way. It (Watchtower Reprints, 03/15/1913, p.5201) goes on to say :

Man was created in the image of God. The fall has greatly marred that image, but no one is totally depraved. All have unbalanced brains, some in one direction, others in another. When the truth comes in contact with those whose organs of veneration or conscientiousness are less impaired, they are drawn to investigate it, with the hope of being drawn close to God. Those whose organs of veneration and conscientiousness are more impaired, do not have this experience, and are not drawn unto God, if haply they may find him.

I really don't think there is any endorsement of phrenology here. In fact, in the first article, which does talk about phrenology, it specifically says "without claiming that any has learned to read accurately from the shape of the human skull the various traits of character therein represented", which settles any doubt a reader might have that such a claim is being made.

6

Greetings and Request for Help

by AGuest-Again in

jw
friends

it's been awhile since i've been on this board and i am not here to stay (so stay calm, please, simon).

a good, dear friend of mine... and possible yours... outlaw needs some help and i've come back solely for the purpose of asking for that.

a couple of days ago, outlaw lost everything... and i do mean everything... to one of the wildfires burning in british columbia:.

Earnest

Give Shelby a break. Outlaw described her here as "one of the dearest people I know here on JWN". Besides which the gofundme page is organised by Jacob Colt for his father. If you don't like her posts just ignore them. Why such vitriol.

As with all pleas for money, caveat emptor.

4

I remember reading somewhere a long time ago

by mickbobcat in

that rutherford or russell were into phrenology.

anyone have any info on this and is there anything in the tower or other publications going back about it?

thanks.

Earnest

The Watchtower of July 15, 1907 says in an article on the Tabernacle (p.4028) :

Without claiming that phrenology has reached a perfection of development - without claiming that any has learned to read accurately from the shape of the human skull the various traits of character therein represented, even while admitting that such a reading of character might be defective, and particularly so with those whose characters have been transformed by the renewing of their mind through the begettal of the holy Spirit - nevertheless we may admit that phrenology so far as understood fully corroborates the picture given us in the arrangement of the Tabernacle of Israel surrounded by the camp.

It then goes on to say that if we imagine the human skull spread out flat that the central part of it would correspond to the Tabernacle and its court. It's very strange but it is hardly an endorsement of phrenology.

There is also a reference to the shape of the brain in the March 15, 1913 Watchtower (p.5201) but that is not talking about phrenology.

The drawing power which the Almighty exercises over humanity is in different degrees. Some have a strong desire to worship God, others have a weak desire, and others have no desire at all. This difference is due to the shape of the brain. Mankind are born with differences in this respect.--Psa. 51:5

In the Watchtower of July 15, 1978 in an article on the Human Brain (pp.14-18) it says :

By the use of electrodes, areas of the cerebral cortex have been mapped out, showing what functions are performed and where. Some false beliefs have been removed, such as phrenology—the study of “character traits” by feeling bumps on the head. The shape of the skull is not determined by the shape of the cerebrum, nor is it possible to assign “character traits” to specific areas of the brain.

So, really not very much at all. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some mention of it in the Golden Age but couldn't find any.

112

Afghanistan-Kabul falls to Taliban - U.S. Embassy staff evacuated by helicopter

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

in a scene reminiscent of the fall of saigon, the usa embassy staff have been evacuated by helicopter.. for a third time in asia ( a fourth, if you count usa supported chiang kai shek's defeat in mainland china) usa supported forces have been defeated.

more than 1 trillion dollars wasted and a huge deathtoll (both sides) afghanistan is back to where it started,.

will the taliban behave differently this time ?

Earnest

Redvip2000 : You forgot a big important factor. A lot of armament was sold and used, pockets were lined and wallets got fat. The goal of the war was achieved.

In Civilization: The Six Killer Apps of Western Power, London (2012), Niall Ferguson reports (p.309) that

By the end of World War II Britain had amassed an immense debt of £21 billion. Much of this was held in foreign hands, with around £3.4 billion being owed overseas (mainly to creditors in the United States), a sum which represented around one third of annual GDP.

On 31 December 2006, Britain made a final payment of about £45.5m and thereby discharged the last of its World War II war loans from the US.

30

East Pennines A$$emb£y Hall

by punkofnice in

so, my spies tell me that the east pennines a$$emb£y hall is being sold and all proceeds going to jobo hq.

there's a surprise.....not!.

i understand there are other properties too.

Earnest

The Hall was set up and run as a separate charity, however the Kingdom Hall Trust holds title as a custodian to all land and buildings.

These are the EPAH accounts 2016 - 2019 :

2016 : Income £332.74k Expenditure £441.62k (£212.78k donated to WTBS)

2017 : Income £333.43k Expenditure £460.85k (£272.25k donated to WTBS)

2018 : Income £349.92k Expenditure £462.69k (£258.06k donated to WTBS)

2019 : Income £281.71k Expenditure £332.15k (£148.34k donated to WTBS)

13

The parable of the trees! (Judges 9:8-15

by slimboyfat in

do you recall reading this passage before?

i came across this it yesterday while preparing a bible presentation on trees.

i had no idea this passage existed.

