Posts by garyneal

29

A conversation With A Jehovah's Witness

by freetosee in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-fvqzcziqe&feature=related.

garyneal

LOL

I remembered seeing this sometime back trying to recall the scripture.

I see this caught the attention of the e-watchman as well as he gave a video response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKjuDIQnglM

wordy wordy wordy

112

The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

by AllTimeJeff in

i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

I could not agree with you more. I think the real issue with this is that the society needs 607 BCE to prove 1914 through their elaborate interpretations of Daniel's prophecy and the seven gentile times. Interesting to note, I looked through my old bible that has a lot of annotations and other research in it and it too places the date of Jerusalem's destruction at 586/7 BCE. Add to that, Raymond Franz commenting on Carl Johnson's research and how people were setting prophetic dates based on their interpretations of the Bible from as far back as the second century CE.

In summary, 1914 can't be the date the WT says it is. They claim that they use the Bible to determine 607 BCE and the 2520 years for the 'seven gentile times' and yet they totally ignore Jesus's words in that it is not for us to know these times and dates. To freydo's point:

When the Bible says, "Thou shalt not.....," there will always be people who will come up with some alternative nonsense.

And yet, then the Bible says that we are not to know the times and the dates for the time of the end, etc, the WT society will come up with some alternative nonsense.

46

In your own words ... what is the truth?

by sacolton in

in one sentence, can you define what the real "truth" is?

not the watchtower version (we all know what that is)..

garyneal

Truth is simple and it is objective. Man has made it subjective and complicated it.

7

How Many Words in a Book?

by OnTheWayOut in

i have been working on an autobiography.

i really had wondered if i would ever try to get it published while my mother is still alive because it's about getting into and out of the jw's.

as a fader, it would have to be submitted under an assumed author-name with some of the basic facts slightly reorganized and all the names changed to protect the fader.. anyway, i am up to about 22,000 words at somewhere between one-third and one-half of the way to the end.

garyneal

When you publish it, let us know. I would be very interested in reading it.

13

144,000

by elder-schmelder in

jw
friends

http://cgi.ebay.com/charles-russel-watchtower-paper-weight-jehovah_w0qqitemz370316401205qqcmdzviewitemqqptzlh_defaultdomain_0?hash=item563893da35.

is this a literal price or a figurative price?.

.

garyneal

> It's buy now or best offer. Someone should offer him $607

Then up the ante to $1,914.

24

Does Your Life Have Purpose?

by minimus in

jw
friends

witnesses teach that when you learn the "truth", you finally have a purpose in life.. when some witnesses decide to leave the religion, they might experience an emptiness because they realize now that their way of life really was totally a sham.. are jehovah's witnesses right about those that leave the organization no longer having a purpose in life?.

garyneal

My purpose is to transport large amounts of cola from the bottles to the urinals.

112

The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

by AllTimeJeff in

i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

garyneal

Thanks Billy and thetrueone,

You two are the only ones who has given me sources 'outside the WT' used to 'validate' 607 BCE. Granted, both sources are highly suspect and one is rooted in the occult (though someone posted on my thread of this topic that 'biblical pyramidology' was not of the occult).

Anyway, even if it was possible to conclude that 607 BCE was the accurate date it still doesn't prove 1914 because no one who has ever set dates on events concerning Christ's second advent was ever right. This is something we are not suppose to know.

Still though, I am curious why celebrated WT scholars insist that the Kings list is incorrect.

Scholar,

Could you show me from the Bible alone why the king's list is not correct?

95

For those who researched 607...

by AwSnap in

jw
friends

did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

garyneal

Well, it appears that no matter what, scholar is simply going to just keep repeating himself and directing me to watchtower sources. He hasn't provided a single independent source to validate his assertions.

Frankly, I am at a point to where it really should not matter a whole lot anyway because proponents of the 1914 teaching miss a very important point.

Acts 1:7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Mark 13:32 -- No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

The problem I have with 1914 is that it used to be said that Armageddon would happen that year and when WWI happened, I am sure the Russellites thought they were right. Now the WTS teaches that 1914 was the time of the end and the year Christ began reigning invisibly, but before the late 1920's 1799 was the time of the end and 1874 was the year Christ began reigning invisibly.

What is truly sad is that my dub wife will continue to believe in 1914 so long as there are people like scholar feeding her the information she wants to hear and directing her to Watchtower sources. She will not care that none of the WT chronology is supported by outside sources. Yet, if a pastor dogmatically proclaimed that Christ was born on 12-25, even when presented with books and encyclopedias that say otherwise, my wife would think this guy is off his rocker and simply is trying to believe what he wants. Now flip that back on the WTS concerning 607 BCE and tell me if they don't equally look like they are off their rockers?

People like that remind me of this scripture:

2 Timothy 4:3 -- For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

4

Birthday party

by Luisin in

jw
friends

look people,.

i'm not follower of jehovah's witnesses, but i have a serious question, and i expect serious answers to the following:.

i have a co-worker who is a jehovah's witness.

garyneal

He responded:

On 31 Dec 2009 at 0:50, Gary Neal wrote:

Hi Gary!

Thanks for taking the time to reply.
The only person who replied was you, and I'll certainly get some ammunition out of it.
The Question remains if JW people are open to ANY KIND OF amendments.
It doesn't look like, convincing arguments seem not to be acceptable in order to change their attitude.

Heck, whatever....
I'm collecting a bit of ammunition for discussions, and your contribution definitely helped.
The regrettable thing is that this elsewise bright and intelligent lad (my co-
worker) shuts completely down when it comes to discussing JW, he becomes like a maniac citing bible sections without any sensitivity for the real world we live in.

Greetings, /Ludwig

112

The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

by AllTimeJeff in

i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

garyneal

Scholar

Post 1856

Serious scholars support 586, APOSTATES and some scholars support 587, celebrated WT scholars support 607.

I can understand the one year discrepency between 586 and 587 due to Labashi-Marduk reigning for 3 to 9 months (depending on the source).

I still don't see the twenty(-one) year discrepency between 586/7 BCE and 607 BCE. You're right, I do have a problem and it appears that the celebrated WT scholars have a problem too.