Posts by Anony Mous

11

Revising History

by no-zombie in

while i'm aware of wt books being revised without noting the differences on newer editions (the truth book is a classic example of this) ... is there evidence of the writing committee revising the online versions of wt articles, as compared to the printed editions?.

if there is a previous thread on this topic, just link it ... as these is no need to reinvent the wheel.. thanks.

Anony Mous

This topic has come up several times. Yes, there are instances where the WTBTS directed destroying unbundled Watchtowers in JW libraries in favor of the bundled versions. This controversy has been the case since the Watchtower Library came out on CDROM, despite having the capacity to hold all articles going back a century, they intentionally did not put in anything referencing 1975 and the various books, Truth, Everlasting Life, Knowledge have been revised multiple times both in print, on CD and online. Many of the older books have since been completely removed online and were directed destroyed from JW personal libraries.

There was at some point someone who decoded the proprietary format the WTBTS made the CDs in, so you should be able to get the CDROM from year to year and compare them with some code to see all the changes that are made to the historical documents.

I know they did it for the “Evolution” book, because they were getting sued for misquoting a pre-eminent scholar (I think they did the same to atheist Richard Dawkins later on, making it seem like he is arguing for a god)

The 1989 Watchtower used the term "in our 20th century" in the magazine, but this was changed to "in our day" for the bound volume and subsequent CD library.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/105270/question-blondie

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/101291/itemized-list-revisions-daniel-book

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/196792/blatant-misquote-origin-life-booklet

10

(NATO Emergency Meeting!) Biden To Give NUKES to Ukraine Under Consideration – WORLD WAR 3!!!

by Esoteric in

(nato emergency meeting!

) biden to give nukes to ukraine under consideration – world war 3!!!

(steve ram).

Anony Mous

Not sure why you claim this as fake news, NATO website confirmed deploying battalions for “exercise” in Romania, NYP confirms the documents with the secret plans for 800k troops are accurate, in response Putin is mobilizing 1.5M. Biden did this in response to both Putin and Trump publicly stating they are willing to negotiate an immediate cease fire if Ukraine wants to come to the table after they lost 40% of the area they had captured this summer.

If you want to know how they plan to get 800k (let’s be honest, US) troops, Biden made an executive order in 2021 to make sure the DoD has the capacity that “all Americans who are qualified to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States should be able to serve” - aka instituting a draft if necessary under the guise of trans rights.

Biden got nearly 3 months before Trump has any official capacity, he is under the misguided idea from mainstream media that Russia is weak and can be completely defeated, it would be, if it were possible, his only legacy after a failed career, failed presidency, one disputed and one failed candidacies, failed Afghanistan pullback. And I don’t doubt for an instance, the US can win in less than 30 days and take all the land between Kyiv and Moscow, but it would be an expensive, bloody and nuclear war, the Normandy landings would pale in comparison, but Biden, as we saw from Afghanistan cares nothing about the people he needs to run roughshod over to try and get a political legacy win.

48

President-Elect Trump Tears Into Biden For Making World 'Vastly Dangerous'; World War 3 Warning!

by Esoteric in

live streaming i trump tears into biden for making world 'vastly dangerous'; world war 3 warning!!!

(times of india).

u.s president elect donald trump tears into joe biden for having made the world more dangerous than ever before with the threat of world war 3 closer than ever before.

Anony Mous

@TonusOH: the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a bit longer than 3 years, about a year before the collapse of the Soviet Union, they already wanted to join NATO/EU.

After the collapse, they became mostly independent and annexed Crimea and the Donbas during the formation of what was going to be a much smaller Russia.

In 1994 the (at that point attempting to be independent) Republic of Crimea chose a pro-Russian president, Ukraine and Russia both pushes for Crimea to not be independent, hoping they will get the (now oil/gas rich) territory. Ukraine wins this three-way tug of war with pressure from the US, in return Clinton convinced them the US was going to guarantee their security if they dismantled their nuclear weapons. But the regions remained effectively independent, having their own military and government.

Things remain rocky but stable between the two during the Bush presidency until 2009, when Obama gives assurances to Medvedev of non-interference in return for cheap Russian oil and subsequently a corrupt pro-Russian president gets elected in Ukraine which many believe through CIA interference, this doesn’t last long as Ukrainians protest, the government collapses and both Donbas and Crimea sees the opportunity for an official referendum for independence, which Ukraine doesn’t like.

Obama refuses to support Crimean/Donbas independence, Ukrainian forces attempt to suppress the ‘rebellion’ and Russia steps in, thousands of Ukrainian forces are sent in and immediately they defect to the local government, most of the political leadership in the regions wants to become a Russian protectorate, they continue fighting for years though which eventually leads to the point that Russia gains enough of a foothold and pushes Ukraine completely out of the Donbas which was 3 years ago when they finally invaded Ukraine proper as they felt there would be no pushback from Biden to take a little more, and got all the way to Kyiv.

The lines of this conflict were drawn a long time ago, the current conflict has been ‘hot’ for a decade now, the only thing that changes is how much the US and Russia wants to push their puppets around. Clinton, Obama and Biden needed oil to fund their environmental policies of no-drilling and Russia is a giant gas station with a country attached to it.