Earnest

As FFGhost reported, there was an article in the 15th March 1935 Watchtower entitled "Prophecy of the Trees" (pp.83-90). In part it says (para. 7) :

Both good and bad trees appear in this prophetic parable recorded in Judges nine. In symbol the inanimate objects represented the following :
The olive tree in the parable symbolically pictured Gideon, Christ Jesus, the Greater Gideon, and the faithful remnant.
The fig tree symbolically pictured Jether, the first-born of Gideon, and the “holy nation”.
The vine symbolically pictured Jehovah’s royal house, Christ Jesus the Head thereof in charge of the royal house, together with the others who will have a part in the vindication of Jehovah’s name.
The bramble, or thorn tree, in the parable symbolically pictured the visible rulers of this world that constitute the official element of Satan’s organization in the earth.
Abimelech, the bastard son of Gideon by his concubine, played in the drama the part of the active and visible ruling elements of the world since 1914.
Shechem, the city and the residents thereof, particularly the Levites, pictured the religious element, that is, the clergy element of “Christendom”, including “the man of sin” class.
The “seventy sons” of Gideon pictured the followers of Christ Jesus engaged in doing the Elijah work of the church prior to and up to 1918.
Jotham, the son of Gideon who uttered the prophecy of the trees, pictured the remnant.

21

Need help...Resurrection JW beliefs from the 50'6 and 60's.

by Snoozy in

was talking with a gal that is most likely going back to the religion after 20 or 30 years.

we got into a discussion about having babies after "armageddon ".

she was talking about being normal ( she is practically bedridden but only in her 50's.

Earnest

In a Question from Readers in the Watchtower of 15 August 2014 it says :

For years, our publications have said that Jesus’ words about the resurrection and getting married likely refer to the earthly resurrection and that those resurrected to life in the new world will evidently not marry. [e.g. The Watchtower, June 1, 1987] (Matt. 22:29, 30; Mark 12:24, 25; Luke 20:34-36) While we cannot be dogmatic, is it possible that Jesus’ words refer to the heavenly resurrection? Let us examine what Jesus said.

It then discusses several questions which that raises, including :

Third, if Jesus’ words about the resurrection and getting married apply to the heavenly resurrection, does this mean that those who come back in the earthly resurrection will be able to marry? God’s Word does not give a direct answer to that specific question. If Jesus was, in fact, talking about the heavenly resurrection, then his words do not shed any light on whether resurrected ones on earth will be able to marry in the new world.

16

2700 years ago Jews ate pigs

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

from haaretz newspaper:.

what does a pig skeleton discovered in jerusalem say about first temple era jews?.

the argument here is that sanctions on eating pork were only introduced in the 2nd temple era.. so what does that tell you bout biblical accuracy.. .

Earnest

An abstract of the article written by the archaeologists responsible for this discovery in Near Eastern Archaeology says :

Recent studies that reviewed data on pig frequencies in correlation to the subphases of the Iron Age have shown that while frequencies of pork consumption fluctuated in the Northern Kingdom, it remained constantly low in Judah throughout the Iron Age. In Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, low frequencies or absence of pigs (0–2 percent of livestock) were found in all excavated sites.

Whenever the Bible was actually written, we know that although the First Temple-period Israelites believed in the God of the Bible, they also worshipped other deities and liberally made figurines and other graven images, ostensibly banned by the Second Commandment. If they worshipped other deities then eating the odd pork sausage now and again is no evidence that the law against doing so didn't yet exist.

37

Love the don't use a gun for self defence by Gary Bro

by mickbobcat in

i just watched that stupid talk by gary while e bro on not using a gun for self defense but it went deeper.

i was that you don't defend yourself against violence.

well ain't that great from an asshat living in a gated and guarded compound.

Earnest

It does not surprise me that you are better versed in Watchtower theology than I am, TD, but as I do not have access to the private letters you mention I cannot really comment on them. But it does seem clear to me that Jesus was specifically saying that their having swords was a fulfillment of prophecy. After all, you wouldn't identify someone having a money bag as lawless, or someone having a food pouch, but you may well identify someone having a sword as being lawless. Especially if he was resisting arrest or cutting off ears.

Your reasons that it is implausible that Jesus was talking about the immediate situation rather than a more general preparedness are all good (if I have understood you correctly), but his disciples thought he was talking about that moment because they said "Lord, look, here are two swords". And his reply "It is enough" also refers to their immediate situation. I dunno. What Jesus says doesn't always make sense to me. But in this case it does show how his disciples understood him regardless of the assumptions it leaves in its wake.

37

Love the don't use a gun for self defence by Gary Bro

by mickbobcat in

i just watched that stupid talk by gary while e bro on not using a gun for self defense but it went deeper.

i was that you don't defend yourself against violence.

well ain't that great from an asshat living in a gated and guarded compound.

Earnest

TD : What is the JW explanation of Luke 22:36 these days?

Luke 22:35-38 says :

He also said to them: “When I sent you out without a money bag and a food pouch and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said: “No!” Then he said to them: “But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, ‘He was counted with lawless ones.’ [Isaiah 53:12] For this is being fulfilled concerning me.” Then they said: “Lord, look! here are two swords.” He said to them: “It is enough.”

In the first instance, then, it was fulfilling prophecy. But when Jesus says "It is enough", what is it enough for? Eleven verses later it says :

When those around him saw what was going to happen, they said: “Lord, should we strike with the sword?” One of them even struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his right ear. But in reply Jesus said: “That is enough.” And he touched the ear and healed him.

The account in John 18:10,11 says :

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. The name of the slave was Malchus. Jesus, however, said to Peter: “Put the sword into its sheath. Should I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

The account in Matthew 26:51,52 says :

But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. Then Jesus said to him: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword."

The explanation in the Watchtower is that Jesus told them to have a sword when they went to the Garden of Gethsemane to demonstrate that he could have resorted to weapons for self-defense if he condoned it, but didn't.