Posts by djeggnog

posted

36
Do You Consider Yourself Religious? Do You Believe In God? Are You Spiritual?
by minimus in
1. jw
2. friends
i do not consider myself religious in any way.

i do believe in "god" and i think i am a spiritual person to some degree.. what about you?.
djeggnog

@Diest:
A two page post that ends with...in a nutshell. I like it.
I did, too. In fact, I actually used the word "nutshell" thinking it could possibly draw the scorn that evidently had you in its grip. I trust that the experience of reading a two-page post wasn't too unpleasant for you. It is a known fact even that, for many folks, sleeping is so much more pleasant to them than reading.
@djeggnog wrote:
So what we mean when we use a particular word, phrase or expression must be established if what we believe is to be understood by others.
@OnTheWayOut wrote:
I think most people do a good job of establishing what they mean so that others can understand.
With this statement of yours, were you making a kind of cruel joke or what, or is this what you really think my reprobative friend? I think most people on JWN express themselves using whatever words they wish sufficient to make their point without bothering to "[establish] what they mean so that others can understand" what they are saying. I dare say to you that "most people" don't typically bullet point or footnote what they say on here; they just say it, and if there should turn out to be something that they don't understand, they might post a message seeking clarification of that which was unclear to them in some way regarding a vague or ambiguous "word, phrase or expression" that was used. Or they might not, depending upon how important it is to them to gain an understanding of what was said.
Just like the word "spiritual," the word "gospel" means one thing to some, another thing to some and something else to some, and if we don't take the time to explain or "establish" what it is we mean by the word, "gospel," then when we should use this word, aren't we really leaving it up to people that hear what we say or read what we write and don't know what we mean by "gospel" to determine for themselves that what we mean by "gospel" isn't what they mean by "gospel"? Now you were once as are so many here on JWN one of Jehovah's Witnesses, @OTWO, so I would expect you to know what I mean by "the gospel," and while I don't know you personally, I don't think you to be either stupid or clueless, but judging from your comment (quoted above), I feel I should repeat my question to you:
If we don't take the time to explain or "establish" what it is we mean by the word, "gospel," then when we should use this word, aren't we really leaving it up to people that hear what we say or read what we write and don't know what we mean by "gospel" to determine for themselves that what we mean by "gospel" isn't what they mean by "gospel"? Let's say you were asked by someone, "What is the gospel?" what would you say? One of the ways I might explain the gospel is as follows:
The gospel is the message from Jehovah God that began to be preached by the Lord Jesus Christ as to how the whole world of mankind that had been born into a world in which they have had to learn the dire consequences that flow from sin would eventually be brought into the way of righteousness and given the privilege of securing for themselves the opportunity afforded us by the ransom paid by Jesus Christ, which not only pardoned us, but satisfied justice as well, and now enables all mankind to enjoy eternal life.
Now what if I were to have used the word "gospel" without "establishing" what it was I meant by the word? There's a gospel currently being preached in the world that is espoused by Baptists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Seventh-Day Adventists, where the Lord God Jesus devised a diabolical plan where the billions of people today as well as those that had lived on this earth all the way back to Adam were predestined to spend eternity experiencing torture in the flames of a hellfire for their sins as "the damned," while the folks born since Jesus began to preach the gospel, not because of their works, but due to their luck in being alive to have heard the gospel, will all receive God's favor because of their faith in Jesus' work on the cross and spend their eternity in heaven as God's "elect" as they observe the fate of the "unlucky" damned, who undergo perpetual torment night and day while the "lucky" elect enjoy perpetual heavenly bliss.
Another gospel that is currently being preached in the world is being espoused by adherents of the Roman Catholic Church, which pronounces the entire world of mankind from the billions alive today back to Adam, including all of the Protestant religions, as doomed to spend eternity being tormented in the flame of hell for not being Catholics, who will all have escaped the fate of the heretics through the redemptive work of the Lord God Jesus as supplemented by their ritual acceptance of the Mass and receiving the sacraments, and their many penances and prayers to the saints, which purged them of their sins.
I cannot speak to what "most people do," and you could be right, @OTWO, but I make it a point to establish what I mean "so that others can understand" what it is I'm saying. Likewise, I explained what I meant by "spiritual" so that there would be no doubt as to what it was I meant.
I don't think they are defining "spiritual" as they please. They are defining it according to some application of the accepted definitions.
To be honest, I don't much care what you think other people mean whenever they should use the word, "spiritual." I do want to know what you mean by the things you say, I do want to know what other people mean by the things they say, but you may be someone that is only interested in positing your point of view and you may be someone that cares little or nothing about trying to understanding what it is I am saying, and that's fine. As you can see from how I define the word "gospel," whatever "accepted definitions" may exist for the word "spiritual," I make it a point to distinguish between my definition of the word and someone else's definition of the word.
For instance, I understand that djeggnogg redefines it to only allow Christians who accept the Bible to be able to be "spiritual." He seems to feel that the Bible is the only valid "dictionary" of such words.
I'm glad that you wrote "it seems," because it does seem to me that you mistaken about what I "feel," let alone what I believe to be the significance of the Bible. You wrote how you "understand" that I had redefined the word "spiritual," to only allow Christians who accept the Bible to be 'spiritual.'" Why? I didn't mention acceptance of the Bible as being a factor in determining whether or not someone is spiritual or spiritual-minded did I? I have the mind of Christ, so I don't believe I would have done what you suggest here, but just to check, please go back and re-read what it was I actually wrote, @OTWO.
In my previous message, I wrote about the physical or natural man, who is motivated by his fleshly desires, who is motivated to do the things he does by his five senses. I cited 1 Corinthians 2:14, 15, where, in pertinent part, Paul explains that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." I wasn't redefining the word "spiritual." I was merely making the point that Paul was making, to wit, that the natural man isn't a spiritual person, because the spiritual person is someone that is led by God's spirit, someone -- again according to Paul -- that doesn't reject, but readily receives or accepts "the Spirit of God." In identifying who is or isn't spiritual, Paul wasn't referring to Christians at all and neither was I. He stated that the natural man isn't a spiritual person and why he isn't a spiritual-minded individual: "He who is spiritual judgeth all things," whereas it isn't possible for the natural man, who is devoid of God's spirit, to judge the spiritual man. There are many Christians that accept the Bible who are not "spiritual" persons. Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans are all of them "Christians who accept the Bible," but they are not spiritual persons. Let me repeat that in the event you didn't "hear" me, OTWO: There are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Lutherans, who all profess to be "Christians [that] accept the Bible," but they are not spiritual persons.
As to all of these Bible-believing Christians, Paul goes on to say, at 1 Corinthians 3:1, that are "carnal" Christians, that is to say, they are fleshly Christians, "babes in Christ," Paul says in this verse. They, like the natural man, are driven by their five senses to do according to what they feel. I don't at all "feel" the Bible to be "a dictionary" by any stretch of your imagination. The Bible is the product of God's holy spirit that motivates the spiritual person to share the gospel with others; it's not a dictionary.
Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans are each one of them "Christians who accept the Bible" -- I intentionally exclude secular Christians, who are "Christians" in name only, but only refer to Bible-believing Christians -- but they are "babes in Christ," fleshly-minded Christians, carnal-minded Christians, and not spiritual-minded persons. Many Jehovah's Witnesses think themselves to be spiritual persons, but they are fleshly Christians, too. You may no longer be one of Jehovah's Witnesses yourself, @OTWO, but you have to be a Bible-believing Christian, otherwise you and I would be having a very different discussion here, but there's really no distinction to be drawn between you and these other carnal-minded Christians.
Ask one of these Christians the question, "What is the gospel?" and you will get some rather interesting answers to the question, but they are not spiritual persons. I'm a Bible-believing Christian, but I believe in a different gospel than these other Bible-believing Christians do. I don't worship God in trinity; some of them do. I don't worship Jesus as God; some of them do. (2 Corinthians 11:4) I don't believe one's acceptance of the Bible to be something that makes one spiritual; some of them do. I don't believe it possible to have adulterous political relations and patriotically wave my nation's flag while at the same time being loyal to the Jesus as God's appointed king; some of them do. I believe the true test of patriotism is paying my taxes and obeying the law of the land just as I would as a citizen under the heavenly rule of the kingdom of God.
I understand that even though he keeps saying that it is just an opinion.
You understand what now?
I love how it is just an opinion but "...in a nutshell, a spiritual person must have God's point of view."
We are all of us on JWN contributing our own opinions to these threads. In a nutshell, a spiritual person must have God's point of view," is an opinion. It's my opinion. You don't have to agree with it. If you want, you can be of the opposite point of view and opine that a spiritual person does not need God's point of view, and that would be your opinion. I don't get the point in your saying this. If you were you attempting to be clever, you totally missed.
The word "spiritual" can be a loaded word, so as long as each person defines it, who gives a crap what djeggnog thinks?
Wait -- hold on there. I just quoted you writing the following:
I don't think they are defining "spiritual" as they please. They are defining it according to some application of the accepted definitions.
If it is true that the word "spiritual" can be described as being "a loaded word," and folks are defining this word "according to some application of the accepted definitions," then shouldn't I define my use of the word if I know that the way I define "spiritual" doesn't fit or may not fit any of the "accepted definitions" out there? Being someone that was formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses means that JW-speak isn't foreign to you, so should I use the words "soul" and "hell," you're spiritually bilingual and understand my use of these two words perfectly. I need not explain to you what I mean by them even though my definitions do not accord with "some applicable of the accepted definitions," so how "loaded" would either of these be to you, @OTWO? Why should anyone care what you think as to how the word "spiritual" should be refined?
For that matter, it's a label and if you think Bible-believers should have a lock on the word, then I will just take another label like "caring rational human" to apply to those that reject the Bible. But that's just an opinion.
Well, for some, "spiritual" is an adjective that might be used as a "label" or as an attribute to describe someone, but I don't think Bible-believers have a lock on the word "spiritual" or that they should control or have the final say on how this word ought to be used. If this is what you thought I believe, then you have another "think" coming, and you should use it wisely. As to this "opinion" of yours as to the phrase, "caring rational human," were you clothing yourself with this phrase diametrically as a label so that you would assert this phrase to be the polar opposite of "spiritual" or what? Part of what you said here makes no sense to me, so maybe your rephrasing what you said here would help to get across to me the point that you intended to make(but didn't).
@Mr. Falcon:
some of the most "spiritual" people in history didn't even believe in Jesus. So what's that tell you?
What this tells me is that you would use the word "spiritual" differently than I would use it, since Bible-believing Christians would be more apt to use this word in a way that accords with the way Paul's uses it at 1 Corinthians 2:15 than in the way in which non-believers would use the word. It's important to keep in mind that not all Bible-believing Christians are spiritual-minded; some are, some aren't.
@djeggnog
36
Do You Consider Yourself Religious? Do You Believe In God? Are You Spiritual?
by minimus in
1. jw
2. friends
i do not consider myself religious in any way.

i do believe in "god" and i think i am a spiritual person to some degree.. what about you?.
djeggnog

