if you've been to the meeting when the letter was read, what was jw reaction????
just curious if it was just another sign that the end is nearer or did any wake up for a second to realize the corporation is downsizing due to costs..
The announcement mentioned that the leaner mags will only come into existence in Jan 2013. I didn't hear anyone comment at the hall that this means that the Governing Body is not expecting the end to come before then.
Ironic, since the preceding talk asked if it’s later than you think. The GB's answer to that question is a resounding NO!!!
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?
why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?
it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
This says that those that sit as a governing body aren't responsible for the errors and omissions of those that previously sat as members of the governing body (like Knorr and Franz)
So let me get this straight, errors made by Governing Body doesn't overlap yet the lives of the people who witnessed some imaginary event that makes up this generation's lives overlap?
Wow, that's amazing.
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?
why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?
it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
So what you are saying djeggnog is that the master master slave was sleeping while certain other master slaves were running ahead?
Wow my poor uneducated brain can't handle this. First there is speculation in the spiritual food being distributed and now the food is not checked by the masters of the masters of the banquet, and turds are slipping through.
It really is all very confusing and I think it's best to steer clear from the doctrinal roulette that is being played by the Faithfull and Discreet Slave and their irresponsible, lazy and sleeping Governing Body. As others have noted fortunately the food dispenser is being choked to only dispense half the food therefore the poor uneducated souls that still eats up this nonsense will have 50% less to digest.
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?
why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?
it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
Hey djeggnog you wrote this:
When an adult says to me what you just said to me here, @castthefirststone, I could either ask the person, "Why didn't you finish high school?" which might be regarded by that person as being mean, or I could say to the person, "I'm sorry, but you misconstrued what this article was saying," which might inflame the person to want to be argumentative with me in positing what is really going to be a losing argument.
You actually said something true in this, I am uneducated therefore I want you to educate me. How did you know I am uneducated? You are really good, the Holy Spirit is evident in your writings.
By your own admission there is evidence of speculation found in the food distributed by the Faithful and Discreet Slave. Therefore if speculation exists in the publications, how can an uneducated person, like myself, distinguish between fact and speculation?
Even with the Simplified English version of the Watchtower I find it very hard to know when our John Class are handing out proper food and when it's speculative food. So please help me by explaining it to me.
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?
why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?
it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
@djeggnog, you said:
No, there's nothing explicitly being called a fact in that article, "What Future for the Young?" that appeared in the Awake! dated May 22, 1969, for the article clearly speculates that "all the evidence ... indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years
The Watchtower of 15 December 1953 said this:
The purpose of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society since its inception has been to check not just the “proof texts” every religion has, but every text relating to every doctrine of Christendom. The job is tremendous, and has taken decades. It could be done only with the blessing of the holy spirit, and it is the only way to return to the unity of true worship, the faith of the apostles, and the favor of God. If the Bible actually teaches a doctrine, then and then only should it be accepted. If it is speculation, human theory, some man’s idea, it should be rejected.
Therefore from your Master's own mouth you should reject everything they publish as you admitted it's mere speculation.
Also proof to us that the theory of overlapping generations is not more speculation, but keep in mind everything you write here is permanent and once your Masters decide to change their speculation we will hold you accountable for your comments you made here.
this detailed article presents a large number of give and take propositions, suppositions and conjectures.. it challenges ray franz chapter in crises of conscience on jw policy for mexico/malawi, et al.. http://settingtherecordstraight.wordpress.com/category/ray-franzs-conscience-not-really-in-crisis/.
the important fact missing from the consideration and analysis is that the watchtower society privately advised draft age brothers who were facing draft problems.
i was personally taken aside, for example, by the congregation overseer and his assistant to the kingdom hall library.
Thanks for highlighting this fallacy Terry.
I read the whole blog and the argument of the poster is basically that the Mexican JW's had two choices:
1. To pay a bribe to avoid military duty.
2. To not turn up for military duty.
He argues that both were "illegal" at the time, in human terms, and that one can choose which illegal action to take. That's what the "WTS" advised according to him.
The issue at hand is not which choice was against human law as it's obvious both choices involve breaking the law of the land. The issue is: which choice goes against God's law. Not turning up for military duty and the sanctions that goes with that action doesn't transgress against any of God's laws. However payment of a bribe transgresses God's law as stated explicitly in Deut. 10:17 and Prov. 17:23. That is the issue and the argument that both choices are against the law of the land is a red herring. The fact that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses advised to transgress God's law in certain cases and not in others, proves that they make partial distinctions and that they do not represent the God that the Bible describes.
i noticed on the installation instructions:.
"close all other programs, including antivirus programs.".
i am not a computer whizzkid, but i have never installed software that told me to close antivirus.. what are they putting on our hard drives that they dont want us to know about?.
I have tested the Watchtower library with a network sniffer to see if it sends out any network traffic and the 2010 version doesn't. Call me paranoid but I wanted to make sure that my privacy wasn't violated by this program and I was happy to see that it didn’t.
As DragothUR eluded the library is very sensitive and breaks a lot. I believe it's related to when you deframent you registry or clean your registry (on Windows 7 as that is what I use). I have noticed that these two activities make the WT library act up and you have to re-install to fix it. I have been too lazy to try to figure out what exactly breaks in the library but I will leave that for the "experts" that wrote the software.
