i know one who has attended meetings for 42 years, he knows it's a bunch of crap, but he loves his wife and doesn't want to mess up their relationship.
he is actually quite wealthy--maybe that makes a difference.
he doesn't have to worry about how to pay the bills.
When they got to the question- Do you believe that Jehovah's Witinesses are the true religion, my dad in a very firm and loud voice said"HELL NO!"
LOL :-)
I wish I were there to drop a needle and listen to it falling to the floor.. :-D
Great, brave and dead honest dad!
kifoy
posters, readers, and lurkers of this site know that the watchtower society does not know.
the meaning of "soon", "near", "very soon", "very near", "just on the horizon", "just around the.
corner", etc.
It's just another unfufilled prophesy from the watchtower
No, no! It's just some of the imperfect men that are acting hasty and a bit too enthusiastic. You just need to wait for Jehovah... but it will sure be soon! kifoy
do you know about this loop hole rule?
a short time after baptism a young man i knew commited fornication but told the elders he didn't know it was a sin, he didn't have full knowledge when baptized.
his baptizm was voided and he had to study and be baptized again at a later date.
FFM:
"Maybe he convinced them that he wasn't "dedicated" before baptism (didn't dedicate himself in prayer first), thus making his actual baptism null and void."
That argument did not work for me when I DA'd :-\
kifoy
Thank you for all your interesting answers.
So, I find that there really is no definite answer to this question without doing some "if this" and "if that".
I see the point in the privateness of the conversation between the snake and Eve. And that «with her» doesn't really _have_ to be "within arm's reach", if I understood correctly.
This story was written down a long time after the events. So, it may also have been a little influenced by this writer's opinions. Right? (Unless one believes that it was 100% inspired...)
I think the headship question is equally interesting. Why is one sin worse that the other? Although 1 Tim 2:14 says: "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner". But then again (unless inspired), the woman had never been regarded highly. And I think it says it all when Adam is mentioned by name, but not Eve, who is only "the woman".
Keep you thoughts coming :-)
This kind of bible study I can like. Comparing translations, history, and finding strange things. Not the JW way. That's so boring! Right now I'm occupied with this subject, and the 587/607 subject. I could never have found these interesting things when I was a JW. Now it's all on a theoretical basis, and I like to keep it that way.
Thanks for the link Curucu.
If there are more links out there, I'd like to see :-)
kifoy
Where was Adam when Eve sinned?
Was he with his wife or somewhere else in the garden -- out of sight?
In the NWT, Genesis 3:6 says:
"Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband when with her and he began eating it."
*Afterward*.
So.... The snake tricked Eve to take a bite of the forbidden fruit. Then Eve went to her husband somewhere else in the garden and made him eat as well.
This is how I always thought about these things. Adam was somewhere else. Eve was wandering around in the gardens by herself.
Then I got a tip from my aunt. And I read the passage more thoroughly in my Norwegian Bible. My Norwegian Bible says pretty much the same as the New International Bible:
"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."
So Adam was *with* her? That brings up lots of questions like: Why did he not stop it? And why is it so important for some to point out that it was *afterwards*?
The Interlinear Bible clearly (at least as far as I can se) shows that the words «with here» also was present in the original text: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdf
So...
Where was Adam?
I googled and found this article: http://www.tlogical.net/adameve.htm
The writer still concludes that Adam had to be somewhere else, not present. Though I think some of his arguments are somewhat thin...
For instance, his first argument:
"It is possible to be with someone and not actually in their presence. For instance, when I am at home "with" my wife, she might be in another part of the house and not visible to me. Adam could have been with Eve in the same way. With her in the garden but not in her presence."
Well. Where could he be if not "in the garden with Eve". There was no other place to be, was there?
And what about this one:
"Adam and Eve before the fall had equal standing before God. There was no concept of headship or defined roles for their conduct. God's response to the sin of Eve was to change her relationship in respect to Adam and Himself. She was told that her desire would be to her husband and that he would rule over her. From this point forward in scripture we see man portrayed in a role of spiritual leadership and as the head of the wife. If Adam had been present during the temptation, and indifferent or deceived alongside Eve, it begs the question, why would God have given Adam headship?"
So because Adam was tempted by a mere woman instead of the more powerful Satan, he proved himself more competent to the headship? Eh...
What do you think?