@minimus
Do You Consider Yourself Religious? Do You Believe In God? Are You Spiritual?
I do not consider myself religious in any way. I do believe in "God" and I think I am a spiritual person to some degree.
You may, in fact, be a spiritual person, in a sense. Of course, this is just my opinion, and someone else may have a different opinion, but people can define words as they please, and I don't just mean Jehovah's Witnesses, mind you, for everyone, religious or non-religious, is free to define words as they wish.
As an example, were you and I were discussing the pleadings that one files in a courtroom, which are called "motions," and the two of us as well as the judge understood what was meant when using this word, there wouldn't likely be anyone thinking that by "motions" that any of us would have in mind (1) "a formal proposal" (e.g., when voting) or by "motions" you could be thinking about (2) "movement" (i.e., involving a change of location), but when I say "motions," I'm not referring to either of these two things, but to the pleadings I filed to set aside and vacate a judgment entered against my client. So what we mean when we use a particular word, phrase or expression must be established if what we believe is to be understood by others.
It is evident that some here are of the belief that an atheist can be a spiritual person, and some here might be of the belief that an agnostic can be a spiritual person, which would then lead some to conclude that anyone that is a spiritual person must also be a religious person, and that a failure to believe in God doesn't disqualify anyone from being said to be a spiritual person, which is true; it doesn't. One could describe someone that is 72" in height as "tall" if they are 62" in height wearing heels, but to someone who is also 72" in height, someone 81" in height would be considered "tall," so whether someone is or isn't spiritual can be just a matter of one's perspective.
I could tell you that it isn't the case that just because someone that professes to be a Christian that this automatically makes that person a spiritual person. I could also say that just because someone attends church every Sunday, tithes a tenth of their income to their church and has even been baptized as a Christian doesn't necessarily make that individual a spiritual person. But this would just be my opinion, would it not?
Regarding the natural man, the physical man -- the Bible says that he doesn't receive anything of the spirit of God because to him all of such things are foolishness, so he can't get to know those things, he doesn't understand them, he perceives spiritual things to be foolish, so, according to the Bible, such a person would not be spiritual. Such persons don't have God's favor because they don't have God's point of view. But regarding the spiritual man, the apostle Paul states at 1 Corinthians 2:14, 15, KJV, that he "judgeth all things." One way the spiritual person might be described is to say that he is a God-oriented person, but this would just be according to Paul's perspective, a perspective that would only be based on Paul's opinion, would it not?
According to the Bible, a spiritual person would be someone that receives the spirit of God, and while many things can be said to be "spiritual," those that read and study the Bible are the ones that are receiving God's spirit. That's just one viewpoint, one perspective, one opinion: Paul's. So the spiritual man would then be someone that understands spiritual things, examines them, comprehends them, and who judges all things, because, unlike the natural man, he receives the things of the spirit of God, he examines all things, he perceives them and consequently is able to look at things from God's point of view. For this reason, his opposite -- the natural or physical man -- doesn't see things from God's point of view, he cannot see things from God's viewpoint at all, and thus, being unable to comprehend spiritual things, he is in no position to judge the spiritual man.
However, at1 Corinthians 3:1-3, KJV, Paul wrote:
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"
Did you notice what Paul was calling these Christians? Three times he uses a certain word to describe them. He said that they were "carnal" or fleshly Christians. What exactly does it mean to be "carnal," or carnally minded? At Romans 8:6-8, this same apostle wrote the following:
"For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
If you were to read Colossians 3:5, KJV, which states --
"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry."
-- then you would know that we should not be trying to satisfy certain fleshly cravings that we might have, that all such should be 'mortified,' treated as if they were dead since the fleshly cravings Paul mentions in this verse appeal to the sensory organs, they are appealling to our senses of sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch, but are as useless as a corpse, and should be 'mortified.' BTW, under the Christian arrangement, we do not hear things like "Thou shalt not do this..." or "Thou shalt not do that...." but what we read in the Bible are requests like "Mortify ... your members...," that is to say, "deaden your senses with respect to this and that...," and "Don't be carnal minded Christians."
God gave us these five senses we have, but how do these five senses control, rule and dominate the physical, the natural man? I'll mention just two of them. Take sight.
Right away we think of the eye, for it is with the eye that one is able to see. But whatever the natural man sees, if he wants it, he's going to try to get it, if he can get it. It doesn't make any difference to him that what he sees belongs to someone else -- if he's envious of it, if he covets that, if he has to do wrong to get it -- none of that makes any difference to him. Does it appeal to him so that he asks his eye, "Do you want that"? "Yes, I do, want it" the eye answers. But does he ever ask the eye, "Does it belong to someone else?" No, he never asks that question.
Instead, the eye says, "Go after what you see anyway; go get it," and the natural man moves in that direction to get it. It could be the craving for clothing -- a new suit or a pair of Nikes he sees in the store -- or the craving for food -- a couple of Big Macs as an in-between-meal snack represented by the Golden Arches he sees off to his right as he drives in traffic, navigating his vehicle toward it -- or his craving for extramarital pleasure -- he sees how very attractive the woman at his job is and he knows it doesn't matter to her that he is a married man, because he knows that all she wants is to spend an hour or two with him at her home in secret and the desire is mutual. He could have deadened such carnal desires, but he had no desire to do so. In fact, his wife won't be there when he pursues his carnal desires with her, and she's not going to tell anyone.
You see, this woman has scruples, not necessarily religious ones, but she is "spiritual" in a sense and doesn't want to break up a family. Being "spiritual" in a sense, she has standards of her own, and so she has no interest in marrying a man that would cheat on his wife. No, her only interest is in knowing those things about him that only his wife knows about him, the intimate things, and in maybe doing things to him that his wife doesn't do as well as she or that she has no interest in doing to him, and he knows this about her, he knows that she's a freak, she even told him so, and she wants him as much as he wants her. He doesn't fancy leaving his wife to live in a "committed" relationship with her for a time, and doesn't fantasize about this at all. If the natural man sees something he wants, and it appeals to him, then if he can get it, he just moves in that direction to get it almost instinctively. Let's take a second one, hearing.
We think of the ear, for it is with the ear that one is able to hear. But whatever the natural man hears, if he wants it, if it's pleasurable to him, he moves in that direction. He wants to hear whatever is pleasurable to him, and he wants to hear it all the time, not recognizing that there's a time for everything. And if what he hears should be disturbing to others, don't tell him that; he doesn't want to hear it. It appeals to him.
Does he ever ask the ear, "Is what I hear something that is good for me, something to which I should listen?" No, he never asks that question. His ear says, "That sounds like a good beat, that sound works for me, that sounds like something by which I could benefit," and off he moves in that direction. The words in the song are profane or are in bad taste, but that doesn't matter to him; the lyrics are attached to a rhythm that pulsates through his entire body, and they appeal to his ear, and other like-minded individuals love this song as much as he does, so that when the ear asks him, "Do you like what you hear?" the natural man says, "Yes, I do."
But what about the children in the neighborhood who are playing nearby that can hear these songs with the explicit lyrics? Should he lower the volume so they cannot hear the "nasty" song as he drives by in his car? Yes, he should, but "No," he says. "Let the children hear what I like to hear. Their parents like this song and their kids have probably heard the song it before anyway. In fact, let me turn it up a little more," he says.
What about the neighbors? It is 1:30 am. Perhaps he should reduce the volume somewhat so as not to disturb others. Yes, he should, but no, he doesn't reason this way. "No, let them hear my favorite songs. I'll probably turn it off after this one or the next one," he says. The natural man wants to hear something, if it makes him feel good, you cannot tell him to turn it down, because he paid $350 for the stereo and the speakers, and the CD he just bought set him back $24.99. Plus, it's a free country. If the natural man likes the way it sounds, if it appeals to him, and he wants it, regardless of how others are affected by it, he moves in that direction to get it.
The point is, Jehovah is a holy God and when we gather together for worship in God's spiritual temple, we have entered God's house and are standing is a holy place, a place where uncleanness is impermissible, where the unclean person is just not permitted to stand, let alone enter. Those who are religious in a sense, spiritual in a sense, don't worship in God's spiritual temple. They don't stand in a holy place; they don't worship in a temple at all. The spiritual person understands this and he or she walks by means of God's spirit, while the physical or natural person does not understand this at all, and because the fleshly Christian is fleshly, he or she does not have the mind of Christ, and fleshly persons are not ready for solid food, which belongs to those that are mature Christians. (Galatians 5:16; 1 Corinthians 2:14-16; 3:1-3; Hebrews 5:14)
So in a nutshell, a spiritual person must have God's point of view, and so he cannot be an agnostic, since an agnostic doesn't know God. I'm giving here my opinion, of course, just as many here in this thread has given their opinion as to what they believe constitutes one a spiritual person, and a religious person, but the word "spiritual" is not a loaded one, for either one defines what a spiritual person is according to how the Bible defines the phrase, or one opts to reject the Bible's definition for some other definition, and how one defines this word or this phrase depends upon whose point of view one embraces, either by Paul's opinion as he was led to write by God's spirit or by someone else's opinion.
@djeggnog
10
Refurbished iPhones- Is It Worth it?
by Band on the Run in
1. social
2. entertainment
my finances are tight b/c of illness.

an important part of being desireable to employers is being technologically proficient.

it seems strange b/c my employers would pay for anything even if only remotely related to the job.
djeggnog

