Page 336 is the first page of the last chapter of the "Religion" book; the chapter is called "END OF RELIGION". WWII had begun in Europe by 1940 and page 337 of the book says "The earthly leaders and the blinded people march to Armageddon." Page 348 says ' "The battle of that great day of God Almighty" will forever put AN END TO RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS PERSECUTORS.' Page 359 says 'The "day of Jehovah" began in 1914, when Christ Jesus was enthroned; but, with reference to the anointed, more particularly from 1918, when the Lord Jesus came to the temple. Since, "the day of the Lord Jesus Christ" begins to overlap the day of Jehovah.' Hey, does that last sentence foreshadow the principle of the WT's much later teaching of overlapping generations?
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
22
First 3 Presidents never knew JC began his reign as King in 1914 ?
by smiddy3 inthe first 3 presidents of the i.b.s.a ./ jehovah`s witnesses / wtb&ts.. w.h.conley ,c.t.russell ,j.f.rutherford .. how many jehovah`s witnesses know that ?
how many ex jehovah`s witnesses knew that ?
the wt society teaches that jesus returned to begin his "invisible presence" in 1914 directing his attention toward the earth as ruling king.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
22
First 3 Presidents never knew JC began his reign as King in 1914 ?
by smiddy3 inthe first 3 presidents of the i.b.s.a ./ jehovah`s witnesses / wtb&ts.. w.h.conley ,c.t.russell ,j.f.rutherford .. how many jehovah`s witnesses know that ?
how many ex jehovah`s witnesses knew that ?
the wt society teaches that jesus returned to begin his "invisible presence" in 1914 directing his attention toward the earth as ruling king.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Rutherford's book called "Religion", copyright 1940, on page 336 says "In the year 1914 (A.D.) Christ Jesus, the King, was enthroned."
-
17
The Genesis account again proved WRONG
by opusdei1972 inaccording to the watchtower's insight encyclopedia : .
the catastrophic destruction of men and animals by an overwhelming flood in the days of noah, 2370 b.c.e.
this greatest cataclysm in all human history was sent by jehovah because wicked men had filled the earth with violence.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
I found Christian books (including Old Bibles in their study helps) published before carbon dating and other radiometric dating were invented, in which the books gave a date of earlier than 2370 B.C.E. (B.C.) for some aspect of Egyptian civilization. As result, even before radiometric dating scholars knew some aspect of Egyptian civilization (such a particular kingdom or dynasty, I think) existed before 2370 B.C.E.
-
25
Jehovah Witness cult is Anti-christ.... proof seen in the use of BCE/CE instead of AD/BC
by goingthruthemotions inso being around this cult, i always found it interesting that the rest of christianity use ad/bc and the non christians use bce/ce.
i never put two and two together.
but, it dawned on me that once again there is hidden proof that the witness cult is and anti-christ cult.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
WT literature was still using B.C./A.D. at least until the year 1958, instead of B.C.E./C.E. For example see the following.Page 199 of Rutherford's book called "Enemies" (copyright 1937) says "year 1848 (A.D.)". For another example, see Rutherford's book called "Religion", copyright 1940. Page 336 of that book says "In the year 1914 (A.D.) Christ Jesus, the King, was enthroned." The WT book called "Theocratic Aid to Kingdom Publishers" (copyright 1945) says A.D. twice on page 326 and four times on page 327. The WT book called ' "Equipped for Every Good Work" ' (copyright 1946) says B.C. and A.D. multiple times. The WT book called "What Has Religion Done for Mankind? (copyright 1951) on page 299 says "607 B.C." and "A.D. 1914". The WT book called "Qualified to be Ministers (the edition copyright 1955) says B.C. twice on page 126 and it says A.D. on page 290. The WT book called "From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained" (copyright 1958) on page 102 says "In 620 B.C. ..." and page 130 says "in the autumn of A.D. 29 ...." The NWT revision of 1961 (Second Printing) on the title page says "--Revised A. D. 1961--'. Page 1459 says B.C.E. and page 1460 says "B.C.E. and A.D." It surprising that while that Bible edition says B.C.E., it says A.D. instead of C.E. The page in the back of the 1961 NWT which lists the availability of the 5 Hebrew Scriptures volumes and the Christian Greek Scriptures volumes also say A.D. in reference to the release date of each of those volumes; and volume 5 of the Hebrew volumes was released in 1960.
