Posts by jws

31

Why Is Smoking A Disfellowshipping Offense?

by twain30 in

jw
friends

the main reason given in the 1973 watchtower was that smoking is tied in with spiritism because the greek word which is rendered as spiritism is pharmakia' which literally means "druggery," (see galatians 5:20.

) therefore the argument was made that by smoking we put ourselves under spiritistic or demonic control.

for the last 20 years i haven't heard this reason used.. today the reasons given are that smoking shows no respect for your body as well as for life and that smoking doesn't show love of neighbor.

jws

The main reason given in the 1973 Watchtower was that smoking is tied in with spiritism because the Greek word which is rendered as Spiritism is Pharmakia' which literally means "Druggery," (see Galatians 5:20.) Therefore the argument was made that by smoking we put ourselves under spiritistic or demonic control. For the last 20 years I haven't heard this reason used.

Pharmakia also is the root of the word pharmacy. I never saw a ban on going to a drugstore or using prescription pharmacuticals.

I also had a JW tell me one time that it was a policy statement to protect themselves from lawsuits. Not sure where he heard that one from, but an interesting thought - though totally unbelievable to me. This came from the 70's right? Or was the ban before that? Frivolous lawsuits of this nature weren't that big back then. You know the kind, the "I'll sue society for the choices I've made" type lawsuits.

-jws

21

How did you view your congregation?

by haujobbz in

jw
friends

.

when i was in my congregation i found it to be a very selfish self spirited congregation,i also found many witnesses to be very easily offended and hyper sensitive oh and i forgot the gossip ohh the gossip was horrendous, this hyper sensitivity really got on my nerves because it was starting to rub off on me and i started to get paranoid and easily offended and i was never like that b4.. and what pi@@ed me off was the fact how brothers on the stage said how loving our congregation was and what a good reputation it was known to have.. but now i have left and im back to my down to earth happy personality.

jws

I can't count the one I went to as a little boy because a child under 4 can't really answer such stuff. I remember it warmly, however. There were a lot of people who would smile and say hi, but I was a kid afterall.

My second hall was the worst. Seemed run by power-hungry blue-collar elders who loved being the boss for a change. What I found extremely different between halls in the region, particularly this one was that people DF'ed would stay DF'ed for a year or two. And man were they strict. One guy was so sincere and regular in attending. Once his car died and he walked the rest of the way in the snow and got that counted against him for being late. Didn't matter that he made it every other time, that one time set his progress back. Of course, he was DF'ed for messing around with an elder's daughter who only got reproof. The cards were stacked against him anyway. By way of contrast, I went to a quick build hall a state over and made several friends. I was amazed to hear of disfellowshippings lasting 3 to 6 months. Sometimes only a month. That sounded more in the spirit of a rebuke. 1-2 years sounds cruel.

Then came hall number 3. This during our late teens to early 20's and the last one my brother and I went to. We were the quiet and shy type and, although this hall had a lot more people our age, they were kind of clique-ish. Around age 18, we started drinking a bit, probably fueled by our mother's sudden death. Well, about 3 weeks after her death, we get invited by some of these kids to go on a trip to a big amusement park. We're thrilled by the chance to make friends with them. Only one guy shows up though. We decide to go anyway. On the way there, we discover he loves to drink too (in fact he later discovers he's an alcoholic). So we spend the day getting plowed. Suddenly, we're part of the "in crowd". He goes back and tells everyone we're cool, we drink. Now we're being invited places, hanging out with them. We're accepted! And all this helped to fuel us to more drinking. After all, that's what got us accepted. After a while, things started to get too wild for some. They felt guilty and went to confess their sins to the elders. In my opinion, because we were the newest members of the clique - the ones they didn't grow up with - we became the scapegoats. Though everyone was doing this, we were the ones the parents didn't want their children associating with. So now we were the outcasts, back out of the clique. During one point, I really changed. I gave up drinking to excess and got serious about the religion. I even tried to aux pioneer, but they wouldn't let me - or at least wouldn't announce me as such. So I went out the 60+ hours anyway for about 7 months. Not that I was doing it for brownie points, but still, you'd think some people would recognize you're trying and stop giving you dirty looks. It didn't help. After a few more years, life situations changed. My brother and I moved to another part of town and never found a new hall.