@Band on the Run:
A Geek Squad person told me I could purchase an older iphone for about $100. He said Verizon will allow me to upgrade my plan ahead of time if I threatened to go to AT&T. He did not have details on how to threaten AT&T if I am still under K with Verizon.
I have no idea what this Geek Squad person to whom you spoke meant by threatening your current provider (Verizon) to go with another provider (AT&T) in order to force Verizon to let you upgrade your current cell phone to an older iPhone. If you are currently locked into a one- or two-year contract (actually most folks have never been offered a one-year contract, so I should really only be mentioning here the more prominent two-year one), then there is typically a $350 early-termination fee on the Verizon network (a $325 early-termination fee on the AT&T network) with which you will have to contend in order to enter into a new two-year contract with Verizon. Personally, the Sprint network provides satisfactory service as does Verizon and AT&T, depending upon where ones uses their cell phone or other wireless devices (i.e., wireless hotspots), so which network is best is not so much as subjective (as one might think) as it is based on locale/geography, and locale is what I believe to be the driver of the conclusions one reaches as to which wireless provider is best.
Let's say, for example, that you've you have already satisfied 15 months of a 24-month (two-year) contract you have with Verizon. This means you're looking at an early-termination fee of $200 ($350 -(15 x $10)) in addition to the cost of a new iPhone, whether it be one of the older iPhone 3gs or the iPhone 4. You said the Geek Squad person told you that you "could purchase an older iphone for about $100," but with the iPhone 4s being Apple's latest iPhone offering, I don't know if he was referring to an even "older" iPhone, which for reasons I will not get into here is inadvisable, or to the "3gs" or "4" models. Be that as it may, considering that were you to satisfy, say, 23 of such a 24-month contract, you would then be looking at an early-termination fee of $120 ($350 -(23 x $10)) , so you'd be paying $80 less by not terminating your contract until after the 23rd month, and totally avoid having to pay an early-termination fee were you to wait until the two-year contract expires on its own terms. Verizon has decided to impose as a penalty for the early termination of your contract $110, plus $10 for each of the months that remain in your contract (AT&T has decided to impose $85 or $25 less than does Verizon), but I don't think the extra $110 (or AT&T's $85) to be fair.
I should mention here that the Sprint network, which also touts a $350 early-termination fee, forces those wishing to use Sprint-powered iPhones into an individual plan of either a 450-voice minutes, free mobile-to-mobile (to/from on the Sprint network) with unlimited data on its Everything Data Plan for $79.99 (it advertises this plan for $69.99, but the $10 Premium Data add-on is a must) or an unlimited voice minutes, free mobile-to-mobile (to/from on the Sprint network), with unlimited data on its Simply Everything Plan for $109.99 (it advertises this plan for $99.99, but the $10 Premium Data add-on is a must) and unlimited text messaging.
Sprint also offers a "family plan"-equivalent for each of these two plans, which effectively doubles the cost of the individual plan. Because the iPhone can be used as a mobile hotspot, Sprint offers a mobile hotspot option for an extra $29.99/month, which provides support for up to five wifi-enabled devices (i.e., other iOS devices, wireless printers) since Sprint blocks the "personal hotspot" feature of the iPhone 4/4s (which enables it to sell access to this feature separately).
If one actually needs such wifi access to other wireless devices or using the iPhone's Bluetooth tethering feature, I would recommend not subscribing to this personal hotspot feature and instead getting an AT&T Mobile HotSpot Elevate 4G device and paying $49.99/month, which device come with its own lithium battery, which is real portable router, which the iPhone isn't, that supports wireless connections at 4G speed (if used in a location that supports 4G), and it won't prove to be a drain on one's iPhone 4's/4s' battery.
He said I will be amazed by an older iphone over a regular phone.
Perhaps, but I have no opinion, since I have no idea what the Geek Squad guy meant.
MY question is it is worth it? If they are unreliable or I can't interface with other iphones b/c my iphone is too old....
An iPhone is a smartphone, which is a cell phone on which things can be done that most smartphones cannot, that comes with a built-in GPS, but it is no more reliable than any other cell phone. Dropping it, for example, could cause some degree of damage to your iPhone and there is no known cure for klutzism, so you would want to try not to do this or protect yourself by subscribing to Apple's Apple Care program through Sprint for $99, which provides free "green" repairs (iPhone having minor damage) for two years, and up to two $49 "yellow" repairs during this two-year period, while non-subscribers will pay $199 for "green" and "yellow" repairs. (Forget about "red" repairs, which are really whatever the cost of replacing your 8GB, 16GB, 32GB or 64GB iPhone.)
You have to decide if owning an iPhone is worth it to you; no one else can make this decision for you, but they are all of them as reliable as any cell phone might be. The iPhone 3gs comes with 802.11b/g wifi and Bluetooth 2.1; the iPhone 4 comes with 802.11b/g/n wifi and Bluetooth 2.1; and the iPhone4s comes with 802.11b/g/n wifi and Bluetooth 4.0, so your iPhone won't be "too old" to connect to interface with other iPhones, but you will need a iPhone 4 or iPhone 4s to be able to use the Facetime app if this is something of interest to you. (The iTouch, 4th Generation, supports the Facetime app and doesn't require a two-year commitment with a wireless carrier to use and maintain, so an iPhone 3gs would be enough in this case.)
Does anyone have insight over priorities for an iphone or ipad?
Insight is one of those words that is subject to interpretation, so here's my interpretation of your question? There are many apps available for the iPhone and the iPad that will allow you to do many of the things that you may be doing on the Windows or MacIntosh desktop. You may want to use a smartphone, like the iPhone, to do them and even derive some bit of joy knowing that you may be able to these things using your iPhone, but there are reasons that I would rather use a tablet, like the iPad, to do, rather than attempting to do those things using a smartphone.
I definitely want a SmartPhone. My plan is to take Advanced Word and Excel classes at the local community college. I need to learn Outlook and One Note.
Ok. In view of what you say here, you can open and edit Word and Excel documents and well as create Word- and Excel-compatible documents using any of the iOS apps -- i.e., the iPhone, the iPad and the iTouch -- but the word processing and spreadsheet documents that are typically produced using the Microsoft Office suite are not the kind of tasks for which a smartphone, like the iPhone, is as well suited to accomplish as would a tablet, like the iPad. But the iPhone and iPad apps, like "Documents To Go" ($9.99) and "Documents To Go Premium" ($16.99), don't include anything equivalent to Outlook or One Note, although "Microsoft OneNote for iPad" and "Outlook Mail Pro" ($9.99) are available for the iPad. (BTW, Outlook Mail Pro is what is called a "universal" app, which means that it is also supported on the iPhone.)
Also, the feature set peculiar to the Microsoft Office desktop apps, Word, Excel and PowerPoint, is scaled down and thus are not as robust in the corresponding iPhone and iPad apps, so whatever you might learn about Word or Excel in a community college might be of help to you from a theoretical point of view, but there is a learning curve to climb in order to use these iPhone and/or iPad apps. The "Quick Office HD" ($18.99) and "Office^2 HD" ($7.99) apps are specifically designed for the iPad, while "Pages," "Numbers" and "Keynote" ($27.97 @$9.99 each), which can be used to open, create and edit Word-, Excel- and PowerPoint-compatible documents, respectively, are all universal apps.
After having reviewed many of these iOS apps in the past -- I won't tell you where in order to keep "you guys" in suspense about me nor how much I loved writing this response without feeling any need to do a word count! -- I regularly use Documents To Go Premium in court using my iPad, and this app, along with Pages, can be used to create and edit pleadings, except while footnotes in Documents To Go are supported, they can only be created or edited on the Windows or Mac desktop using the "Documents To Go Desktop for iPhone" application; however, footnotes are not only supported in Pages, but they can also be created and edited in Pages as well, but I prefer Documents To Go Premium over Pages. There are actually several reasons why I would recommend Documents To Go Premium over Pages, but I won't go into them here.
Now this message, @BOTR, contains quite a bit of information in it (maybe too much to digest all at once), but your mention of "community college" here suggests to me that maybe you would be content with the iPhone 4 and with buying Documents To Go now, so that you might become acquainted with creating and editing word processing and spreadsheet documents on it, and then upgrading to Documents To Go Premium through an in-app purchase later should you decide to invest in an iPad, which is ideally suited for such tasks, since all of the apps you buy for the iPhone are not only compatible with the iPad, but they can be used on the iPad without your having to pay again for them a second time.
Refurbished phones are fine, since it your new iPhone must be replaced, it will likely be replaced with a refurbished one, but considering the fact that Sprint is currently offering the iPhone 4 with 8GB for $99 with a two-year commitment (see above), your first iPhone 4 will be a new one. If you want to use your first iPhone 4 as a MP3 player and you have many songs, then there's also a 16GB, 32GB and 64GB one for $199, $299 and $399, respectively. If songs are a real consideration for you, you will want to count your songs and count the cost, and then go for it (or not).
@djeggnog
464
Applying Math, Physics, Archeology to THE STORY OF NOAH
by Terry in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
djeggnog

