some days ago two elders visited my sister because she has not been attending the meetings more than one year.
this time she prepared notes containing watchtower past teachings about the blood ban so as to ask them for those changes, and it seems that the elders were also prepared for her past questions.
for instance she showed them that "albumin" was considered "under scriptural ban" in 1956 (read the page 20 of awake, september 8).
I have an amount of material on the subject at: http://www.jwstudies.com/blood.html
In particular, I would like to emphasise: http://www.jwstudies.com/Handling_Medical_Evidence.pdf
But you might find this handy, too: http://www.jwstudies.com/Loyalty_Test.pdf
Doug
it seems to me that jw's really don't care about doctrine.
ephesians chapter 4 verse 11 "and he gave some as apostles others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry for the building up of the body of christ until we attain the unity of faith and knowledge of the son of god to mature manhood to the extent of the full stature of christ so that we may no longer be in infants tost by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery from their cunning in the interest of deceitful scheming".
is it just me or does this verse totally annihilate the doctrine or belief in new light.
From The Watchtower, June 1, 1967, page 331, para 7:
Some have called Jehovah’s witnesses “false prophets” because, in times past, they have viewed things a certain way and, later, have made a change through their official publications. Or, there may have been practices by some members in the organization that have been permitted to continue for a time for lack of knowledge as to how to handle these things, but later they have learned from God’s Word what his will is and have gone ahead and made the necessary corrections. False prophets do not correct themselves. God’s people do.
-----------
The following is a comment on these words by Alan Rogerson in his book: “Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah’s Witnesses”, pages 82-83 (Constable, 1969):
The above explanations are clearly preferable to the previous Society line that they had always been right. Nevertheless the Society is still not telling the whole truth. They do not say that up to now they have not admitted their mistakes, no wonder they were called 'false prophets'. They are also very coy about how much they confess; my impression is that they only admit to errors that are blatant and liable to cause individual Witnesses to fall away; if possible they sweep most of their past errors under the carpet of soothing historical generalisations. It is typical of the Society to use even their errors as evidence that they are right: 'False prophets do not correct themselves'. They are making a virtue out of their repentance, forgetting about the fact that they were wrong! Of course it is better to repent of error than not to repent, but I should have thought it was more typical of God's·organisation not to make errors at all. The Witnesses' reply to this is that human beings are fallible and even those in God's organisation are not immune from error. It seems to me, however, that this makes it difficult to decide which is God's organisation if that too is prone to error, and the New World Society has made so many errors in the past that they do not appear to be the likely candidates.
was buried in tirzah; and elah his son reigned.
judah, elah the son of baasha began to reign.
they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of israel?.
i recently posted a post telling this board my athesit coworker stumped me with questions about the validity of the ark story and i just cannot stop talking to her.
i love hearing her side and point of view which in the past i would have dismissed as "satanic" thinking.
she has some very good questions and i am having a hard time answering them.
Have you ever thought about the countless creatures (etc) that are in a constant life-and-death struggle on the outside of your body and inside it?
Doug
was buried in tirzah; and elah his son reigned.
judah, elah the son of baasha began to reign.
they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of israel?.
Thanks,
Next question: do you accept that the correct writings were canonised, and do you discuss the process involved? Do you address the differences between the Jewish and Christian canons, also the languages employed, the translations, etc.?
If you are addressing JWs, I presume you would take into consideration that the WTS says that the original writings were inerrant (and that none is known to exist), but that the copies and translations are not without error. Although they claim these errors are minor, how do they know when there are no original writings to compare them against?
Doug
it seems to me that jw's really don't care about doctrine.
ephesians chapter 4 verse 11 "and he gave some as apostles others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry for the building up of the body of christ until we attain the unity of faith and knowledge of the son of god to mature manhood to the extent of the full stature of christ so that we may no longer be in infants tost by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery from their cunning in the interest of deceitful scheming".
is it just me or does this verse totally annihilate the doctrine or belief in new light.
Long long ago I came to the decision that JWs obey the WTS because of WHOM the WTS claims to be (God's sole channel of communication on earth) regardless of WHAT they say.
The WTS always says: obedience is paramount. Read their propaganda, it's all about the rulership; it is authoritarian.
Any suspicion of dissent with a currently-held position is treated harshly, even though the WTS could later amend its position to that "heresy". The test is obedience, and this is what Jesus and Jehovah were looking for when they selected Rutherford in 1919. The WTS knows this is true because they say it is true.
Doug
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/z1879jul.asp.
the first issue of the watchtower was july 1879, about 135 years ago.
it is interesting to skim the first issue, as well as the letter that russell sent out to the readers of the previous magazine he was involved with, the herald of the morning.. as to the split between russell and barbour, while the issue over the ransom seems a contributing factor, the first concern in russells letter is a monetary dispute.. the early issues of the watchtower were open to many viewpoints.
yadda,
Talking about Darwin's book, it is interesting to note that Lamarck produced his theory of evolution in the very year that Darwin was born.
Doug
was buried in tirzah; and elah his son reigned.
judah, elah the son of baasha began to reign.
they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of israel?.
Do you really believe that the Bible provides an unbiased literally true historical record?!
For example, do you believe that there was a person named Moses and that there was an Exodus from Egypt, or that there were kings named Solomon and David as described in the Bible? Were the Israelites powerful or were they simply poor Canaanite hill-dwellers who made up stories?
Doug
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/z1879jul.asp.
the first issue of the watchtower was july 1879, about 135 years ago.
it is interesting to skim the first issue, as well as the letter that russell sent out to the readers of the previous magazine he was involved with, the herald of the morning.. as to the split between russell and barbour, while the issue over the ransom seems a contributing factor, the first concern in russells letter is a monetary dispute.. the early issues of the watchtower were open to many viewpoints.
The title of the magazine was in 2 parts:
Zion's Watch Tower [not Watchtower], because Russell was convinced that the coming of unprecedented peace in 1914 would be under the Zionists;
and
Herald of Christ's Presence, because he was heralding that the Parousia had taken place in 1874.
Doug
this topic has been covered extensively but i just wanted relate what hapopenes with this subject and my elder father.
he called me up one day to check in on me he always asks if i'm going to msettings and i always tell him no im not.
well this time he wanted to know why i didn't trust the g.b.
To make it very simple: the Bible cannot and does not provide BCE dates or CE dates. This means that the WTS completely relies on secular sources for dates. The WTS accepts from secular sources the date of 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon. These secular sources derive this date from a chronology that the WTS does not accept.
These sources say that the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is an Absolute Date that is fixed at 568 BCE. Then using the neo-Babylonian chronology these secular sources arrive at other dates, including 539 BCE.
BTW. Your father can feel comfortable communicating with me since I have never been associated with Jehoavh's Witnesses or with the Watchtower Society.
Doug