Note in the above examples, uses of B.C. and A.D. might be on other pages besides the ones I mentioned above, I merely scanned the books quickly to see a usage of B.C./A.D. versus B.C.E./C.E.
In contrast the pocket size edition of the the WT book called ' "Things in Which it is Impossible for God to Lie" ' (copyright 1965) says on the bottom of page 3 the following: 'DATING: In dating, the abbreviation B.C.E. stands for "Before Our Common Era," and C.E. stands for "Of Our Common Era." ...." B.C.E. and A.D. appear also on other pages of that book. Likewise the First Edition (pocket size edition) of the WT's "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God" book (copyright 1966) has the same message about dating as the book from 1965.
Thus it seems that the WT literature didn't begin saying B.C.E./C.E. until around the years 1961 - 1965. I never found any reason stated in the WT for why they switched to the other terminology. But I have a guess as to why.
When the B.C./A.D. system was created it was based upon the belief that Jesus was born on Dec. 25th of the year 1 B.C. and thus that the first year of his human life ended in A.D. 1 (A.D. meaning "in the year of the Lord" in Latin), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini. But modern scholars believe that Jesus was born before the year 1 B.C. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_birth_of_Jesus which says that most theologians and most scholars "accept a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC" for Jesus), and the WT also says that Jesus was born before the year 1 B.C. The WT's book called "Aid to Bible Understanding" - "1971 Edition" says on page 920 in the article called "Jesus Christ" that "Jesus evidently was born in the month of Ethanim (September-October) of the year 2 B.C.E. ...." Page 56 of Vol. 2 of the Insight book says that also.
Thus, it is a misnomer to use the terms B.C. and A.D. if you believe Jesus was born prior to the year 1 B.C. Saying Jesus Christ was born in the year 2 B.C. is literally saying "Jesus Christ was born in the year 2 Before Christ" - a contradiction. I think that is the likely reason why the WT switched to the newer terminology. It fits with their claim of abandoning false doctrines/teachings and false practices (especially those of what the WT labels as Christendom).
-
5
Does using BCE/CE draw attention away from Jesus? AFA similarity with WTS
by truthseeker ini have never known the watchtower bible & tract society to use ad or bc, they have always maintained the bce and ce dating system.. i never thought about questioning it either, as it was no big deal.
however, i found one of the afa's latest news quite interesting... (american family association) is there a connection between the article below and the wts use of the bce/ce system?
is this evidence that indicates the wts is drawing attention away from jesus?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
WT literature was still using B.C./A.D. at least until the year 1958, instead of B.C.E./C.E. For example see the following.
Page 199 of Rutherford's book called "Enemies" (copyright 1937) says "year 1848 (A.D.)". For another example, see Rutherford's book called "Religion", copyright 1940. Page 336 of that book says "In the year 1914 (A.D.) Christ Jesus, the King, was enthroned." The WT book called "Theocratic Aid to Kingdom Publishers" (copyright 1945) says A.D. twice on page 326 and four times on page 327. The WT book called ' "Equipped for Every Good Work" ' (copyright 1946) says B.C. and A.D. multiple times. The WT book called "What Has Religion Done for Mankind? (copyright 1951) on page 299 says "607 B.C." and "A.D. 1914". The WT book called "Qualified to be Ministers (the edition copyright 1955) says B.C. twice on page 126 and it says A.D. on page 290. The WT book called "From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained" (copyright 1958) on page 102 says "In 620 B.C. ..." and page 130 says "in the autumn of A.D. 29 ...." The NWT revision of 1961 (Second Printing) on the title page says "--Revised A. D. 1961--'. Page 1459 says B.C.E. and page1460 say "B.C.E. and A.D." It surprising that while that Bible edition says B.C.E., it says A.D. instead of C.E. The page in the back of the 1961 NWT which lists the availability of the 5 Hebrew Scriptures volumes and the Christian Greek Scriptures volumes also say A.D. in reference to the release date of each of those volumes; and volume 5 of the Hebrew volumes was released in 1960.