@Retrovirus:
[W]e don't know how many animals - or how God teleported them to Noah's doorstep - or how the neighbours viewed these strange events (why wouldn't they repent and ask for a lift?) - or why the animals didn't eat or squash each other during the week . . .
Awhile back -- maybe as long ago as a year -- I fielded this question you ask here as well as a few other questions that related to the global deluge that I will just paste in here (making just a few minor modifications) with the hope that what I say here will perhaps answer some of your concerns, including this one as to how an almighty God could get what animals that boarded the ark on it without much ado (see Question #7 below).
QUESTION #1:
Is there any scientific evidence that the world at one time was rain-less, enclosed in a "water canopy"? not at all.
So do you, therefore, think it reasonable to conclude that there was no water canopy in the expanse above the earth because no scientific evidence exists to support what the Bible says?
QUESTION #2:
This is a completely retarded idea which is why they have stopped putting it into print....
What have "they" stopped putting into print? I would say that it is your conclusion here that is "retarded." Everything about the global deluge is based on the Bible, even if there is no scientific support for the water canopy that existed in that antediluvian world. There is, however, evidence of the global deluge, but the OP didn't ask about the existence of such.
QUESTION #3:
So now you have an idea with no scientific support which require magic to work as well as a rejection of numerous fundamental results in various fields of science -- it could hardly get any worse.
Not an idea; what I know is based upon what the Bible teaches as to the water canopy since the contents of it was responsible for the destruction of the ancient world in which Noah and those of his family survived the global deluge caused by the emptying out of that "watery deep." The same power that brought the water canopy into existence is the same power that emptied that canopy, and this supernatural power belonged to God. No magic trick or sleight of hand could have accomplished such a feat.
Whereas many of the ideas urged by scientists upon human beings over many centuries, which ideas were said at the time to have been scientific, have had to later be abandoned by these scientists to embrace new ideas based upon new scientific thought, there is nothing to which you could point in the Bible that has ever required revision. Not everyone has faith in what things the Bible teaches, so the fact that you and many others here on JWN find in easy to discount the evidentiary things put forth in the Bible in favor of science isn't surprising, considering that the Bible does speak to the fact that such "harmful and wicked men" do lack faith in the word of God. (2 Thessalonians 3:2)
QUESTION #4:
What is the C14 date of an object from the time of the flood?
What possible difference would it make what the carbon-14 date is for any particular object that you might have had in mind when you asked me this question -- I did notice btw that you were vague in your question by your deciding not to name any particular object -- when those flood waters would make using carbon-14 dating to determine the age of an object an unreliable method of reckoning its age in view of the fact that carbon-14 dating is based upon the assumption that the rate of radioactive decay has been stable? Please read this question again to make sure you understand it so that you do not ask me yet another foolish question as if the 5,568 years that constitutes the half-life of carbon-14 has scientifically been proven to be true.
Do you realize that because our planet's magnetic field had doubled in strength when compared to what it was 5,568 years ago, and the magnetic field is even now decreasing in strength, that it isn't possible to assume the rate at which cosmic rays were bombarding the earth? More radiocarbon is produced when more cosmic rays reach us, which is what occurs when earth's magnetic field becomes weaker in strength. You may not know this, but this is yet another assumption on which carbon-14 dating relies and is why it doesn't matter how old carbon-14 dating reckons an object to be.
It's clear to me that you really don't know enough about the assumptions upon which carbon-14 dating is based to be here challenging me on the science. If you don't want to believe that a water canopy such ever existed, that's ok. Perhaps you knew this already, but belief in the existence of a water canopy isn't a requirement for salvation.
QUESTION #5:
How do you explain the correspondence of dendrochronology, C14 and ice core samples?
Why do you now, after arguing about carbon-14 dating, bring up the technology that uses the relative radiocarbon date and tree ring count to come up with the absolute date of an object? Bone artifacts excavated here on the North American continent that had once been reckoned as being some 30,000 years old were, back in 1986, determined by archaeologists to have been only 3,000 years old. Why would you be here bringing up dendrochronology, carbon-14 dating or ice core samples if you really had an understanding of this subject?
QUESTION #6:
Was the water canopy in orbit or sustained by a [continuous] miracle?
The earth orbits around the sun in approximately 365.25 days, so it would stand to reason that if the water canopy would have been in orbit around the sun as well. Whether you think the orbitting of our planet around the sun to be miraculous or not, I think it to be nothing short of miraculous that everything that exists in the physical universe in which we live, including things like magnetism and gravity, all work in the way they do without any need for man to have to try to find a way to tweak things to make the scientific principles on which these operations are based work properly.
QUESTION #7:
What were the kinds on the ark?
Many that espoused the impossibility of Noah's having gathered some 30,000 to 40,000 animals of all kinds, both those of the "domesticatable" variety (e.g., horses, sheep, goats, camels) and of the "non-domesticatable" wild animal variety (e.g., lions, tigers and bears, oh, my!), and directing them to walk in lock-step, two-by-two, into one of the compartments, or "rooms," contained in that three-story ark, the dimensions of which were, according to Scripture (Genesis 6:15), 300 cubits long (437 ft. 6 in., 133.5 m.), 50 cubits wide (72 ft. 11 in., 22.3 m.) and 30 cubits high (43 ft. 9 in., 13.4 m.), in order to preserve them alive over the year that the ark was going to be their home. (Genesis 6:14-16)
Many people have speculated that if there was a flood, it was local in nature, and if Noah boarded any animals onto the ark, they, all of them, had to have been of the domesticated variety alone, for the rest of the animal kingdom unaffected by such a local flood would not have been in any real danger of extinction. Some have even suggested that seven days wasn't really enough time for Noah to have corraled a male and a female of each kind of animal, and to have boarded them all, believing it to be absurd also that Noah could have taken enough food into the ark to feed both Noah and the other seven family members, as well as all of these animal "kinds."
They believe that feeding so many animals and carting away the lion dung, the giraffe dung, the raccoon dung, the porcupine dung, the crocodile and alligator dung, all of the bird dung from the various birds, the deer and the antelope dung, the bear dung, and dog and cat dung, the pig dung, the cow dung and the bull dung, and all the other dung, in addition to the human excrement that would have been manufactured over the year that Noah and his family would have been aboard that ark would have been a tremendous chore that would surely have overtaxed eight people.
Scripture indicates (at Genesis 1:24) that God made 'cattle, creeping things, and the beasts of the earth after their kind,' just as He made plants and vegetation after their kind, so out of an estimated 1,300,000 species, 60% of which being of the insect variety, Noah didn’t really need to make accommodation for as many pairs of animals as some might imagine, considering inbreeding among the different "kinds" of animals. Scripture also indicates (at Genesis 7:2, 3) that Noah was commanded not just to take pairs of unclean animals, but sevens of clean animals and birds, so not all of these sevens were expected to survive the global deluge since Noah would be offering some of them up as sacrifices to God during the duration of their "voyage" of deliverance.
You asked me here about the kinds that were on the ark, but Scripture is silent on this, but I do have faith that Noah was told to bring flying creatures, domestic animals and all moving animals of the ground into the ark "according to their kinds." (Genesis 6:19, 20) If Noah didn't bring the various "kinds" into the ark, the wide variety of animals that exist today would not exist, since their existence is the result of both Noah's obedience and God's determination that these various animal "kinds" be preserved through the flood along with Noah and his family.
But one thing that often escapes the notice of many of the people that have actually taken the time to read the Genesis account with respect to his building of the ark is that Noah dealt with gathering what food would be needed for a year, while God handled the animals, male and female, that would "come unto [Noah]" (Genesis 6:20). God did something similar when he "brought [the animals] unto Adam to see what he would call them." (Genesis 2:19)
Also, what is hard for me to understand is why anyone should think that Noah would have had to concern himself with bringing more food than would be required to feed his family for a year. What with manna being at least one means we can know from reading the Bible that Jehovah could easily have provided to Noah as a provision to keep His family alive about which the Bible is also silent, I'm pretty sure that foodstuffs weren't a real issue for God, he being almighty and all, and someone scientifically astute enough to have figured out how he could actually suspend "the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) It also seems reasonable to me that whatever we might speculate as to the impossibility of a wooden structure like the ark could have survived that "heavenly ocean" of water that had fallen to the earth as rain, the proof that that ark did survive is the fact that we ourselves -- the descendants of Noah's sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth -- are living today. I really don't think I'm dead, and maybe I'm just speculating about this, but this is where faith comes in, for my faith that I'm not dead is based on evidentiary factors. (Hebrews 11:1)
It seems to me that Noah would also have gathered sufficient food to accommodate the diet of the various animal kinds that would be on the ark, but only enough to last for about seven days' time, for once God closed the door to the ark, God could then have quelled all dissent among the animal kingdom to their feeling a bit cooped up in the ark by putting them all into a state of hibernation for an extended period of time. (Of course, I'm speculating here as to what almighty God Jehovah could have done, but perhaps before even entering the ark, the selected animals had been given an appetite such that they had ingested enough protein to last them for about a year, say, 370 days.) Recall that God did this something similar when he "caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept." (Genesis 2:21)
Now if God demonstrated the ability to put a man to sleep for awhile (and we have absolutely no idea how long the "operation" involving his taking a rib from Adam’s body and forming Eve took, perhaps it took as long as nine months or a year, or even 15 or 20 years, before God completed Eve's creation -- yet another thing about which the Bible is silent), why couldn't God have "caused a deep sleep to fall" upon the animals in the ark? If God needed Noah to bring some of the seeds necessary to grow fruit trees and certain plant life, Scripture is silent on this, too, but if it was necessary, obviously Noah would have brought these seeds aboard the ark to preserve them as well, in view of the fact that flora and fauna exists today not just in New Zealand, the Pacific Islands, Australia and Palestine, but in other places as well, such as in the mountains of Kenya, Malaysia, Tahiti and Brazil.
God asked Noah to build an ark, and Noah obediently did so, so I do not think that Noah would have balked at being asked to bring a few seeds into the ark as well. It does seem to me though that an ecological balance does exist in nature for a reason; of course, I could be wrong. It does occur to me though as I speak of the ecology here that possibly one of the proofs that God had removed the curse that had been upon the ground until after the Flood (Genesis 3:17) is the very existence of flora and fauna, and the rainbow that appears in the cloud after a rain (Genesis 9:11-17) being another proof that serves as a visible reminder of God's promise to mankind, a sign that he would never again bring judgment against the earth by water again. At least, the very existence of the rainbow as a sign is consistent with there having been a global deluge and gives credence to it having occurred. Likewise, I believe the idea that a water canopy once existed from which the flood waters that fell to the earth came to be just as plausible.
The "tradeoff" though is the extremes in temperatures, the intemperate weather, that people have had to learn to live through in certain regions of the earth since the Flood, due to the emptying of the water canopy ("the waters which were above the firmament"--Genesis 1:7) that destroyed that antediluvian world (when "the windows of heaven were opened"--Genesis 7:11), in exchange for the tropical climate that formerly existed when that canopy was in place. Whatever sanitation issues that one might imagine would have arisen during the year, I believe these issues could have been managed by the eight people aboard the ark since the animals would have not have been a problem for anyone should it turn out to be the case that these animals passed the entire year that they spent in the ark in a state of deep slumber (as do hibernating bears for roughly six months of the year).
While Scripture is silent as to many of the details that many find perplexing regarding the ark, the point that should not be overlooked by Christians is that it is due to Noah's faith in building the ark during that 120-year period of judgment upon an ancient world that we are alive today, so that we are now able to consider the significance of the salvation the ark represents, for that ark -- a massive three-deck structure the length of three football fields and then some, the tangible demonstration of Noah's faith, which led to his salvation and the salvation of seven other souls -- has become a symbol of our faith in Jesus, as we die as to sin when we are momentarily buried under the waters of baptism and become alive as to righteousness upon our coming up out of those waters. (1 Peter 3:20, 21)
@djeggnog
492
607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)
by Witness My Fury in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?
djeggnog

By now, everyone on this website will have either read or become acquainted with the article contained in the Watchtower, dated November 1, 2011, that included some mention of VAT 4956, which I deliberately didn't mention in any of my posts associated with the 607 BC controversy. I have read this thread and think a lot of good research was done. The ensuing "witch hunt" surrounding John Steele's reply to Alleymom's email added a bit of intrigue that unfortunately diverted from the points made in the November 1, 2001 article regarding VAT 4956.
Now I have no interest and won't in this post be going into any of that VAT 4956 material, since after reading 14 pages in the "WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2" thread, and Carl Olaf Jonsson's 22-page response to Parts 1 and 2 of this article, I don't think anything would be served by my commenting on VAT 4956 or Jonsson's article, which concludes that "[t]he article turns out to be nothing but a desperate and dishonest attempt to defend a date that simply is indefensible," and says nothing at all about VAT 4956.
In this article of Jonsson's where he references another of his article entitled "Part V: Were there unknown Neo-Babylonian kings," Jonsson opines that "[a]n examination of [Rolf] Furuli’s revisions, however, shows them to be just another failed attempt to get rid of the historical reality as attested by VAT 4956." Nevertheless, I contend that Jerusalem had begun to lie desolate on Tishri 1, 3155 AM, which is September 27, 607 BC, Julian, September 20, 607 BC, Gregorian, and here's my reasoning:
It would appear to have taken some five months for the news of the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem by the Babylonians to reach the prophet Ezekiel, for according to 2 Kings 25:8, it was "in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month," or, in other words, on Ab 7, 3155 AM, August 5, 607 BC, Julian, July 29, 607 BC, that Babylon's siege on Jerusalem occurred, at which time Zedekiah was deposed as Babylon's vassal king and Gedaliah was installed by Nebuchadnezzar as governor of Judah (2 Kings 25:7, 22, 25).
However, some two months after the assassination of Gedaliah in the "seventh month" of Tishri, 3155 AM, where Tishri 1, 3155 AM, would correspond with September 27, 607 BC, Julian, September 20, 607 BC, Gregorian, the land of Judah was left completely desolate by the Babylonians as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah to fulfill "the devastations of Jerusalem" (Daniel 9:2), which, according to 2 Chronicles 36:21, was during Nebuchadnezzar's 19th accession year, or his 18th regnal year, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths ... seventy years."
Now there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that the festival of ingathering that was to be celebrated on Tishri 15-21, 3155 AM, October 11-17, 607 BC, Julian, October 4-10, 607 BC, Gregorian, was ever celebrated. In fact, no mention of the Atonement Day sacrifices that were to be made on Tishri 10, 3155 AM, October 6, 607 BC, Julian, September 29, 607 BC, Gregorian, is made either. What we do know though is that the land of Judah had been made to lie desolate at some time during the "seventh month" between Tishri 1 and Tishri 10.
When reading 2 Chronicles 36:21, however, the question that of necessity arises is when was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th accession year, his 18th regnal year? In his Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, chap. 9, par. 7, Flavius Josephus agrees with the Bible in stating that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year, after Gedaliah's assassination, when "all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years."
An inscription contained in the Nabonidus Chronicle reads: "Babylon fell VII/16/17," indicating that the date of Babylon's fall occurred on Tishri 16, 539 BC. ("VII/14/17" meaning: Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, the 14th day, in the 17th year of Nabonidus' reign, wherein Belshazzar, as coregent, had ruled in Babylon since 556 BC.) Ezra 1:1-3 indicates that it was "in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia" -- Cyrus' first regnal year ran from Nisan 538 BC to Nisan 537 BC -- that Cyrus caused a decree to go out to the Jews to "rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel," which means that what the Nabonidus Chronicle tells us is that Cyrus' accession year occurred in 539 BC.
Since Ezra 3:1 indicates that it was "after seventy years" in the "seventh month" of Tishri 537 BC -- the same month in which the land of Judah suffered desolation "without inhabitant" living in any of the cities of Judah as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah -- that the repatriated Jews had returned to their cities (Jeremiah 25:11, 12; 29:10; 33:10), and Ezra 3:6 states that "from the first day of the seventh month," that is to say, on Tishri 1, 3225 AM, September 4, 537 BC, Julian, August 29, 537 BC, Gregorian, the repatriated Jews began to offer sacrifices at God's altar in Jerusalem. This means that this 70-year period would have come to an end on Tishri 1, 537 BC, following the commencement of Cyrus' first regnal year.
x = 537 BC
x = x (+ -70)
x = 607 BC
Thus, by subtracting 70 years from 537 BC, we can deduce based on (1) the Bible, (2) Josephus and (3) the Nabonidus Chronicle that the land of Judah had been made to lie desolate by Babylon on or about Tishri 1, 3155 AM, September 27, 607 BC, Julian, September 20, 607 BC, Gregorian, which is when this 70-year period would have commenced.
@djeggnog
464
Applying Math, Physics, Archeology to THE STORY OF NOAH
by Terry in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
djeggnog