At my second hall, I felt there was a lot of corruption at the elder level. At my third and last hall, I felt the elders were more sincere and caring, but many of the people were very unChristian, mean, and vindictive people.

I also went to other halls to get away from time to time. When I did my un-recognized aux-pioneering, I went out a lot with a regular pioneer friend of mine from high school, who lived on the other side of town. It was a poorer part of town and the people were much nicer. I didn't spend enough time there to really get to see all the cliques and politics at work, but I felt more accepted.

I think experience can very much vary by hall, by area of the city, by state, etc., etc.

-jws

69

News in KM , dfd,

by happy man in

jw
friends

.

we have a bigg artikel in km abot our wuie on how to treat them in diffrent situations, not so much new things, but they confirm this harder treatment on dfd, as we have 1981.. not so happy for this, i think it is a bigg misstake to dont take this occasion to change to some more loving wuie.i can not follow why they do like this perhaps they are draw this to the end of the lione, but who are take the punnish for this, if not the averge jw, who i think dont like this so very much.. so i can not follow who they think, perhaps we have wolfs among us, who hurt ther members.. .

jws

I'm not DA or DF. I just faded away and eventually became "apostate". My father is well aware of this.

I guess the first part of this material would have hit last week, mostly concerning those DF'ed. No noticeable change with my father when I spoke with him this past weekend.

Next week will be the true test, as it concerns relatives not in the home. Particularly chilling is the story in paragraph 13 about some ungrateful children who cut off ties with their own mother, which shamed her into gettng reinstated.

Not that I'm disassociated, but my father, knowing my position, might well consider me disassociated. And after this article, treat me as such, hoping it will instill me to come back.

There's just no way I can think of going back. Even if I had to - just to have a relationship with my father during his remaining years - I couldn't endure it. I just saw a link to the Witness Zone BBS today and read some of the conversations on an obviously moderated pro-JW group. It was so mind-numbing. I couldn't endure that way of life. I'd crack.

I guess if I were suddenly cut-off, my first response would be to attack back. Up until now, me being apostate has not compelled me to interfere with what they want to believe. I've explained my feelings and what I believe is wrong, then let them be free to worship how they wish, not pushing anything at them. Only when they try to coax me back do I defend my reasons. And we've basically agreed to disagree.

But given the prospect of being cut off from my family and their only solution being to join the JWs again (which I can't do), my only response seems to be to enlighten them and finally rescue them from it. Of course if they don't answer my calls or read any letters, I don't know how I'm going to do that. But this is the sort of thing to turn me from passive anti-JW to angry, bitter anti-JW.

-jws

13

To DA or not to DA...

by jws in

just read the posts about dissassociating.

wondering what the advantages/disadvantages are.. i myself had my meeting attendance drop about 1989. during this time, i found the truth about jws through books like those of raymond franz and never went back.

aside from my father trying to coax me back in, no other jw (elder or otherwise) has ever brought up the subject or hunted me down to make a decision.

jws

Just read the posts about dissassociating. Wondering what the advantages/disadvantages are.

I myself had my meeting attendance drop about 1989. During this time, I found the truth about JWs through books like those of Raymond Franz and never went back. Aside from my father trying to coax me back in, no other JW (elder or otherwise) has ever brought up the subject or hunted me down to make a decision. Though I have heard of this happening in the case of a friend who dissappeared and ended up living with his girlfriend. So until you commit a DF offense, maybe they don't track you down.

To me, the advantage of not doing anything is that I get to see my family members that are still in it and not have them reject me. As for making it official to the congregations I associated with, I could care less about clarifying things officially. Let 'em keep guessing. If I were to make it official, I can pretty much guarantee there will be a change in attitude towards me, both from my family and from old friends I know. I know it's ridiculous. I'm the same person either way (opposed, never going back), but it's that official statement of position that will drive them away from me.