I agree with everyone else's advice, never disable your anti virus software when installing any software. Only if the installation fails then perhaps you can try to disable the anti virus software, but perhaps first try to understand why the installation is failing and what the anti virus software is blocking to prevent a successful installation. Certain anti virus software can be very paranoid and block everything but better safe than sorry is their strategy.
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?
My apologies, I made an error in my previous post.
I said
Are you trying to say that Eiromos' reign would have started in 533 BC if Josephus wrote that Cyrus seized power in his fourteenth year?
But I meant to say: Are you trying to say that Eiromos' reign would have ended in 533 BC if Josephus wrote that Cyrus seized power in his fourteenth year?
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
Your insults mean nothing here, just as your opinion without proof means nothing. The insults that you hurl only reveal your level of desperation. Not to worry I am not going anywhere. Whenever you post your nonsense here, there will be more than enough candidates to defend the truth and to point out your lies.
You asserted that my reading skills are at fault and I didn't understand what you wrote. I apologise if I didn't understand what you were trying to say. I have to admit, I still don't understand.
@djeggnog wrote:
"I don't know how exact Josephus was in his reckoning of the length of Eiromos' reign, but I do know that Eiromos' 20-year reign would have come to an end in 533 BC if it was 'in the fourteenth year of the reign of Eiromos' that Cyrus 'seized power."
Are you trying to say that Eiromos' reign would have started in 533 BC if Josephus wrote that Cyrus seized power in his fourteenth year? What exactly did Josephus say about the Eiromos' reign and how it relates to Cyrus? Which is it, because I really don't understand what you were hypothetically trying to say? Please tell us in plain and simple English so that my dyslectic (your assumption) brain can understand it.
You also didn't address my question regarding what your theory about the Phoenician kings is trying to prove? You rather chose to tell us that we are misunderstanding your ambiguous statements. Fine, according to you we are dyslectic; so please spell out to us: What you are doing on this forum and what are you trying to prove?
@AnnOMaly
Thank you for posting the explanation of the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar from Barclay. It is a plausible explanation. As you predicted it doesn't serve djeggnog's needs. He chooses that it's not relevant to him so best he ignores it. He even suggests that we must follow his lead and train our cognitive dissonance avoidance skills. I wait in anticipation to see how he responds to your previous post and with what new devious statements he comes up with to get him out of the hole he has dug for himself.
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?
My chromosome composition is not relevant to this discussion at all. In one post (your previous post) you told me that I need to own up to be a man and also that I am a little girl. If it makes you feel better to call me a man or a little girl that's cool, I really don't care. For the purposes of this forum you can address me as hermaphrodite, seeing that you can't decide if I have Y chromosome or not and also to illustrate that I really don't care what label you slap onto me.
You also accuse me of digression but I only wrote 67 words on the matter where you on the other hand wrote 223+ words. You see numbers don't lie and these numbers show the true digresser. For the record you asked me a yes or a no question about Jesus and Stephen and the answer is: YES they both were against what was considered true worship from a Judaism perspective at the time and both of them were executed for this reason.
Perhaps you didn't say directly that your theories disprove 587 BC just yet, but please enlighten me why are we having a discussion about your theories of the interpretation of Josephus' writings? Is it not to assign a relative date to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and when he had the 13 year siege of Tyre? Will you not eventually use this relative date to disprove 587 BC or are we just having a trivial debate with no purpose? Please tell me what your theories prove or disprove because to me and everyone else that are not deluded it proves absolutely nothing.
You said you needed a memory refresh where you said 50 years must be rounded up to 70 years. In post 434 you wrote:
djeggnog wrote:
You see, @AnnOMaly totally misunderstood this quote from Against Apion, I, xxi, by claiming that when "this Pharisee" -- Josephus -- stated that "the temple was desolate for 50 years," that he meant that Solomon's temple had lay desolate for only 50 years.
So what are you trying to say with that statement, other than the 50 years are symbolic and must be rounded up to 70 years?
I see you are still going on about how to round up 13 years to 16 years. 14th year means 13, by the way, and if you take the regnal year into consideration it will mean 14, but never 15 as you assert. You stretch this even further to round up 3 months to mean another year and then say that is nothing out of the ordinary, it's a fact, it's 16 years.
I don't buy your arguments, they are devious and false and your comfort levels are not important here. So you can't just ignore numbers because you are not "comfortable" with them or you perceive them to be irrelevant.
The 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar is relevant because it is in the same statement that you use for your theory. With the information in front of you, you have to conclude that Josephus believed that the siege on Tyre started 11 years before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem or that the 7th year is incorrect but this brings all the other quoted years into question. If the siege started before the destruction of the temple then your theory falls flat on it's face and it doesn't matter that your theory states that Baal started his reign in 577 BC. Can you see the relevance now? Probably not because you are blinded by your ego and cognitive dissonance.
I see your super duper speech recognition dictating software is acting up again. You again assign the end of Eiromos' reign to 533 BC. Which is it 533 or 535? While you are at it, say the numbers 5 3 5 and 5 3 3 out load and hear how ridiculous your assertion is that it's a misquote or typo.
djeggnog wrote:
but I do know that Eiromos' 20-year reign would have come to an end in 533 BC if it was "in the fourteenth year of the reign of Eiromos" that Cyrus "seized power."
You wrote one true thing in you previous post and that is that we disagree. Unless you post some other evidence or proof for your theories you will not convince me and I doubt you will convince any other reasonable lurker. Reposting your old posts (even misquoting yourself) will not convince anyone.