@Terry:
How many inches per hour of global rainfall for 40 days and nights would it take to cover Mr.Everest? Mt. Everest is roughly 36,000 feet above sea level, so how much rain would it take to cover it in 40 24-hour periods?
I'm not sure on what your "roughly 36,000 feet above sea level" measurement is based, but you said it would take "a steady rain of ... 363 inches per hour" for the resulting waters to cover the top of Mt. Everest, which would make sense since the Bible does teach that the deluge lasted for some "forty days" (Genesis 7:12, 17), or "960 hours," except what the Bible doesn't indicate is the existence of any 29,028-foot high (8,848-meter high) mountain called "Everest," which mountain is now said to be 29,035-feet high (8,850-meters high), nor does it speak of any rain, nor does it indicate the velocity with which these waters had rained upon the earth.
Moreover, Terry, Genesis 7:18-20 states that the flood waters had so "overwhelmed the earth ... that all the tall mountains ... came to be covered ... up to fifteen cubits," that is to say that the highest mountains were covered by some 22 feet of water, but I see no reason to conclude that there would have had to be enough of it to cover a 29,028-foot high Mt. Everest.
So why speculate about the existence of a mountain, when it is apparent that for "the highest mountains" to have been covered by 22 feet of water there could not have been a "Mt. Everest" of the height that we know it today? Considering the added weight of the water came a shifting in the earth's crust, so that new mountains emerged, and thus would have caused existing mountains to rise to newer heights, so that the 29,035-foot high Mt. Everest that we know today just didn't exist in 2370 BC.
At Genesis 7:4, Jehovah tells Noah, "I am making it rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights," but what Jehovah doesn't tell Noah is that some of the water that rained upon and destroyed that ancient world had come from "the waters that should be above the expanse," the so-called "water canopy" that had been held in suspense above the earth since the second creative day. The fact that this water canopy that "should be above the expense" no longer exists could be part of the reason that the climate is so extreme in certain parts of the earth than in other parts, and part of the reason mankind has had to face hurricanes, tsunamis, tornados and such, but what we are told in the Bible is that "all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." (Genesis 7:11, 12)
What Jehovah described to Noah as "rain" is not described as a "steady rain" as you describe it, but as a "downpour" that lasted 40 days and 40 nights before the springs and floodgates "became stopped up," when the downpour was "restrained." This downpour wasn't rain, but was a "deluge" of a "heavenly ocean" of water that fell to the earth as rain. (Genesis 8:2) At Matthew 24:38, 39, and at Luke 17:27, Jesus notably uses the word "flood" in describing the "deluge," and not once does Jesus use the word "rain," no doubt because what fell to the earth in 2370 BC was dramatically different than what we would normally think of as rain.
@djeggnog
96
1874, 1914 and 1943
by TD in
1. jw
2. friends
a persistent meme that floats around on jw related internet forums holds that christ's second coming was moved forward 40 years (i.e.

from 1874 to 1914) in the year 1943.

(this appears to be based primarily on a statment in the book god's kingdom of a thousand years has approached on page 209 and to a lesser degree, a footnote at the bottom of page 133 of the publication jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom.).
djeggnog

@jwfacts:
This Watchtower quote claims otherwise.
"The Scriptural proof is that the period of his presence and the day of God's preparation is a period from 1874 A.D. forward. The second coming of the Lord, therefore, began in 1874; and that date and the years 1914 and 1918 are specially marked dates with reference to his coming. Prophecy can not be understood until it has been fulfilled or is in the course of fulfillment. From 1874 to 1914 the prophecy concerning the Lord's coming was being fulfilled and could be understood, and was understood, by those who were faithful to the Lord and who were watching the development of events, but not by others."? Creation 1927
The first point I would make is that this is not Russell; this quote is from the Rutherford era, since Russell wasn't alive when Creation was released in 1927, so you have quoted Rutherford, whose words cannot be used to prove what Russell believed. Please let this ruminate a bit before you decide what to do next, for what would have been obvious to most people of normal intelligence may not be as obvious to you, so wait a moment and let this point sink in. I don't want to spend time explaining to you a point that would be quite obvious to most people: Russell wasn't alive when the Creation book was released, so these could not be Russell's words.
The second point is this: Rutherford -- and again, not Russell -- makes reference to "the period of his presence and the day of God's preparation and is saying that God's preparation "began in 1874", so he refers to this 'preparation period' as part of the second coming of the Lord. Go back to my Post 479, where I quote the following from the Creation book: "The Scriptural proof is that the period of his presence and the day of God’s preparation is a period from 1874 A.D. forward. The second coming of the Lord, therefore, began in 1874; and that date and the years 1914 to 1918 are specially marked dates with reference to his coming." Got it?
If not, then read the context of Rutherford's words in the Creation book that I previously posted in Post 479, in which Rutherford again refers to another period during Jesus' invisible presence, which presence had been reckoned to be, both in Russell's era and in Rutherford's era, a 40-year period of harvest, calling it "the Lord’s presence and of the end of the world," and in this reference is referring to "the second coming of the Lord" as "beginning in 1914."
Perhaps you've forgotten, I don't know, but you actually did quote something, in addition to the Creation book quote, in your Post 6006 that had come from the book, Thy Kingdom Come -- a publication released during the Russell era (originally released in 1891) -- and in the same Post 479, I quoted from this book and pointed out that Russell had indicated his view at the time that the close of 1874 marked the beginning, as the close of 1914 will mark the end, of this 40 years of harvest.... The year 1914 was when Russell had calculated that the Gentile Times would come to an end. The year 1914 was not only considered by Russell to have been a part of the 40-year span of Jesus' presence that began in 1874, but he believed that his second coming -- 1914 -- would mark "the end of the world." Russell didn't teach that the "end of the world" had begun in 1874, but that Christ's second coming in 1914 would mark the end of the world.
@The Quiet One:
Djeggnogg- It was post 138.. (The chicken leg example I came up with was based on the blood fraction issue, by the way, in case you didn't get it).
I had intentionally skipped this portion of your post since it didn't make any sense. The OP (@TD) indicated that "[t]he purpose of this thread is to demonstrate with actual scans from the period literature when the adjustment was made" from 1874 to 1914 as to Christ's second coming. There is no relevance between my chicken leg example and your blood fraction issue that you have here raised in this thread.
There are many here on JWN that use anyone's thread to voice their personal gripes with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, just as you have done here in this thread in your mention of "blood fractions," which is way off-topic. There are many people here on JWN that have been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's organization because they were idolaters that worshipped the god of sex, people that had no problem with the Bible doctrines in which they had claimed to believe until they were overcome by sin, and now they are here voicing their sentiments about what they believe to be "flop-flops" that Jehovah's Witnesses have made over the years as if these perceived flip-flops were largely the reason for their having several their relationship with Jehovah's Witnesses when no one can teach anyone anything in the Scriptures that hasn't first been "vetted" by many more people than just the governing body as being consistent therewith.
These accusations of hypocrisy are like when you learn that your son or daughter is gay and/or has taken a gay lover to his or her bed: You cannot be responsible for knowing something that you did not know until convincing evidence had been brought to your attention that one or your children was gay, which I know would make it a bit difficult for you to continue in that threatening posture of yours, where you have told too many people to count what you would do were you to learn that one of your children was gay in the context of gossiping about someone else's gay son or lesbian daughter.
You would then be telling folks how you cannot be judged as hypocritical for saying such things when you had no idea, no clue, no knowledge that your son or your daughter was gay, just like Jehovah's Witnesses would say in their own defense that they cannot be rightly accused of flip-flopping on any doctrinal matter when they themselves did not know at a particular time in their history what we know today. In 2011, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Christ's invisible presence, his parousia, as well as his second coming, occurred in 1914, which we concluded back in 1943, and therefore could not have taught before 1943, since this adjustment to our understanding of this doctrine wasn't made until 1943. Likewise, you cannot be judged as hypocritical for not knowing that your son or daughter was living a gay lifestyle until you first came to know the facts about their gayness, and deciding that you won't ever see your gay child again until and unless he or she "stops" being gay is a ridiculous position to take since nothing you do after learning about your child being gay is going to change the fact that he or she is gay. And your children -- whether gay or straight -- are still your children.
@WontLeave:
I think Eggie's problem here is that he doesn't realize the [Parousia] and the end of the Gentile times weren't always the same.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the exchange between @Cameron_Don and I or between @jwfacts and I, nor given any consideration to the reason in my Post 479 I posted the context of what Russell wrote in the Thy Kingdom Come book and the context of what Rutherford wrote in the Creation book, which books were referenced by @jwfacts in his Post 6006. I understand what the understanding of the Bible Students was from 1876 until the release of the book, The Truth Shall Make You Free, in 1943 under Knorr, which book served to correct the misunderstanding as to Jesus' invisible presence that had previously existed in Russell's day and in Rutherford's day with respect to Bible chronology.
@WontLeave:
I think Eggie's problem here is that he doesn't realize the [Parousia] and the end of the Gentile times weren't always the same.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the exchange between @Cameron_Don and I or between @jwfacts and I, nor given any consideration to the reason in my Post 479 I posted the context of what Russell wrote in the Thy Kingdom Come book and the context of what Rutherford wrote in the Creation book, which books were referenced by @jwfacts in his Post 6006. I understand what the understanding of the Bible Students was from 1876 until the release of the book, The Truth Shall Make You Free, in 1943 under Knorr, which book served to correct the misunderstanding as to Jesus' invisible presence that had previously existed in Russell's day and in Rutherford's day with respect to Bible chronology.
@djeggnog
96
1874, 1914 and 1943
by TD in
1. jw
2. friends
a persistent meme that floats around on jw related internet forums holds that christ's second coming was moved forward 40 years (i.e.

from 1874 to 1914) in the year 1943.