The advantage of disassociation is what? I don't feel like I'm part of them. I mostly feel free to do as I please without worrying about their judgement (of course living in another state where they don't know me helps). The only exception being when I'm around JW relatives or JWs (not that often). I don't talk about birthday parties or Christmas, etc.

Dissassocating myself seems like being required to fill out a service record card. It's more official paperwork for the JWs. I'm pretty sure God can read my heart and doesn't need to go into the Watchtower Society's records to see where I stand (or don't stand) with them.

Don't know what the current treatment of DA people are. Is it still like a DF person? When I was a JW, I always thought of them as worse. They didn't just do something bad out of weakness, they rejected the entire religion and are gone for good. I'm thinking people will view me worse. Now I'm just irregular (VERY irregular), but they have no reason to reject me.

So what's the point? Why would anyone DA themselves and lose at least the polite hellos from old friends and family?

-jws

22

New Tract-Youths What Will You Do With Your Life

by Scarlet in

i was wondering if any of you have read this tract that was given out at the district convention .. i found in this tract they are pushing the fulltime ministry more than ever before.

they in so many words say if you are not a fulltime minister you are not serving god.

it stated that youths today should not strive for academic success.

jws

My brother and I had an elder for a father, but we both went to college. We were "advised" against it. But, we never took it seriously. The feeling I got was it was a choice, and we chose college. We're both computer programmers. You don't just walk out of high school and get a job doing that and my parents agreed that we'd probably need college. They at first argued for technical school, but regular college won out because nobody going to technical schools was getting good jobs. In the end, we both went to college, but both had to pay our own way. Partially because our parents didn't really agree 100% and partially because they couldn't afford it.

And maybe college is a bad influence (in JW terms). My brother and I are both ex-JWs. And even though we didn't leave right away, it was around the time we finished with college that we did leave. And I must say, our minds did become more open and exposed to more things.

I wonder if the new guidelines are part of a desperate attempt to reclaim lost ground. Obviously, the JWs are losing ground. People are getting fed up and leaving. Partially because of things like the internet. Some because of getting fed up with change after change. Some have waited for 'the end' too long.

Higher educated witnesses don't help. You need them dumb and poor to be the best sheep. Ever notice how the poor and desperate areas have the most JWs. You offer a message of hope to people at the end of their ropes, it works. People with better education and greater wealth tend to be more independent. They think more independently and they aren't as easily controlled. When their ties to the JWs are severed (even if not their will), they can go on. It is not all they have. But the poor and stupid are too afraid to leave. They don't have much and the JWs are all they do have.

So you don't go to college, you work part time, you stay poor. And you pioneer. That also gets more people coming in the door.

I wonder if this will backfire someday down the road. Even though you'd think every JW should work part time at some cleaning business and pioneer the rest of the time, the WTBS needs more educated people. They need computer people at Bethel. They need lawyers (boy, do they need lawyers). And all sorts of other professional positions. What happens when they can't find a good lawyer for the legal department because nobody went to college?

Also, what will the long-term effects be of people who can't afford big donations? Will Kingdom Halls not be able to afford their bills? Will they have to shut down and merge with other congregations? And what of the Society that is also hit. They don't get the donations to them either. And what of the long-term effect on book sales? If these poor struggling people can't buy books and magazines, what will they do? They can't go out preaching armed with only a Bible. They might not go out preaching. Or they might not place as much literature. Net effect, less people coming in. And what about not being able to marry and support a family? That means no little kids to raise as JWs.

I can see pluses for them and minuses from a conspiritorial organization point of view. Either way, the JW youths lose.

It will be interesting to see if the new wording is bold enough (unlike in my case) that people will actually be afraid to go to college.

-J.W.S.