That’s why this whole situation is so schizophrenic, the US and Europe if it doesn’t drill its own oil, needs to fund both sides which in return provides the riches to both sides to be more belligerent towards each other despite during all these conflicts, they have to rely on each other to deliver the product that provides each other’s war funding from the US/Europe.

48

President-Elect Trump Tears Into Biden For Making World 'Vastly Dangerous'; World War 3 Warning!

by Esoteric in

live streaming i trump tears into biden for making world 'vastly dangerous'; world war 3 warning!!!

(times of india).

u.s president elect donald trump tears into joe biden for having made the world more dangerous than ever before with the threat of world war 3 closer than ever before.

Anony Mous

@Riley: and yet for all his bluster, there was not a single war started under Trump. Syria was on Obama his infamous “after the election I’ll have more flexibility”, Trump had a deal with the Taliban and they weren’t going to leave Afghanistan until they complied, Biden just ended the war without consulting any military tactician, a bunch of woke idiot bureaucrats decided the US had to exit regardless of the losses and they got what they asked for. Kim Jong Un stopped launching missiles over Japan soon after Trump took office and started soon after he left office. Seriously, get a clue.

Putin just announced he is considering nuclear action. This is the Cuban missile crisis all over again.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Anony Mous

@duran: the last post you linked to the MEV version of the Bible (a retranslation of the KJV that attempts to be inclusive for modern Christian thoughts) and stated that you could not be rebutted because you only made claims from scripture as if what you had quoted up to that point could not be rebutted (claim to authority)

But it is exactly the WTBTS interpretation and translation of scripture that is being rebutted. Nobody is saying that the scripture doesn’t state certain things, but that in and of itself does not provide any meaning to the text. The WTBTS uses the same format to “stump” lay people that aren’t educated on Biblical/Christian history, translation but then in that interpretation you are yourself jumping back and forth between literal and figurative speech. You can’t have it both ways, either the entire thing is figurative and the meaning of the numbers have a meaning that has probably been lost to time, or meant something specific related to the customs and culture of that day (eg 1000 years from now, people will find reference to Swifties, which without cultural context could mean lots of things). Or it is read literal and then you can’t turn days into years and beasts into specific organizations that did not exist yet and you likewise can’t just jump from sentence to sentence across books and string together a coherent story.

Pick one of the books you want to make an argument about and then from the same book, string together the context about the idea that was being conveyed. If the King of the North is not the widely believed to be physically the King of the North at the time of writing, then prove that from the book of Daniel. The context of Daniel then would make clear that this is not written for the Jews as a warning and message of hope, John of Patmos largely rewrote the story for early Christians with similar messaging, which clearly does not indicate the same message because the numbers are different, but the story itself is important. Were it a prophecy, the numbers would be the same, except there is pretty strong evidence the numbers 666 was a transliteration of Nero Caesar, likely Daniel had similar coding which was lost to time. So the story stayed the same, the characters changed, it is possible history repeats itself but those numbers would have to change for every large empire.

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

Anony Mous

@SeaBreeze, my point you did not understand: People are missing the point entirely.

The question was about the trinity at the Nicene Council, the one Arian participated in, he lost the argument, but did not argue there was no trinity, he believed there was one supreme god in the beginning that then created and made himself into the triune god as his first creation. This isn’t too crazy in the eyes of a people that largely came from polytheism.

As far as the arguments of a trinity being pagan: yes, that is an argument I have made prior to the fact many religions have come to the same conclusion about deities and their connection to humanity, both influenced and independent, you can find references to various trinity even in cultures that did not have influence from Christians or Greeks and Romans. Therefore my claim is that scientifically speaking there is a basic symbolic “truth” to it, for stable societies to exist people should understand that a God is not disconnected but has progressive human (youth, vigor, sons) properties and a logos (spirit, word, teachings) and a father (wisdom, knowledge) property that needs to be balanced and influence each other for humans to thrive.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Anony Mous

@aqswed: it is hard to engage with someone who repeatedly uses the WTBTS mistranslation of the NT to prove a point, they intentionally rewrote large swathes to conform the text to their theology. I’ve quoted the Greek text and got ignored, instead making a statement sourced from the WTBTS that the WTBTS translation is accurate.

I’ve given up, the text is irrefutable in the original Greek, yes there are other texts that SEEM to negate that IF you ignore the meaning of the original Greek words and only read the English without understanding the symbolism and the OT. The problem with those texts is if you accept the original text you then must also accept the divine nature of man, divinity of Christ, immortal soul, existence of hell etc, also written out of the WTBTS translation.

When they stop linking to WOL as their proof, then you can engage in discussion.

7

After Trump appointee RFK Jr. gets flouride removed from water

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

.

Anony Mous

@NotFormer: Fluorine in the water is mandated by the Federal government (FDA). It was an experiment performed under the Manhattan Project under the guise that it was to improve oral health, really, it was human subject testing on widespread atomic contamination (this wasn’t the only human subject testing that went on, in various places .

Strong Memorial Hospital

Located at the University of Rochester, this hospital was the site of a field office called the “Manhattan Annex” that focused on health-related issues. The hospital was involved in a series of controversial experiments that injected patients with plutonium and uranium to study how the body expels radioactive materials.

University of California San Francisco
One of the hospitals where patients were injected with radioactive elements.