(this appears to be based primarily on a statment in the book god's kingdom of a thousand years has approached on page 209 and to a lesser degree, a footnote at the bottom of page 133 of the publication jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom.).
djeggnog

@jwfacts wrote:
Prior to 1914 the Watchtower taught that the second coming was in 1874.
@djeggnog wrote:
Prove this by providing a quote from any Watchtower publication that teaches that Christ's second coming occurred in 1874. Until you should get around to producing such a quote, this statement of yours is a lie.
@jwfacts wrote:
What about the following quotes then?
@djeggnog wrote:
You have here provided not one, but two quotes taken completely out of context in order to prove your contention that Russell and the Bible Students did not believe Christ's Second Coming or Second Advent would occur in 1914 with the hope that such nonsense would escape my notice, as might escape the notice of the clueless and weak-minded functional illiterates that have had little or no formal education, many of whom have no high school diploma and have never learned the folly of providing statements made out of context as proof to someone with an education and who doesn't suffer from a reading comprehension disability.
My point here is that both of these quotes you provided in your message were taken out of context. The conclusions you reached and included in your message were absurd. I underlined the surrounding text from the Thy Kingdom Come and Creation books from which the quotations in your message came that you did not include that would have informed you as to the context of Russell's and Rutherford's words that for some reason you thought would make your point about what Russell believed as to Christ's invisible presence and his Second Coming, which, in those days, Christ's "second presence" was thought to have begun in 1874 and extended to 1914, "during the latter part of the period known as 'the time of the end.'"
@jwfacts wrote:
I provided a quote showing that it the teaching was that the second coming was in 1874.
The quotes from TD show that the second coming and parousia continued to be taught to be 1874 well after 1914.
@djeggnog wrote:
But this is not true. Just as I pointed out in my last message, Jesus' Second Coming was expected to occur at the end of the Gentile Times, some 2,520 years after 606 BC, or 1914. Notice I said 606 BC and not 607 BC, because Russell's chronology was based on an error in allowing for a zero year that did not exist, but taking this into consideration, when counting 2,520 years from 607 BC, you still arrive at 1914, which is when the Bible Students expected Jesus' return, his Second Coming.
However, Russell never taught Jesus' parousia to be the same as Jesus' Second Coming. What those quotes that were provided in my previous message from those 1913 and 1914 issues of the Watch Tower prove is that neither Russell nor the Bible Students [believed] Jesus' parousia or presence to have been the same as his Second Coming. In 1876, Russell and Barbour believed that Jesus' parousia had begun in 1874, two years earlier, and that his Second Coming would occur 40 years later in 1914. After 1914, that Jesus' parousia has begun in 1874 continued to be taught until 1943 until the Society released the book, The Truth Shall Make You Free, which served to correct the misunderstanding that had existed since Russell's time with respect to Bible chronology.
"We say that according to the best chronological reckoning of which we are capable, it is approximately that time--whether it be October, 1914, or later. Without dogmatizing, we are looking for certain events: (1) The termination of the Gentile times--Gentile supremacy in the world--and (2) For the inauguration of Messiah’s kingdom in the world. The kingdoms of earth will come to an end, and 'the God of heaven will set up a kingdom.' (Daniel 2:44)"
(Watch Tower, dated October 15, 1913, pp. 307, 308.)
@jwfacts wrote:
If the teaching of 1874 as the start of the second coming changed in 1930 (not 1943), then it had nothing to do with the change in the calculation of the 6000 years.
@djeggnog wrote:
Excuse me, but what on earth are you talking about here? I never said a thing about the teaching regarding Christ's "second coming" as having been changed from 1874, since Russell never taught that his second coming had occurred in 1874.
@Leolaia wrote:
I think Russell used the term "second coming" imprecisely to refer to both the parousia (hence the expression "second presence", which occurred frequently in his writings....
@jwfacts:
As Leolaia eloquently showed, it is not as black and white as Eggnogg wants us to prove. Russell was not consistent in presentation of when the Second Coming was, and whether Second Coming, Presence and Second Advent were one and the same thing, or different events. That is also the case in Christianity, with differing opinions on whether these three terms are interchangeable or not. However, from my reading of it, Russell did say the Second Coming/Second Advent started Jesus' 40 year presence in 1874, to culminate in the end of the world in 1914.
You need to read again what it was you originally wrote because what you're doing now in agreeing with @Leolaia's statement here is pretending that what she says here is in complete agreement with what you said when disputing the matter with me. You were being disagreeable with me, but it appears that you are now willing to acknowledge the ambiguity that exists in many of the things that were written during Russell's stewardship over the Society, but I have explained how I view the writings of both men (Russell and Rutherford). You don't want to be disagreeable toward @Leolaia, and that's fine, but if some of her statements are consistent with mine, then why exactly are you still arguing with me if you are in agreement with her statements? Is it the fact that I am the one saying them that makes all of the difference or what? (These last few questions here are rhetorical since it's clear to me that you just want to argue with me.)
Now @Leolaia didn't go as far as to say what I'm about to say here, but I'll incorporate by reference what it is I have already said here and add here, that after having read Russell and Rutherford, that it is clear to me that these men didn't have good proofreaders, for had what they wrote been proofread by a good proofreader (like the ones we have in Brooklyn and in Patterson today!), many of the statements that are ambiguous at best regarding Christ's invisible presence or parousia and his second coming would have been phrased more clearly.
@00DAD wrote:
Hmmm, well I suppose that would all be fine if the GB wouldn't DF people for getting there sooner or later than them, or simply disagreeing.
@djeggnog wrote:
I don't want any of my spiritual brothers or sisters to be disfellowshipped either, but, by way of illustration, if you had come into our household as the ninth child when we are already raising eight children, with a few of these being adopted as [our] own so that [we], their parents, call these adoptees "son" and "daughter" the same as [we] call [our] biological children "son" and "daughter," and they all of them call [us] "Mom" or "Dad," and you, the ninth child, should become disgruntled with the way in which we administer discipline in our own household, believing our grounding you for a month to impress upon your mind the need to comply with our rule against sneaking into the freezer to eat ice cream and taking one or two pieces of chicken without asking for permission to do so and especially lying about it -- a rule of conduct by which the rest of our children know they must abide for the sake of peace among them and with us, their parents -- to be morally wrong, you will still be disciplined in the same way that we equally discipline all of our children without exception in the hope that you will learn that you must comply with our rule. This means that there is a possibility that you will be grounded for another month should you repeat the same or a similar offense.
However, if we should learn that you have begun to plant "apostate" views of dissent among the rest of the children, hoping to cause a mutiny by enlisting one or more of them to join your rebellion against our authority as your parents, it might be that we will have to send you back to the orphanage or wherever it was you used to live to protect the household from your having an unwholesome influence on them, if your rebelliousness doesn't cause you to become a runaway to get away from our authority, but you need to learn that we administer discipline in our household for a similar reason as such is administered in God's household, namely, in order "that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in God's household, which is the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)
God's organization began as a mustard seed, but has now grown into a large luxuriant tree, and the birds are free to lodge in this "tree" -- God's organization -- if they wish. (Matthew 13:31, 32) You may not like how discipline in being administered in God's organization today, and there are things that I don't like that we do in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses based on the results of a vote [taken] by elders that could possibly be voting "yes" because, not being perfect people, they just don't like the person very much and just don't want to be merciful, but this is the way things are being [done] now in God's household. We have been called to peace, so, I say, leave this stuff alone, for we have a central body of elders -- we refer to them as our "Governing Body" -- to whom we look to resolve such matters, but keep in mind that they are also imperfect men and resolving this issue may not be the priority item you would like it to be on its plate.
Those of us that have come to join God's household by getting baptized have no say in the matter of disfellowshipping, but I do expect the voting policy will change. Let your focus be on the work of the ministry to which we have been assigned (Matthew 28:19, 20; 2 Timothy 4:2), and don't lose your mind by doing something stupid. Rather, brace up your mind for activity and "keep your senses completely." (1 Peter 1:13)
We are well aware that some that regularly associate with us at meetings may seek to cause us "trouble with speeches" to subvert our faith and thereby "pervert the good news about the Christ," but we must also be on the watch for any "poisonous root" that might spring up and cause the kind of trouble in God's congregation that might defile and deprive others of God's undeserved kindness. (Acts 15:24; Galatians 1:7; Hebrews 12:15)
If the disfellowshipping policy bothers you or you or one of your own family members should become disfellowshipped for any reason, do not leave God's household; that would be a bad move. A better one is for you and yours to move to a different congregation, maybe a different circuit, but away from those whose imperfections could cause you to stumble right out of the truth due to your own imperfections, and start anew. I often show up at congregations where no one knows me to observe and you know what? Many of the friends don't say "Hello" to me unless I say "Hello" first, and so I could feel that they are shunning me, but I also know such behavior isn't so much personal as it is human nature for people that don't know you to do. If you've been disfellowshipped, break the ice by searching out the elders in that "different" congregation and let them know that you or your loved one that has been disfellowshipped seeks to be reinstated, but keep in mind that you or your disfellowshipped loved one is partly the reason for the disfellowshipment and the other part was the decision of the elders on the judicial committee that said "yes." Jehovah is still your God and he had no direct input in the decision that was made against you or your disfellowshipped loved one.
@The Quiet One wrote:
Djeggnogg said - "us, their parents -- to be morally wrong, you will still be disciplined in the same way that WE equally discipline all of OUR children without exception in the hope that you will learn that you must comply with OUR RULE"(capitals mine) - This illustration is an incoherent mess, it doesn't make sense [grammatically], and you refer to 'us' as being both the children and the parents, but I thought I'd just point out that the 'parents' (Governing body) seem to own the children in your little story, and they expect the children to submit to their rule.