36

Name Your Funniest Experience Out In Service

by Dismembered in

this should be a fun thread.. one of the funniest things i can remember out in "service" .

was 2 other guys and myself in a car.

so we take turns going to the door alone.

jws

I remember one time my brother and I were out in service when, nestled in the middle of the street was a church. We figured, what the hell? It's Saturday, nobody's there. It just means more time until we actually have to face somebody. Well, to our surprise, somebody did answer. I don't know who was more surprised, him or us. He is obviously a clergyman of some sort and has this confused, "What in the world?" look on his face as if to say, "don't you guys know what this is?" I started in with the magazine presentation which he politely declined. We both walked away laughing.

Another time, my brother and I had a call on this elderly woman in a retirement home. On our first time, she invited us in and listened to everything we had to say. She probably would have let us talk for hours, but I wasn't really the type of publisher to be prepared with much to say beyond offering magazines. At this point, as we're about to get up, she asks, "Should we pray?". I was caught totally off-guard. I was not used to praying in public, even at home and had never said prayer publicly. Something about the innocence of the question too. My first reaction was a sort of stifled laugh, with the thought "are you serious"? Well, I prayed and had to stop at least twice because I was giggling so hard. I don't know whether this is a "had to be there story", but for most of you ex-JWs, how often does somebody ask you to pray after a first visit?

As we got older and had friends with cars to go out with (who hated it as much as we did), we covered so much territory. Our friend, Brandon would just drive down the street eyeing up each house, determining whether they were not-at-home by sight and carefully noted those on his service record card. We never even got out of the car.

As has been noted by others, going to the door and not knocking seems to be more common than I thought. Well, we'd do that too, faking the pounding on the door, never really touching it or even making a sound. Then my brother and I would stand there for a while until enough time had passed that we leave and claim they didn't answer. Well, imagine our shock after standing outside for a few minutes, talking to each other after a fake knock, we realized that a guy had been sitting by an open screen window and not too easily visible because of the difference in lighting. He had been watching us the whole time and eventually spoke up and asked what we wanted. I felt so embarassed.

16

Dumb Music Stuff - What I Left Behind

by Stephanus in

jw
friends

today i went out and actually bought 3 cd's!

(i'm not a great listener to music at the best of times) however, today i went into a music shop and picked up some cd's which contained music from my lost youth.

as i sit here assaulting my eardrums with early status quo songs such as pictures of matchstick men, green tambourine, mean girl, and gerdundula (.

jws

I guess I was lucky when it came to a lot of this - and careful too. My brother and I were pretty much free to pick and choose what we wanted to listen to. My parents didn't seem to know or care too much, although I think most of that was out of ignorance. My mother bought my brother his first AC/DC album when he was about 12. I honestly don't think she had a clue who they were or what was on the album (Dirty Deeds).

But we sort of policed ourselves too. We tried to stay away from most of the more satanic type groups of our own will, with a few exceptions, like the Stones, Led-Zep, and AC/DC. And we were also careful. If we were listening to a new Stones or AC/DC album, we'd listen to it with headsets first so we didn't get it taken away.

At one time, my brother-in-law (20+ years older than me) was an elder. But was asked to step down because he was deemed a bad influence on the young men of the congregation. He would take them to concerts, late-night rock movies and taught some of them to play rock guitar. He really loved the 60's and early 70's rock bands. He was basically judged a bad influence because he taught kids how to play things like Beatles and Who songs.

Our parents let us go with him to those movies and concerts (which started when he was still an elder). We'd see the Who's Tommy and Led-Zep's Song Remains the Same, Neil Young's Rust Never Sleeps, Beatles movies, and so on. Of course, he was an elder. And we went to a "World Series of Rock" concert with him as well, featuring 4 bands with REO speedwagon headlining.

