You are so welcome here.........As a former elder and one who is still "in" I know the pain of living the "double life". If you don't mind a suggestion for "family study" I suggest actual "bible study" that is - studying the original Greek and different translations and commentaries - not sticking to Watchtower publications. It is easy to justify if you find a quote from a Watchtower publication and decide to look at the actual book they are quoting from to see the information. You will begin to slowly show your family how the WTS mis-quotes sources and has no real support in research materials. Use different translations too and when the New World Translation is way off do some research on why and you'll show your children what they need to know without being an "apostate".
allelsefails
JoinedPosts by allelsefails
-
188
Hi I hope i am welcome
by cantleave inhi guys and gals,.
i am a hypocryte.
brought up in the "truth" but know its not.
-
-
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
-
-
allelsefails
We haven't even slammed Scholar with the WTS own info on the reigns of Babylonian Monarch's. (quotes available upon request)....... ..... Babylon fell 539 B.C..... Plus Nabonidus 17 years ....... Plus Labashi-Marduk 1 year .... Plus Neriglissar 4 years ..... Plus Evil-Merodach 2 years .... Plus Nebuchadnezzar 43 years ..... Equals start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign 606 B.C. .... Minus Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year .... Date for Destruction 587 B.C. .......... Since the rule of kings take us back only as far as 587 where does the Watchtower add the additional 20 years. They move the rulership by each King back 20 years, and then extend Nabonidus' reign by 20 years. ...... For the Watchtower timeline to be correct Nabonidus needs to have ruled for 36 years, yet the Society admits archaeologists determine he only ruled for 17 years. ..... Watchtower 1968 August 15 p. 491 "Other investigators say this: "The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17 [Footnotes]"VII/14/17": The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus' reign. (Oct. 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus." I asked about this qoute from Josephus earlier, but got no response. "Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius." (Against Apion Book I, Chapter 21)
-
37
The Case for Unitarianism
by UnDisfellowshipped in* the bible teaches that there is only one true god, only one person who is almighty god, and this one person is the father.
(see john 17:3; john 5:37, 5:44; john 8:54; isaiah 63:15-16; malachi 1:6; 1st corinthians 8:6; ephesians 4:6).
(john 5:19-20; 5:30; 8:28; 12:49).
-
-
allelsefails
Thanks for your obvious hard work to answer my questions. I agree the to the point that John 16:14 AND 15 point strongly to the duality of Father and Son, however it still does not say "given everything he received". John 16:14-15 (NASB): "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. "All things that the Father has are Mine; [all things the father have belong to Jesus] therefore I said that He takes of Mine [not everything, not the name, not specified at all] and will disclose it to you." It does NOT say HE (spirit) takes everything that is mine, it says He takes of (or from) what is mine. As far as the Son having all authority and power of the Father - no problem to accept that. As I said The Father gives it to the Son! That explains the relationship perfectly. The Father has it all by himself, but decides to share authority, power, abilities, knowledge, etc.. with his Son. This fits perfectly with the illustration of Father and Son. Father gives to Son life, training, inheritance, abilities, nowledge, wisdom ...... Son gives to Father obedience, worship, honor. (You don't need the references - right?)Can the Son be equal to the Father? in power - yes, in knowledge - yes, in abilities - yes. Are they the same person? NO ...... I will pray and study on your other thoughts here about John 10 vs. 17 having different context. Obviously the context of a scripture is essential to understand it, but I do see the use of the same words and phrases in the same book to be a connecting factor to use in interpretation (chapters were divided up later. Thanks again for your comments.
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
-
-
allelsefails
Scholar - you should realize that non-JW scholar would mean non Russellite/pyamidologist scholar as well. The fact that the list you gave us is so ridiculous just undermines your position even more (if you could undermine something that has already collapsed). Please try again on the scholarly support of 607.
-
15
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 06-28-09 WT Study (GREATER MOSES)
by blondie inthe bible that were never in the bible.
inspired christian greek scriptures in various places.
"the christ"?.
-
-
allelsefails
Thanks for the post. Awesome critique. One thing - para 16 - JWs recently changed their ideas (again) on these subjects "babies" killed in the flood, Sodom and Gomorroah could be ressurected, and Armageddon..... they just believe Jehovah will be "Just and loving". Their reasoning is meaningless - nothing scriptural of course, but it has changed. Thanks alot for the post.