Yes, my illustration was "an incoherent mess," and the necessary corrections are shown above in red, but the central body of elders to whom Jehovah's Witnesses refer as the "Governing Body" are not the "parents" in my illustration. We are all of us brothers, but the Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Christian congregation is the one appointed by Jehovah God as the head of God's household, the parent of all those exercising faith in his name, that is to say, of all those that are putting faith in Jesus' ransom. The fact that Jesus, in turn, has appointed his spiritual brothers here on earth that he called "the faithful and discreet slave" over all of his "domestics" (Matthew 24:45-47) does not transform the Governing Body that represents the "slave" as anyone's parents, for they remain slaves of God and of Christ, even as Jesus' "other sheep" are slaves of God and of Christ as well.
Whose flock is it that the GB are meant to be [shepherding]?
The flock of God. (Acts 20:28)
And would Jesus leave his children with people that change the rules as they go, even changing the severity of punishment and/or whether the action is punishable, who even kick out of the home and spiritually place the death sentence on any child that dares to say they are being treated unfairly and inconsistently?
Yes, he would, and Jesus did, in fact, leave to the "slave" the autonomy necessary for it to accomplish the commission it was given to make disciples of people of all nations, which it has been doing since 33 AD. You mention a "death sentence," but there is nothing in my illustration akin to any such sentence being imposed on anyone. You might have decided to view disfellowshipping as being on a par with a sentence and execution imposed on the errant Christian, but this makes no sense in view of the fact that any repentant Christian that has been disfellowshipped will be reinstated, which would not be the case if disfellowshipment meant death by execution as you have here likened such to be.
For instance, to go along with part of your example, a child who stole a chicken leg from the freezer and was disciplined (based on a rule regarding not stealing chicken from the freezer), is upset when another child a short time later is allowed to take a chicken leg because the parents have now 'realised' that the leg doesn't represent the whole chicken, and so the rule of not stealing chickens doesn't apply here. Just two of the flaws in your illustration in relation to reality..
I believe in a perfect world that the rules ought to be applied by the local elders equally to everyone, but even if there should be flaws in my illustration, there are definitely flawed men in the congregation that are administering such discipline in the local congregation in view of the fact that we do not live in a perfect world and the elders meting it out are themselves imperfect men. This being the case, I have knowledge of cases where the vote to disfellowship was arguably for extraneous humans having nothing at all to do with the offense that the elders had been empaneled as a judicial committee to handle, and some of the appealed cases have led to reversal of the decision to disfellowship, whereas not everyone that is disfellowshipped will request an appeal of the disfellowshipment decision. Maybe you didn't know this and thought that an appeal was automatic, but of the judicial committee should not receive a letter appealing the decision to disfellowship within seven days from the time the wrongdoer receives notification thereof, the decision is final seven days after the notification date.
Dj said- "your rebellion against our authority as your parents" - Whose authority are Christians under?
I've already pointed out that the central body of elders to whom Jehovah's Witnesses refer as the "Governing Body" are not the "parents" in my illustration, but just as Jesus Christ is the head of the congregation in subjection to Jehovah God, the Christian congregation is in subjection to the Christ, who has by means of holy spirit appointed the "slave," represented by the Governing Body, over his "domestics" and over the rest of the Christian household to take the lead, in that Jesus has given these men as "gifts" to the Christian congregation, some of these "gifts" being "shepherds and teachers," scripturally-qualified men appointed by the Governing Body to serve in the local congregation as a body of elders to whom Christians are directed to "be submissive." (Ephesians 4:7, 8, 11-13; Hebrews 13:17)
And if Jesus has given the GB/elders at the local level such authority, where is the proof?
I've cited several scriptures above as proof that the local elders, even the central body of elders, were appointed by holy spirit, so that their authority to preside and "take care of God's congregation" (1 Timothy 3:5) is based on the spiritual qualifications that the holy spirit has clearly laid out for those serving as overseers and ministerial servants in the congregation. (1 Timothy 3:1-10, 12, 13). Let me rephrase this: Elders are duly appointed to serve in the local congregation by means of holy spirit, and the scriptural proof of this can be found by reading 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 12, 13, for it is only by examining the things we read in the Bible as to the qualifications that elders must meet that we can prove to ourselves that the holy spirit itself has appointed such men as overseers in the congregation, for it is through the Scriptures that the holy spirit speaks. If you did not understand (until now!) that the holy spirit speaks through the Scriptures, I trust you can appreciate that the holy spirit is what gives substance to the elder arrangement in the Christian congregation, but if you should reject what I have here explained to you and would rather balk over what things I have said here, this is, of course, your choice to make.
There is plenty of evidence of lack of divine backing.
I believe the Bible provides sufficient evidence that the elder arrangement in the Christian congregation has God's backing, but you are free to disagree with me.
Dj said- '' leave this stuff alone, for we have a central body of elders -- we refer to them as our"Governing Body" -- to whom we look to resolve such matters'' - Really.. So jw's look to the GB to resolve matters?
Yes.
How about Jehovah, shouldn't he be at least consulted?
What need is there to "consult" Jehovah when he, the author of the Bible, gave it to us so that we might get to know things about him, even form a relationship with him, get to know him, become his friend. Of course, you must already know that he is the author of the Bible, but what you should take to heart is that it was by means of his holy spirit that the Bible was, in fact, written. We are "consulting" Jehovah when we read and study his word. We form a relationship with him when we pray to him through Jesus Christ, since God is holy, and we can never approach Jehovah in prayer, except through Jesus, since Jesus is not only the one that died for us, but Jesus is also the one that pleads for us when we pray to Jehovah, provided we are convinced that he will do exactly what he has promised to do, for our faith is counted to us as righteousness. (Romans 4:21-24; 8:34)
I am often amazed by the statements made here by some here on JWN that were once Jehovah's Witnesses, who never seemed to have learned during their stint with us that their prayers must be directed to Jehovah God, but according to his will, and by this I don't just mean as to the things for which we might ask him, but as to our manner of approaching him, for our "Amen" to God must be said through Jesus, else Jehovah will not and does not hear our prayers. (2 Corinthians 1:20; 1 John 5:14)
Once @sizemik ridiculed God here as being either impotent or as being non-existent, one, when he wrote the following (in a different thread):
It also doesn't answer why we have Earthquakes, Tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, forest fires, landslides, floods, epidemics, diseases, birth defects etc. These events have existed long before man can be accused of having a direct effect on climate etc . . . and are a natural consequence of the way life is configured.
Jehovah promised: "I am making all things new." (Revelation 21:5) He never promised that he was going to prevent the occurrence of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornados, volcanos, forest fires, landslides, floods, epidemics, diseases, birth defects, etc., and it is a lie for him to have described these things as being "a natural consequence of the way life is configured," for, in the beginning, everything that Jehovah made was perfect. These things he mentioned are the consequence of the tremendous weight of the waters of the global deluge that beset planet earth back in 2370 BC and sin's entrance into the world so that Jehovah only directed his watch care to his people in one portion of the Middle East.
Now Jehovah may send angelic help wherever it is needed in the world to accomplish his purpose in connection with the everlasting good news that is currently being preached in the world, but Jesus himself predicted that things like the ones @sizemik mentioned would be occurring during the conclusion of this system of things in which we are now living, and as for the birth defects and the diseases that plague mankind, these things will continue until "the former things have passed away." (Revelation 21:4)
Again, life as we know it to be was not originally configured the way it is today and the way it has been since the founding of the world, but when sin came on the scene, he decreed not only appointed times, but set boundaries for man, allowing all but one nation to live their entire existence in ignorance of his will, that is, until now, for the appointed time arrived when he began to tell men everywhere to repent by pursuing the righteousness that comes through exercising faith in Christ, for the day is fast approaching when Jehovah will have his son judge the earth by the Christian standard. (Acts 17:26, 30, 31)
I find this sentence very revealing as to who jw's today really put their trust in. ''Maybe one wishes to put a little more zing in their life by assuming the risks associated with having sexual relations with someone to whom they are not married'' - What is wrong with you? Are you obsessed with sex? There's a pattern developing.. This part of the reply of yours has nothing to do with the question, which was about the generation doctrine and its changes.
I'm obsessed with former "brothers" and "sisters" leaving God's organization after being disfellowshipped and feeling extremely guilty, even suicidal, after they have affected their quality of life through their immoral antics with a brother or a sister or with others, which have impacted their fleshly organisms in a way that has forever changed their lives into one involving taking pills every day due to one act of disobedience that led to their being disfellowshipped, and they are so guiltridden -- some of them after their hospitalization and incarceration has become known due to drug abuse or tax evasion or larceny or whatever on their part -- that they don't return so that they might be reinstated. The apostle Peter betrayed Jesus, and yet he came back. No matter the reason that one is disfellowshipped, they can and should come back and seek reinstatement. I'm obsessed over folks that know they ought to repent, that keep touching the unclean thing and won't repent.
Why can you not answer the question in a clear, concise and direct way, rather than avoid it? You still haven't replied to my last post in the 'spiritual paradise' thread, though, so I don't expect a reply to this.
I recall a thread started by @No Room For George entitled, "If the WT provides such a spiritual paradise, why are WT apologists so emotional about the discussions here?" but I believe I responded to the messages posted to it, except those messages that were attacking me. If I failed to respond to something you wrote in any other thread, I apologize. Please provide the Post Number of your message in this other thread here, and I will go back to that thread and read it, but I don't want to go off-topic discussing that other thread in this thread.
@djeggnog
96
1874, 1914 and 1943
by TD in
1. jw
2. friends
a persistent meme that floats around on jw related internet forums holds that christ's second coming was moved forward 40 years (i.e.