While we went to these things, our parents (and my father was an elder too) told us not to tell people at the Hall. Well, the morning after the "World Series of Rock", we were just too excited. We were on our way to the Kingdom Hall and we normally gave a ride to this older sister. She was a very self-righteous woman and also one of the 144,000. ("Well I never" was actually one of her favorite phrases). My brother and I are talking to each other about the concert. She asked what we were talking about and when we told her, she got all bent out of shape about it. Told our parents SHE would never let HER child go to such a thing. To which one of my parents (forget which one) said that WE weren't HER kids. (Bravo!) And to one of the "annointed" too!!!

Fast-forward to our years above age 18 at a new hall. By now, we're not only going to concerts a lot more frequently, I'm even working security for some of the bigger concerts (not only see the show for free, get paid!!!). Our congregation once gave a special talk about my brother and I (not by name) which denounced such things as listening to rock music, going to rock concerts (and lifting weights and hair styles and dress and a bunch of other things). I think my stereo was cranked up all the way as I pulled out of the hall that night, blairing something like AC/DC.

A few years after this, I had moved out from my parents, leaving a lot of stuff like old vinyl records back at my parents. One summer, my sister and brother-in-law (not the one who loves rock) visit from out of state and stay at my parents. My brother-in-law (who runs from zealot to passive as a JW and back and forth) is now in holy-roller mode. He determines he feels evil in the house and moves all of our records out to the garage because he "doesn't want to be under the same roof as those albums". It was probably my father who had him put them out in the garage. I think he would have smashed and tossed them if he had his way.

The impression I got from a lot of my JW background was that even certain types of music were bad to them. Disco was said to be bad because of it's beat which supposedly represented fertility dances. Maybe it wasn't said by the JWs themselves, but the good old brothers and sisters in the congregation gave the impression that rock music itself (wailing guitars and a drum beat) were bad in itself. Not sure, but I sort of get that impression that a lot of religious types are like this - not just JWs.

The interesting thing is there's a new station in town that plays Christian rock. This isn't the mellow stuff that sounds like folk music. This is bonafide rock. The music (not words, just music) sounds like a lot of rock stations. The main difference is I'm not familiar with the songs or performers. So, if the lyrics are spiritual and presumably the artists are too, I wonder how these self-righteous types view this type of music.

At this point, I listen to what I like. I now believe most of the stuff about music or beats being bad is simply untrue. Made up because it was new and different and the old folks didn't like it. Instead of saying "we're out of touch and don't like it so we don't want you to either", they make up things to demonize it. I've also listened to so-called backwards masking and can't make out anything. *maybe*. Big "maybe". But if I can't even make it out without hints when played in reverse, how am I supposed to make it out when it's backwards? I conclude that music itself does not have an evil affect. Lyrics might. But not the instrumentals.

Oh well, free from churches and pious attitudes now. I listen to what sounds good and I enjoy it.

-jws

68

why i do believe in 607

by perspicacia2 in

the bible reports that the babylonians under nebuchadnezzar destroyed .

chronology, the desolation of jerusalem would have been in the year 587/6 .

babylon (in his accession year, 605 b.c.e.

jws

The prophet Jeremiah predicted that the Babylonians would destroy Jerusalem
and make the city and land a desolation. (Jeremiah 25:8, 9) He added: "And
all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and
these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
(Jeremiah 25:11) The 70 years expired when Cyrus the Great, in his first
year, released the Jews and they returned to their homeland. (2 Chronicles
36:17-23) We believe that the most direct reading of Jeremiah 25:11 and other
texts is that the 70 years would date from when the Babylonians destroyed
Jerusalem and left the land of Judah desolate.Jeremiah 52:12-15, 24-27;
36:29-31.

You seem to forget to quote Jeremiah 25:12 (NIV):

Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chalde'ans, for their iniquity, says the LORD, making the land an everlasting waste.

What do we learn from this? AFTER some 70 year period is completed, the king of Babylon will be punished. When was the king of Babylon killed? Even the WTBS says 539 BCE. So HOW can 70 years end in 537? How can the king of Babylon be punished 2 years after he is killed? It doesn't say the king of Babylon will be punished AND THEN 70 years will be completed. You've got to learn to read the whole text, not just the sections of it the WTBS quotes.

