Regarding what some have said here about the WT being a false prophet.. I would like to make my point regarding the WT not being a false prophet one last time.. So please, if you can be patient enough to read this, at least try to understand what I am getting at.. A false prophet is one who, according to Deuteronomy, makes a false prediction of the future and claims that the prediction came from God, or in other words claiming that 'God has said he will do a certain thing at a certain time' etc.. For example, hypothetically speaking, if someone had claimed: "God will bring about the end of the world in 2010", they would have been proven to be a false prophet, obviously. But, as an example, imagine a man who claimed the position of a prophet of God, (as Moses did, because although he was not the type of prophet that predicted the future.. He was still a prophet or spokesman for God) and that he had publicised worldwide, according to his interpretation of a (for example) prophecy found in the book of Isaiah, that the world would end in 2010.. and he had also stated that he was not saying that God WILL end the world in that year.. but only that there was Biblical evidence that God might do so. That would clearly have been a mistake. He shouldn't have promoted a theory so strongly about a specific year, because the Bible doesn't tell you exactly when it (the end of the world) will happen.. But who doesn't make mistakes (even ones that are costly or embarassing) ? Moses certainly did. The person in my example did not give a prophecy of the future, did he? He promoted an interpretation of a Bible prophecy (to relate this to 1975, the Bible prophesies that their will be a 'great day of God the Almighty' at the end of the last days, although we don't know when, so it was a mistake to even guess when the prophecy will be fulfilled) that turned out to be wrong, but he didn't prophesy that 'God WILL end the world in 2010', did he? He promoted an incorrect interpretation of a prophecy, and even if people had decided to sell their homes because they respected him and chose to listen to his Biblical views in the past, despite his statements being a (perhaps over-hyped) theory which was accompanied by NO claims that God had SAID it or God WOULD do it.. Be honest, would any of this PROVE that the man was a false prophet according to the Bibles definition? (which should be the only definition considering that the Bible is the source from which you take the label of 'false prophet' and apply it to the WT) Again, the Bibles definition is that a 'false prophet' is one who makes a false prophecy/prediction of the future in Gods name, in other words telling people 'God will do this at this time' ? Couldn't the man in my example have been, in theory, a prophet of God who didn't make a future prophecy.. but gave a mistaken interpretation OF a future prophecy that someone else wrote? Remember, Moses acted as Gods leader and spokesman, didn't he? Did he claim that everything that he did and said was directly from God, or infallible? He didn't, and he could not have claimed this.. And neither does the WT. Did Moses make mistakes? So have the WT. Can you prove that the WT made a false prophecy in Gods name, rather than mistakenly promoting a theory regarding the Biblical prophecy of the end of the world, with a disclaimer that God has not told them this (Watchtower 1966 October 15 pp.629,631) , a theory that they perhaps should not have promoted as strongly? Or maybe God was wrong to appoint prophets such as Moses, who don't prophesy about the future in His name but make mistakes.. I await the attacks on my character and intelligience for daring to present an opposing viewpoint with bated breath, and I will not respond to anything, as this is all I can say.. Finally, many thanks to IRONDORK for pointing out that there is, Biblically, more than one kind of prophet. You do NOT have to make a prophecy that God will do something in the future to be a prophet. Moses didn't prophesy, but he was a prophet. This IS relevant, because to simply say: WT says they are a prophet + they gave a mistaken interpretation of a Bible prophecy = they're a false prophet... is a logical fallacy. A person can be a prophet (or messenger of God) and have a mistaken view of a prophecy, without having prophesied about the future or claimed that the prediction came from God. If you do NOT make a prophecy of the future and claim that God said it, you CANNOT be a 'false prophet' according to the Bible. The Biblical criteria of a 'false prophet' thus cannot be applied to the WT. PROVE ME WRONG, if you can... Goodbye and thanks for listening :)
The Quiet One
JoinedPosts by The Quiet One
-
59
THE WATCHTOWER SAY'S THEY ARE / ARE NOT INSPIRED
by wasblind in" if any ...organization claim to represent god, but decline to use god's.
personal name....are they measuring up to this important qualification.
of a true prophet?
-
-
-
59
THE WATCHTOWER SAY'S THEY ARE / ARE NOT INSPIRED
by wasblind in" if any ...organization claim to represent god, but decline to use god's.
personal name....are they measuring up to this important qualification.
of a true prophet?
-
-
The Quiet One
No need, I'm done. Thanks to wasblind for listening, and to Cedars for replying. As a final point, I was not saying that wilful nonsupport is equal to violence.
-
59
THE WATCHTOWER SAY'S THEY ARE / ARE NOT INSPIRED
by wasblind in" if any ...organization claim to represent god, but decline to use god's.
personal name....are they measuring up to this important qualification.
of a true prophet?
-
-
The Quiet One
CEDARS BLOG said :"In fact, the Governing Body has used the pages of its literature to try and dissuade victims of domestic violence from availing themselves of, for example, the emergency services" -- Here you claim as a fact (that the GB has deliberately dissuaded victims from contacting the emergency services) something that you admitted earlier in your article was only (what you perceived as) an IMPLICATION in the 1979 Awake article. Is that honest?