Note in the above examples, uses of B.C. and A.D. might be on other pages besides the ones I mentioned above, I merely scanned the books quickly to see a usage of B.C./A.D. versus B.C.E./C.E.
In contrast the pocket size edition of the the WT book called ' "Things in Which it is Impossible for God to Lie" ' (copyright 1965) says on the bottom of page 3 the following: 'DATING: In dating, the abbreviation B.C.E. stands for "Before Our Common Era," and C.E. stands for "Of Our Common Era." ...." B.C.E. and A.D. appear also on other pages of that book. Likewise the First Edition (pocket size edition) of the WT's "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God" book (copyright 1966) has the same message about dating as the book from 1965.
Thus it seems that the WT literature didn't begin saying B.C.E./C.E. until around the years 1961 - 1965. I never found any reason stated in the WT for why they switched to the other terminology. But I have a guess as to why.
When the B.C./A.D. system was created it was based upon the belief that Jesus was born on Dec. 25th of the year 1 B.C. and thus that the first year of his human life ended in A.D. 1 (A.D. meaning "in the year of the Lord" in Latin), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini. But modern scholars believe that Jesus was born before the year 1 B.C. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_birth_of_Jesus which says that most theologians and most scholars "accept a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC" for Jesus), and the WT also says that Jesus was born before the year 1 B.C. The WT's book called "Aid to Bible Understanding" - "1971 Edition" says on page 920 in the article called "Jesus Christ" that "Jesus evidently was born in the month of Ethanim (September-October) of the year 2 B.C.E. ...." Page 56 of Vol. 2 of the Insight book says that also.
Thus, it is a misnomer to use the terms B.C. and A.D. if you believe Jesus was born prior to the year 1 B.C. Saying Jesus Christ was born in the year 2 B.C. is literally saying "Jesus Christ was born in the year 2 Before Christ" - a contradiction. I think that is the likely reason why the WT switched to the newer terminology. It fits with their claim of abandoning false doctrines/teachings and false practices (especially those of what the WT labels as Christendom).
-
30
Quoting out of context - ever justified?
by cognisonance injw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.
sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.
carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .
-
-
Disillusioned JW
I searched online for a reference of Reverend Liesalot for a couple of minutes before I realized that "Liesalot" is not an actual name but simply was a descriptive joke for "lies a lot". Very funny. However, while I think that the WT probably learns of many quotes of scientists by reading 'creation scientist' (and intelligent design) literature, I think that the WT follows up on the matter by going to the source of each of the quotes for confirmation.
For example, since the JWs/WT refused to send to me a bibliography for science sources in the Creator book, I asked a friend of mine (who never was a JW) to write to the JWs/WT for me, asking for the bibliography. Ultimately they sent to him the sources for 5 of the quotes (the ones I told my friend that I especially wanted). They did so not by sending citations, but by sending photocopies of the entire page (plus the title page and the copyright page) of each of the five quotes (from the scientific publications, not from creationist literature) - with the quoted words highlighted with a marker. My friend then forwarded those to me.
-
30
Quoting out of context - ever justified?
by cognisonance injw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.
sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.
carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .
-
-
Disillusioned JW
In my prior post where I said "As a read ..." I should have said "As I read ...".
-
30
Quoting out of context - ever justified?
by cognisonance injw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.
sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.
carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .
-
-
Disillusioned JW
As a read many science books and science articles (especially about evolution) written from the 1950s to the present, I notice that many scientific ideas have become greatly modified over time, and in many cases even discarded. As a result I am not sure if the WT thinks they are being deceiving when they exclude from their quotes content by scientists which attempt to provide an explanation for perceived problems of biological evolution and of abiogenesis. Maybe in the minds of the writers of WT literature, the purported scientific explanations of apparent problems in evolution are erroneous (or very likely erroneous) and thus not necessary to include in quotes.
Even if the WT writers do think they are being deceiving (but without making an outright false quote and thus without making an outright intentional lie), they might be true believers in their religious sect/cult and in what they call creation science. Further, they might also feel justified in their handling of the quotes, thinking it is a part of theocratic warfare. Nonetheless, I think their handling of quotes is in many cases a mishandling of quotes and that it hides the truth from the readers of the WT literature - and that upsets me. It also greatly disturbs me that they often use very faulty logic in support of their teachings.