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
-
-
allelsefails
AllTimeJeff - Everytime I read your posts it is the voice of Colbert in my head. Awesome pic there.
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
-
-
allelsefails
Scholar is awesome. I thought it would be impossible to keep rambling inane references in the light of actual logic, facts, and reasoning. He has proven me so wrong. It is possible to keep rambling inane references in the light of actual logic, facts, and reasoning even for a month! The thing that made me realize the "scholarship" of the WTS was not scholarship at all was to look at how often they used nonsense reasoning. You can see it clearly in Scholars posts. Saying something is "obvious", "clear", "evident" about a text does not make it so. What is "obvious", "clear", "evident" to me is not to you. I have ideas about what scriptures actually mean, but I would never claim my understanding is the "one and only truth". Also to see the lack of quotes supporting Scholar's position is embarrassing to all JW's. Again the WTS does the same thing misquotes scholars to support its position and then say all other scholars can be rejected because they disagree with the bible. I am still waiting just like Jeff for a non-JW scholarly support of 607.
-
60
Marijuana?
by Mando8000 ini would like to speak with a jw or anyone here who believes in god, and i would like in fact i dare you to find a reason why humans shouldnt use cannabis.
<--(marijuana) actually i will give you one and it is the only one that i have found.
the only reason i found is because in most places it is illegal and god says to respect there laws but anything besides this i believe is bs so again i dare u to give me a reason besides what i stated..
-
-
allelsefails
Why would anyone on this site have an answer to this question? Smoke away brother. I believe in God and I believe it is a bad idea to to break the law. However smokin weed isn't much worse than getting drunk. It does damage your body and kill a few brain cells, but so does red meat. 120 years ago opium was the headache drug of choice - It really made your headache go away. Everything should be legal - but authorized and distributed only by the government - that will make it really boring and no one will want it.
-
37
The Case for Unitarianism
by UnDisfellowshipped in* the bible teaches that there is only one true god, only one person who is almighty god, and this one person is the father.
(see john 17:3; john 5:37, 5:44; john 8:54; isaiah 63:15-16; malachi 1:6; 1st corinthians 8:6; ephesians 4:6).
(john 5:19-20; 5:30; 8:28; 12:49).
-
-
allelsefails
You wrote - "In either case, I can't see how an impersonal force would have a Name, and I can't see how an impersonal force can have any authority, especially not authority on an equal level with God." The law is a great example - the law carries authority though it is an impersonal thing. The law has the authority of the government behind it, just as the spirit (if it is impersonal) has the authority of Jehovah behind it. As you agree the "name" in this verse could refer only to the authority - certainly not a clear point either way to build belief on. The law can be refered to in many ways - as having intent, as being fair, ....... You wrote - "My point with John 17:11 was that the Father has given the Son the Father's Name. And in John 16:14, Jesus has given everything He received to The Holy Spirit (including this Name)." I do not see in 16:14 the phrase "given everything he received" I don't see anything that indicates that at all. Again maybe the New World Translation has changed something here? I don't see his name or authority as clearly part of this exchange. ..... You wrote - "In either case, I can't see how an impersonal force would have a Name, and I can't see how an impersonal force can have any authority, especially not authority on an equal level with God." I agree and have no good explanation for this except that the writers have poetic license in some of these verses. (lame yeah?) I do not see how a "person could be poured out at Pentacost 33CE or empower Christians through out history. Or be something God gives us if we pray for it. Also would you care to comment on John 17:11's use of "they may be one just as we are." I still think this verse explains the realtionship well. The Son and Father are one the same way we Christians are one - united in purpose and intent. Just as a husband and wife become one in purpose at their marriage.
-
54
The Governing Body's REAL critical date
by Doug Mason inrussell taught that 1914 ce would bring in an unprecedented era of peace.
in 1930, rutherford moved russells date of the parousia from 1874 to 1914. .
thus until 1930 not one follower had recognised the currently ascribed significance in heaven to the time that corresponds to 1914 on our earth.
-
-
allelsefails
I can't see recent posts here. i hope posting will help it works sometimes.