The bible chronology agrees with history, not the WTBS interpretation. The Bible says that "these nations" will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. Something that was going on LONG before Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of the city.

When Nebuchadnezzar first came to power, it says he made Jehoiakim his vassal servant. Servant? As in, one who serves.

2 Kings details several uprisings (how can you uprise unless you're in subjection to somebody?). In 2 Kings 25:17, Nebuchadnezzar puts Johoiachin's uncle on the throne and gives him a new name, a Babylonian name, Zedekiah. So, Babylon is having problems with Jerusalem. They take their king off the throne, put somebody else on and even throw out his name in favor of a new one. Doesn't this show subserviance?

Eventually Zedekiah rebelled too, bringing on Nebuchadnezzar's final assault in his 18th year.

Doesn't this make it obvious that Jerusalem served Babylon even though it had kings on its throne? You can't rebel unless you serve. The Jews were to serve Babylon for 70 years. Those 70 years started long before Zedekiah's defeat. They started before Zedekiah was even on the throne. And by the term "these nations", it doesn't only apply to Israel.

If 70 years ends in 539, and if 70 years is literal, the starting point is 609 BC. That would change 1914 into 1912. But according to the WTBS, everything changed as-of 1914. So that doesn't work.

Yet those who rely primarily on secular information for the chronology of
that period realize that if Jerusalem were destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E.
certainly it was not 70 years until Babylon was conquered and Cyrus let the
Jews return to their homeland. In an attempt to harmonize matters, they claim
that Jeremiahs prophecy began to be fulfilled in 605 B.C.E. Later writers
quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar
extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine and, when returning to
Babylon (in his accession year, 605 B.C.E.), he took Jewish captives into
exile. Thus they figure the 70 years as a period of servitude to Babylon
beginning in 605 B.C.E. That would mean that the 70-year period would expire
in 535 B.C.E.

Those who rely on secular information? Without it, even the WTBS wouldn't have any idea of these dates. They certainly stand by 539 and 537, which come from secular information.

But the Bible itself provides even more telling evidence against the claim
that the 70 years began in 605 B.C.E. and that Jerusalem was destroyed in
587/6 B.C.E. As mentioned, if we were to count from 605 B.C.E., the 70 years
would reach down to 535 B.C.E. However, the inspired Bible writer Ezra
reported that the 70 years ran until "the first year of Cyrus the king of
Persia," who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland.
(Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:21-23) Historians accept that Cyrus conquered
Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. and that Cyrus first regnal year began in the
spring of 538 B.C.E. If Cyrus decree came late in his first regnal year, the
Jews could easily be back in their homeland by the seventh month (Tishri) as
Ezra 3:1 says; this would be October 537 B.C.E.

This is simply not true. These accounts report the Jews being released to their homeland, but does not say that that was related to 70 years. 70 years ends, babylon falls, cyrus releases the jews, they return home. What does 70 years of serving Babylon have to do with Cyrus?

Just read the Bible. Read 2 Kings. Read Jeremiah. It's all there. Just put it together. Secular history isn't needed to disprove the Watchtower. The Bible does a pretty good job all by itself.

This whole writeup is only meant to try to cast doubt on historical sources, much like OJ Simpson's lawyers trying to raise questions in DNA evidence. The sources are as accurate as any other history. It's time to come to that realization and drop the formula.

I have a question about this too. Russell originally said 70 years was from 606 to 536, forgetting about no 0 year. Don't you think it's odd that all this stuff got rearranged, but the end date is the thing that stayed the same?

-jws

25

WTS Hypocrisy Digging Their Own Grave WT 6/15/02

by Reborn2002 in

jw
friends

i received the 6/15/02 watchtower in the mail today.. for those that do not know, 2005 is the new predicted end date for this "system of things.".

reference: .

http://quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com/2005.htm.

jws

I'm not really seeing a clear path to 2005 either. There is no mention of a 70-year timespan, only a date, 70 CE. And as for the "soon", "impending" verbage. That's a constant. They've always used that. It's nothing new.