-
30
Quoting out of context - ever justified?
by cognisonance injw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.
sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.
carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Regarding Phizzy's comment about the WT brochure's quote of the book by Henry Gee, while the context in the book does say that the fossil found by Gee might be of a giant civet (though it also says that Gee thinks it might be ancestor of Gee) and that if so, "it would be the oldest known record of this species by a million years", the example of the possible civet fossil is used by Gee to illustrate the idea that because fossils don't come with a pedigree then there is no way to know if a specific fossil is an actual linear ancestor (direct ancestor) of the fossil of another individual or even of a specific species (and that is a major theme of Gee's book). As such, I think the WT's handling of the specific quote was not a misquote. Gee's book is also about the idea that family trees of specific species descending from other specific species presume far too much, and that cladistic diagrams should be used instead. The quote is from the first chapter of Gee's book, and that entire chapter of Gee's book is posted online at https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/g/gee-time.html (that page also has a link to a review of the book). Here is a large context of the quote. [The boldfacing is mine.]
"Before I told everyone else about my own find, straddled on that ridge overlooking an expanse of space and, figuratively, an expanse of time, I wondered fleetingly if it might have been part of a hominid — perhaps half a tooth, like the one Gabriel found. In my mind I was already holding the fragment between finger and thumb, turning it over in the light. The question immediately presented itself: could this fossil have belonged to a creature that was my direct ancestor?
It is possible, of course, that the fossil really did belong to my lineal ancestor. Everybody has an ancestry, after all. Given what the Leakeys and others have found in East Africa, there is good reason to suspect that hominids lived in the Rift before they lived anywhere else in the world, so all modern humans must derive their ancestry, ultimately, from this spot, or somewhere near it. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that we should all be able to trace our ancestries, in a general way, to creatures that lived in the Rift between roughly 5 and 3 million years ago. So much is true, but it is impossible to know, for certain, that the fossil I hold in my hand is my lineal ancestor. Even if it really was my ancestor, I could never know this unless every generation between the fossil and me had preserved some record of its existence and its pedigree. The fossil itself is not accompanied by a helpful label. The truth is that my own particular ancestry — or yours — may never be recovered from the fossil record.
The obstacle to this certain knowledge about lineal ancestry lies in the extreme sparseness of the fossil record. As noted above, if my mystery skull belonged to an extinct giant civet, Pseudocivetta ingens, it would be the oldest known record of this species by a million years. This means that no fossils have been found that record the existence of this species for that entire time; and yet the giant civets must have been there all along. Depending on how old giant civets had to be before they could breed (something else we can never establish, because giant civets no longer exist so that we can watch their behaviour), perhaps a hundred thousand generations lived and died between the fossil found by me at site LO5 and the next oldest specimen. In addition, we cannot know if the fossil found at LO5 was the lineal ancestor of the specimens found at Olduvai Gorge or Koobi Fora. It might have been, but we can never know this for certain. The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.
...
A fossil can be thought of as an event in Deep Time. Compared with the immensity of time in which it is found, a fossil is a point in time of zero extent: a fossil either exists or it doesn't. By itself, a fossil is a punctuation mark, an interjection, an exclamation, even, but it is not a word, or even a sentence, let alone a whole story. Fossils are the tableaux that are illuminated by the occasional shafts of light that punctuate the corridor of Deep Time. You cannot connect one fossil with any other to form a narrative.
So there I was, confronted with a fossil that might have been half a tooth of a hominid, a scrap of flotsam from the ocean of time. Let us give a name — Yorick -- to its deceased owner. Yorick might have been my lineal ancestor; but we can never establish this for certain.
The events of Deep Time — fossils — are so sparse, because an animal, once dead, only rarely becomes a fossil. A million years passed between one fossil of Pseudocivetta ingens and the next. The process of fossilization and discovery is a concatenation of chance built upon chance. It's amazing that anything ever becomes a fossil at all.
...
The fact is that we know so little of the past. We depend on the minute fraction of the life that Earth has produced that has left any record. We have hardly begun to count the species with which we share this planet, yet for every species now living, perhaps a thousand, or a million, or a thousand million (we will never know for certain) have appeared and become extinct.