from 1874 to 1914) in the year 1943.

(this appears to be based primarily on a statment in the book god's kingdom of a thousand years has approached on page 209 and to a lesser degree, a footnote at the bottom of page 133 of the publication jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom.).
djeggnog

@00DAD:
So let me get this straight: JW's today have "a different understanding" than Russell or Rutherford. These are called "progressive" beliefs or "Present Truth".
You've got it!
Hmmm, well I suppose that would all be fine if the GB wouldn't DF people for getting there sooner or later than them, or simply disagreeing.
I don't want any of my spiritual brothers or sisters to be disfellowshipped either, but, by way of illustration, if you had come into our household as the ninth child when we are already raising eight children, with a few of these being adopted as your own so that you, their parents, call these adoptees "son" and "daughter" the same as you call your biological children "son" and "daughter," and they all of them call you "Mom" or "Dad," and you, the ninth child, should become disgruntled with the way in which we administer discipline in our own household, believing our grounding you for a month to impress upon your mind the need to comply with our rule against sneaking into the freezer to eat ice cream and taking one or two pieces of chicken without asking for permission to do so and especially lying about it -- a rule of conduct by which the rest of our children know they must abide for the sake of peace among them and with us, their parents -- to be morally wrong, you will still be disciplined in the same way that we equally discipline all of our children without exception in the hope that you will learn that you must comply with our rule. This means that there is a possibility that you will be grounded for another month should you repeat the same or a similar offense.
However, if we should learn that you have begun to plant "apostate" views of dissent among the rest of the children, hoping to cause a mutiny by enlisting one or more of them to join your rebellion against our authority as your parents, it might be that we will have to send you back to the orphanage or wherever it was you used to live to protect the household from your having an unwholesome influence on them, if your rebelliousness doesn't cause you to become a runaway to get away from our authority, but you need to learn that we administer discipline in our household for a similar reason as such is administered in God's household, namely, in order "that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in God's household, which is the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)
God's organization began as a mustard seed, but has now grown into a large luxuriant tree, and the birds are free to lodge in this "tree" -- God's organization -- if they wish. (Matthew 13:31, 32) You may not like how discipline in being administered in God's organization today, and there are things that I don't like that we do in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses based on the results of a vote then by elders that could possibly be voting "yes" because, not being perfect people, they just don't like the person very much and just don't want to be merciful, but this is the way things are being now in God's household. We have been called to peace, so, I say, leave this stuff alone, for we have a central body of elders -- we refer to them as our "Governing Body" -- to whom we look to resolve such matters, but keep in mind that they are also imperfect men and resolving this issue may not be the priority item you would like it to be on its plate.
Those of us that have come to join God's household by getting baptized have no say in the matter of disfellowshipping, but I do expect the voting policy will change. Let your focus be on the work of the ministry to which we have been assigned (Matthew 28:19, 20; 2 Timothy 4:2), and don't lose your mind by doing something stupid. Rather, brace up your mind for activity and "keep your senses completely." (1 Peter 1:13)
We are well aware that some that regularly associate with us at meetings may seek to cause us "trouble with speeches" to subvert our faith and thereby "pervert the good news about the Christ," but we must also be on the watch for any "poisonous root" that might spring up and cause the kind of trouble in God's congregation that might defile and deprive others of God's undeserved kindness. (Acts 15:24; Galatians 1:7; Hebrews 12:15)
If the disfellowshipping policy bothers you or you or one of your own family members should become disfellowshipped for any reason, do not leave God's household; that would be a bad move. A better one is for you and yours to move to a different congregation, maybe a different circuit, but away from those whose imperfections could cause you to stumble right out of the truth due to your own imperfections, and start anew. I often show up at congregations where no one knows me to observe and you know what? Many of the friends don't say "Hello" to me unless I say "Hello" first, and so I could feel that they are shunning me, but I also know such behavior isn't so much personal as it is human nature for people that don't know you to do. If you've been disfellowshipped, break the ice by searching out the elders in that "different" congregation and let them know that you or your loved one that has been disfellowshipped seeks to be reinstated, but keep in mind that you or your disfellowshipped loved one is partly the reason for the disfellowshipment and the other part was the decision of the elders on the judicial committee that said "yes." Jehovah is still your God and he had no direct input in the decision that was made against you or your disfellowshipped loved one.
BTW, which one of the six different "understandings" of the meaning of the term "generation" will ultimately turn out to be the correct one? Or maybe we haven't gotten there yet either?
I don't know, but so what? We often will speculate as to the meaning of things that are not clearly discerned by us, and we say so, but everlasting life doesn't depend upon us knowing what Jesus meant at Matthew 24:34, does it? If anyone wishes to leave God's household, because there are other things that they wish to do, because they want to serve other gods, like their bellies, for due to their having "their minds upon things on the earth" and "not having spirituality," they prefer to proceed "according to their own desires" (Philippians 3:19; Jude 18, 19), we can take our own counsel, live by our own standards and no one can stop them.
Maybe one wishes to put a little more zing in their life by assuming the risks associated with having sexual relations with someone to whom they are not married, even though they have been urged, like all Christians, to abstain from fornication, even believing that their ungodly conduct will not result in their contracting a sexually-transmitted disease like genital herpes, Herpes simplex, HIV/AIDS, human papilloma virus (HPV) or Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpes virus (HHV-8), which can impact their quality of life and maybe destroy the possibility of their having children, all in totally disregard for the many warnings that we ourselves might have given our children.
Jehovah is only trying to protect us both physically and spiritually, but if such restrictions upon our behavior should be viewed by us as being burdensome, and it takes you leaving our ranks or getting disfellowshipped from our ranks to learn that "Jehovah is good" and that this is "why he instructs sinners in the way," then I believe your being saved is worth your going through the experience even if you should afterward, when you come back to your senses, be forced to take pills every day due to your having taken such a risk. (Psalm 25:8; 34:8)
Maybe it's just me, but I want some truth that's going to be the same yesterday, today and forever. Is that too much to ask?
No, it's not just you. I, too, want to know the truth -- all of it -- but there are things that Russell and the Bible Students didn't know that we know today and there are things that Rutherford and the Bible Students didn't know that Jehovah's Witnesses know today. What things Jehovah's Witnesses know today is "present truth," and what things we have learned were learned progressively. Yet Jesus Christ remains "the truth," and he "is the same yesterday and today, and forever." (John 14:6; Hebrews 13:8) You may be anxious and desire to know and understand all of the truth that the Bible contains in it (John 17:17), but the truth is being revealed to God's people progressively.
Today, in Jehovah's great Spiritual House, we're to maintain cleanness, wearing our "white robes," meaning that we are must be clean physically, clean mentally, clean morally, clean emotionally, clean spiritually, and in every way if we are to have the privilege of serving in His temple, both "day and night." (Revelation 7:13-15) Both Russell and, until 1935, Rutherford thought "the great multitude," who we refer to today as "the great crowd," would actually be in heaven standing in front of God's throne, because they did not understand that when we attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall or share the good news with others in our Christian ministry, we are engaging in sacred service to God before his throne in his great spiritual temple.
Since 1973, cigarette smoking has been viewed as a 'defilement of the flesh' (2 Corinthians 7:1) by Jehovah's Witnesses. Russell and Rutherford did not understand God's view of smoking in the way that Jehovah's Witnesses understand it today. Since 1995, we how come to understand that the separating of "the sheep" from "the goats" doesn't take place until after the great tribulation when Jesus sits in judgment over "all the nations ... gathered before him," (Matthew 25:32) Russell and Rutherford did not understand this judgment in the way that Jehovah's Witnesses understand it today.
At 2 Peter 3:9, 15, we are urged to consider God's patience "as salvation," because he doesn't desire anyone "to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." I submit, @00DAD, that you will need to learn patience, too, for "all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now." (Romans 8:22)
@djeggnog
96
1874, 1914 and 1943
by TD in
1. jw
2. friends
a persistent meme that floats around on jw related internet forums holds that christ's second coming was moved forward 40 years (i.e.

from 1874 to 1914) in the year 1943.

(this appears to be based primarily on a statment in the book god's kingdom of a thousand years has approached on page 209 and to a lesser degree, a footnote at the bottom of page 133 of the publication jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom.).
djeggnog

The first portion of this post is a repost of just a portion of my previous post, which contained a few typos in it, which often happens when I don't proofread what I dictate, as well as a few additional remarks that were not a part of my original dictation (where indicated in red).
@jwfacts wrote:
Prior to 1914 the Watchtower taught that the second coming was in 1874.
@djeggnog wrote:
Prove this by providing a quote from any Watchtower publication that teaches that Christ's second coming occurred in 1874. Until you should get around to producing such a quote, this statement of yours is a lie.
@Cameron_Don wrote:
It appears that he has provided what you asked for.
Is that right? If anything that @jwfacts posted by way of response should really seem to you to be what I asked for, then the fact you so concluded would make you an idiot in my opinion. Do you consider yourself to be an idiot? Should others consider you to be such? Look: I don't need you to referee the "action" here; I'm fully capable of determining for myself whether I am satisfied by something that you or anyone else should provide me as proof in support of any of the contentions that "you guys" make here on JWN. Jehovah's Witnesses today have a different understanding as to when Christ's invisible presence began; we have abandoned and no longer abide by the teaching of Russell and Rutherford that his presence or parousia began in 1874 and continued through 1914, the end of the Gentile Times, when Jesus became enthroned in the heavenly kingdom of God as king.
Like I said in a previous post, if you prefer to pigeonhole us as if our beliefs aren't progressive, but are static ones -- like the static doctrine that Christendom's trinitarians blindly believe as to Jesus' being God incarnate without a doubt in their minds until I plant one by asking them to explain Matthew 1:20 to me that says Baby Jesus was 'conceived of the Holy Ghost,' which exposes a fatal flaw in their static "three co-equal Persons" doctrine if, in fact, the Holy Ghost "begat" Jesus, thus making the Holy Ghost Jesus' father when John 1:14 describes Jesus as being "the only begotten of the Father"-- then that's on you. Our understanding of things doesn't remain static, but progressive, since we are always learning.
Today, in 2011, people don't refer to World War I as "the World War" or "the Great War" any longer. We have a different understanding. When Jehovah God created Pluto, it wasn't a planet, but it took some 76 years -- from February 18, 1930, to August 23, 2006 -- for folks to finally realize, using the God-given tools that were given them, to figure out what Jehovah knew all along. Today, in 2011, we have a different understanding, and anyone that still refers to Pluto as if it were the "ninth planet in our solar system" is subject to be scorned for their tenacious holding onto a static viewpoint about Pluto, a old viewpoint that has gone the way of the dinosaur. Both Russell and Rutherford believed Christ's invisible presence began in 1874, and that his second coming -- the "end of the world" -- began in 1914, but today, in 2011, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus' presence began in 1914 and that his presence continues down to our own day. Why is that? Because we have a different understanding.
What is more, what @jwfacts said here doesn't satisfy me at all. Like you, @jwfacts just wants to argue and I'm going to now let him do that with someone else.
@sabastious:
DJ you are a sleazy lawyer.
I'm not quite a lawyer yet. I have yet to sit for the California Bar, but I'll be sure to let you know if I pass it the first time. If I don't pass it the first time, then I'll let you know only if I should be successful the second or third time.
Your disregard for the honest truth is simply appalling to me.
I don't believe I disregard truth at all.
I watch in disbelief and anger as you try to goad people into making mistakes and then pounce on them while making sure as many people see your "glorious victories" as possible. Is it just second nature now?
Yes.
You are an [embarrassment] to the Jehovah's Witnesses and the apostate community as well as God because you refuse to care about nothing....
I didn't understand the rest of this paragraph, but as to the first portion of it: How exactly could I be the embarrassment that you say I am to "the apostate community" when I don't belong to your cult? What am I missing here? I don't seek your cult's approval? You are all followers of Raymond Franz as I see it; you are all his disciples, whereas I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, who is not only my savior, but my personal Lord as well.
You beat people at the first sign of a valid argument on the other side.
Yes, I do. When I was a kid, a teenager, I didn't really believe in throwing jabs. Once I'd delivered a shot to your liver or to one of your kidneys, the pain will force you to bend over, and the fight is over. I believe it cruel to bludgeon folks to a bloody pulp over several rounds, but it often takes a few jabs to break someone down to be able to finally deliver the coup de grâce. As an adult and a Christian though, I admit that I believe in bludgeoning folks with the truth, and as you may have noticed, I'm very good at it.
@djeggnog