I was just thinking, If Eve had a long way to go to meet up with her husband after she had taken a bite. Why did she not "see that she was naked" before Adam ate? Because verse 7 says:
"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked".
So *then* also Eve saw it. After Eve had wandered around looking for Adam and then persuaded him to eat? Was she a bit slow or was he nearby after all?
kifoy
so i just read this article "strumming to the third temple" (http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-6231-israelnews-strumming-third-temple) (beautiful harps btw) and it made me wonder if the wts believes that a third temple will be built.
many religious jews and evangelical/ fundamentalist christians believe a third temple will be built,...so what about the jw's?
do they have any teachings on the subject?
The WTS talk about the "Jerusalem in Heaven" or someting, don't they?
So the third temple is in heaven, maybe?
kifoy
question from researcher: the other day you posted the australian peak publishers and i was wondering if it would be possible to post the numbers of the "memorial partakers" from 1935 to 2006. that would be about 72 years of totals.. my answer: yes, we can do that for you but it will take a few hours to get everything together and scanned.
i will have to use different forms of wt literature to accomplish this.. unless indicated otherwise, numbers listed show partakers for previous year and some could show: "still incomplete" but they are still listed as a total nevertheless.
cheers!
I was somewhat surprized that the number did not decrease more after 1975.
And it is interesting that the number in reallity has been the same for so long.
The number will not go below 8000.
I was just thinking about something:
In the 20s they preached that "millions now living will never die".
But didn't they at that time belive that they all were of the "annointed, heavenly class"?
How could they go to heaven if they would never die?
kifoy
i mentioned in an earlier post that i had a visit the other day from a former friend, a jw woman, who wanted to invite me to the district convention on the weekend.
i almost got the impression from her casual dress that it was a social visit, until she whipped out the tract.
one thing that i noticed was her trying to soft pedal the jw jargon that is practically second nature to jws.. she talked about how one of her kids was "gone" for a few years, but had recently "come back to us" and that she was happy to have her child's company again.
YC wrote:
I remember well that I stopped referring to the elders as "Brother so and so" instead using their first and last names or only their last name. For example, if a certain elder would phone and say "Hi, this is Brother Doe, is Brother xxx at home?" I'd say "Just a minute," and then call my then JW husband: "John Doe is on the phone."
---
In the areas I have lived, I can't remember having heard or used the "brother" and "sister" about anyone outside ordinary meetings and other organized cong. stuff. When talking about somone, or calling someone, I and everyone I knew would use the persons first name. If it was a total stranger, one might be using full name. Never "may I talk to Brother Doe". The "brother" thing was only used at meetings and similar.
One could say "he's a brother" (meaning he is a JW), but not "I ran into Brother Doe today".
It might be the socitey here in this country. Everything is very informal. The only people everyone in this country are naming very formally in third person are the royal family (king, queen, crown prince/princess). And of course the JWs at meetings -- between the prayers, not before and after.
If I remember correctly, when I was a child, the book studies were so informal that the "brother/sister" thing were not used. Only first names.
I don't remeber when this changed. But I think they use "brother this and that" now.
This informallity can be really liberating. But it is also kind of weird when things suddenly are formal during meetings.
But about the topic: I find it strange to hear words I used on a daily basis earlier, but have not heard in a long time. I sometimes find it difficult to talk about "Jehovah". I now only use "God".
kifoy
and armageddon is not here yet.
in fact, i passed several churches of the catholic and protestent denominations.
and i thought that those churches were supposed to be destroyed before the great tribulation which was supposed to culminate in armageddon.
"Who came up with this June 12th thing anyway?"
One "charismatic" person with the name Yisrayl Hawkins (http://www.yisraylhawkins.com/)
kifoy
in the congregation you attended/or attend, for new ones that come, did/do the members address them as "brother so and so" / "sister so and so" ??.
or do new ones have to wait for a period of time to prove their "worthiness" of being addressed in that way?.
juni ~~~~.
In my cong. we were called "brothers" and "sisters" from the moment we officially became publishers. We did not have to wait a month or wait till after babtism.
Then it was "sister + surname" or "sister + firstname surname" if there were more than one sister with the same surname.
For non-publishers it was either "firstname" (mainly kids) or "full name" (grownups).
Here in Norway titles like Mr./Ms./Mrs. is not used at all. Perhaps only when calling upon really old and/or upper class people, not that there are many of them left.
kifoy