...
Because we see evolution in terms of a linear chain of ancestry and descent, we tend to ignore the possibility that some of these ancestors might have been side branches instead — collateral cousins, rather than direct ancestors. The conventional, linear view easily becomes a story in which the features of humanity are acquired in a sequence that can be discerned retrospectively — first an upright stance, then a bigger brain, then the invention of toolmaking, and so on, with ourselves as the inevitable consequence.
New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps.
...
In cladistics, presumptions about particular courses of ancestry and descent are abandoned as unprovable or unknowable. Yet cladistics does more than state that we are all cousins. It is a formal way of investigating the order in which organisms are cousins, by examining the possible alternatives. Cladograms are statements of collateral relationship of greater or lesser extent. Given that, they sidestep the question of whether Yorick is my ancestor, or if any fossil is the ancestor of any other, because the answer to these questions can never be known. In other words, cladistics acknowledges the discontinuities of Deep Time and, by acknowledging them, transcends them. "
As a result I found Gee's book useful for my research about evolution, but it is also depressing to me. It depresses me because it makes the strong case that we can never never know for sure if a specific extinct species (represented by specific fossils or by only one fossil) is the actual ancestor (linear ancestor/direct ancestor) of another specific species. Consider hominid evolution for example.
The more hominid fossils that are found the more hominid species are known to have existed, and these have many similarities with each other. As result it becomes increasing difficult to be confident of which species descended from a specific other species It even become hard to define which species to assign a particular fossil to. Hominid evolution is now thought of being much more like a bush (or a thicket) with numerous intertwined branches and twigs, than a tree. For example, the KNM-ER 1470 fossil was first assigned to Homo habilis, but many years later in science books it tended to be more commonly assigned to Homo rudolfensis, then later sometimes to Australopithecus rudolfensis instead, and now sometimes to Kenyanthropus rudolfensis instead.
For many years (especially until the fossil named "Lucy" was found") evolutionist anthropologists made family trees saying that our species descended from Australopithecus africanus, but years later the family trees in science books usually showed our species as not descending from Australopithecus africanus, though descending from Australopithecus afarensis (and sometimes also Homo habliis). [When Australopithecus africanus is shown these days in family trees, it typically is shown as leading to a dead end.] Many recent evolutionist biology books and evolutionist anthropology books don't even include family trees of hominids, instead they simply show a chart which indicates the time periods various hominid species existed and sometimes cladograms are also presented to indicate the relationships between the various hominid species.
For decades Homo erectus was presented as an ancestor of Homo sapiens, but now sometimes it is depicted as not being an ancestor of Homo sapiens. Instead of being shown as our ancestor some scientists assign some fossils to the species Homo ergaster - fossils that previously were assigned to Homo erectus (and that still are assigned to Homo erectus by other scientists). As a result, diagrams of family trees made by those scientists (the ones who split the species Homo erectus into Homo ergaster and Homo erectus) show our species, Homo sapiens, as having descended from Homo ergaster but not also from Homo erectus.
Thinking has also changed regarding the classification of Homo floresiensis. Initially it was thought to have descended (as a dwarf species) from Homo erectus, but now it is known to be more primitive than what researchers had thought. See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-the-hobbits-of-indonesia-2012-12-07/ and https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/10/12/1480331.htm for more information about that new viewpoint.
-
31
If only someone had kicked my a$$.. (This is post is not for theists)
by HowTheBibleWasCreated ini think back on the 30+ years of bs as well as my fading almost a decade and even now being low key in person to hopefully save my nieces from the wt.
i'm a wreck in some ways.
i'm other days i'm stable however when it comes to theism i depart quickly and with anger!
-
-
Disillusioned JW
HowTheBibleWasCreated, I think it would be a good idea for your book (or some other book you might write) to not be exclusively with JWs in mind, but also for anyone else in a semi-fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Christian religion/sect/cult. Perhaps you did intend have it in mind for multiple groups of religious people. The book I am writing has that perspective (though it might include an appendix especially focused on JWs). For those who are in a religion/sect/cult that strongly discourages critical thinking and independent thinking, it will probably also have a section that gives a warning to them about such.