IMHO, if you read 2005 into this, then it's just like when they claimed people saw them pointing to 1975. If you see 2005, you are drawing your own conclusions.

As for 1935, that does have significance to JWs. I forget the exact reason and probably most JW's for the last 50 years don't know the either because it didn't get brought up much. But it has something to do with "sealing" the 144,000 from what I remember. I think in 1935, the 144,000 were all selected, unless one "fell away" and had to be replaced. Since 1935, anybody who becomes "annointed" is just a replacement called up to replace somebody who, for instance, went apostate. I guess even the replacements have to be replaced because the partakers are still out there and occasionally even increase. Guess a few hundred 90-year-olds found an good "apostate" website and lost the faith.

The true governing body members for all these years have been made up of only those "annointed" before 1935. Apparently replacements aren't good enough. Hence, as the board ages, they have been faced with some difficult choices, including having helpers annointed after 1935.

Another thing about 1935 is that may point to future changes. The original 1914 thing presumes that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in 607 BC, and 2520 years later is the end of "the Gentile Times" in 1914. But, history tells us Nebuchadnezzar probably conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC (maybe 587 BC), 21 years after the WTS says. If you add 2520 to 586 BC, you get 1935.

I think they're too scared to abandon 1914, but if they do, 1935 could become the new 1914 - and a more accurate one that doesn't put them in a position of discrediting every Babylonian historian on date issues. It's just that nothing significant like a world war happened in 1935 to bolster the date. And what does that buy you, a mere 21 years? At this late date, they'd have to move their dates up at least 70 years to give them some breathing room. Next thing you know, they'll figure out a way to turn 9-11-01 into the new 1914, when Satan was cast down with great anger against the USA.

25

WTS Hypocrisy Digging Their Own Grave WT 6/15/02

by Reborn2002 in

jw
friends

i received the 6/15/02 watchtower in the mail today.. for those that do not know, 2005 is the new predicted end date for this "system of things.".

reference: .

http://quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com/2005.htm.

jws

I'm not really seeing a clear path to 2005 either. There is no mention of a 70-year timespan, only a date, 70 CE. And as for the "soon", "impending" verbage. That's a constant. They've always used that. It's nothing new.

IMHO, if you read 2005 into this, then it's just like when they claimed people saw them pointing to 1975. If you see 2005, you are drawing your own conclusions.

As for 1935, that does have significance to JWs. I forget the exact reason and probably most JW's for the last 50 years don't know the either because it didn't get brought up much. But it has something to do with "sealing" the 144,000 from what I remember. I think in 1935, the 144,000 were all selected, unless one "fell away" and had to be replaced. Since 1935, anybody who becomes "annointed" is just a replacement called up to replace somebody who, for instance, went apostate. I guess even the replacements have to be replaced because the partakers are still out there and occasionally even increase. Guess a few hundred 90-year-olds found an good "apostate" website and lost the faith.

The true governing body members for all these years have been made up of only those "annointed" before 1935. Apparently replacements aren't good enough. Hence, as the board ages, they have been faced with some difficult choices, including having helpers annointed after 1935.

Another thing about 1935 is that may point to future changes. The original 1914 thing presumes that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in 607 BC, and 2520 years later is the end of "the Gentile Times" in 1914. But, history tells us Nebuchadnezzar probably conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC (maybe 587 BC), 21 years after the WTS says. If you add 2520 to 586 BC, you get 1935.

I think they're too scared to abandon 1914, but if they do, 1935 could become the new 1914 - and a more accurate one that doesn't put them in a position of discrediting every Babylonian historian on date issues. It's just that nothing significant like a world war happened in 1935 to bolster the date. And what does that buy you, a mere 21 years? At this late date, they'd have to move their dates up at least 70 years to give them some breathing room. Next thing you know, they'll figure out a way to turn 9-11-01 into the new 1914, when Satan was cast down with great anger against the USA.