-
59
THE WATCHTOWER SAY'S THEY ARE / ARE NOT INSPIRED
by wasblind in" if any ...organization claim to represent god, but decline to use god's.
personal name....are they measuring up to this important qualification.
of a true prophet?
-
-
The Quiet One
CEDARS BLOG said: "In no way does it command any wife who faces abuse from her non-believing husband to remain with him regardless, and endure a violent relationship in the blind hope that he will eventually embrace her faith and stop abusing her." -- Seeing as how you are claiming that this is how the WT applies this scripture, the ambiguity of your wording, 'remain with him', is misleading because it makes it sound as though it is the WT's stance that the wife must physically stay with him. It would be more honest and open of you to use the words 'remain scripturally married to him', (as even a legal divorce is allowed, as you admit), and also to not use the term 'command' as you know perfectly well that the WTS does not COMMAND anyone to remain living with an abusive partner. The context makes it clear that you are contrasting the scripture with WTS policy, and yet your wording would mislead people as to what the WT policy on domestic abuse is. A jw woman/man CAN leave a partner who is beating them, endangering them or wilfully not providing for them, as any jw knows from the Bible Teach book. They would not even have a Judicial, let alone be disfellowshiped. The decision to stay/not stay with the abuser is theirs alone, it's not anyones right to tell them what they have to do in their situation. The scripture you refer to is applied in WT's to show that some have treated their wives badly, but have changed when they became a Jw. It's offering a hope that change can happen, the only other alternative scripturally is to live life as a seperated married person, or commit the sin of adultery. You can view that offer of hope as the WT wanting women to stay with men who beat them if you want to..
-
59
THE WATCHTOWER SAY'S THEY ARE / ARE NOT INSPIRED
by wasblind in" if any ...organization claim to represent god, but decline to use god's.
personal name....are they measuring up to this important qualification.
of a true prophet?
-
-
The Quiet One
CEDARS BLOG said: "This does not mean, however, that quoting such an experience in the absence of any condemnation of domestic violence was wise or appropriate" -- This was quoted in the Study edition, so such a condemnation was unnecessary, as baptised jw's know that we do NOT condone domestic violence. Only the PUBLIC edition would need such a disclaimer, as jw's know this.. According to your logic, a hypothetical experience printed in the WT Study edition where: A jw woman was denied necessary money for food and clothing by her unbelieving husband on the day before she had her Bible study. Having been told about this, the sister studying with the woman encouraged her to pray to Jehovah about the matter and read her 'the long-suffering scripture' (or any other to do with enduring), and pointed out that her husband was not a Christian and so she could not expect him to apply him to 'provide for those who are his own'. She decided to stay with her husband and eventually he came into the Truth... would need a footnote stating that Jw's do not condone wilful nonsupport, or that she could have left him for wilful nonsupport (and that would involve assuming that he continued to deny her money, just as you assumed with the article that the physical abuse continued throughout all those years) ? No it wouldn't.. Because all Jw's would know this about wilful nonsupport, it's in the Bible Teach book (which every Jw has studied at least once)!... As is seperation for abuse.
-
59
THE WATCHTOWER SAY'S THEY ARE / ARE NOT INSPIRED
by wasblind in" if any ...organization claim to represent god, but decline to use god's.
personal name....are they measuring up to this important qualification.
of a true prophet?
-
-
The Quiet One
CEDARS BLOG said: "Could the Watch Tower Society's out-dated approach to domestic violence be putting thousands of women in harm's way?" -- This is misleading. The WTS doesn't tell anyone that they should stay with a violent partner, the victim can seperate from them, taking themselves out of harms way.. and the command to not divorce for domestic violence (or any grounds other than adultery) comes from the Bible, even if you decide to rewrite Jesus's words... Therefore the 'approach', as in not divorcing for domestic violence (but seperation is allowed), is actually the Bible's approach, not the WT's. This opening statement is sensationalism to me, and immediately reveals your bias to a discerning reader, as you make it seem like it is the Societys approach for women to stay living with the offender, which combined with a picture of a distressed woman, is obviously going to engage emotions first, rather than clear and logical thinking right from the start.. Baptised jw's know the answer to your question, and you know full well that this is the STUDY edition, not written for the general public.
-
59
THE WATCHTOWER SAY'S THEY ARE / ARE NOT INSPIRED
by wasblind in" if any ...organization claim to represent god, but decline to use god's.
personal name....are they measuring up to this important qualification.
of a true prophet?
-
-
The Quiet One
Firstly, I'm not against free speech at all, you have every right to express your views. But regarding this claim that you are not misleading anyone... CEDARS said: "with a conscious effort not to say anything that is untrue or misleading in any way." -- Perhaps you tried not to be misleading. But even with all of your caveats, you failed to explain a vital detail, which is.. the difference between the public and study editions of the WT, and who they are written for. If you are truly not trying to be misleading then you would explain, for the benefit of readers that aren't active jw's, that the Study edition is for baptised Jw's (or students who will be taught the Bible-based policies in the Bible Teach book) who know and choose to obey the Biblical command of Jesus to not divorce for anything except adultery and that THEY would ALREADY know the WT stance on marital seperation.. They would know that it is the persons choice, with no punishment, to leave or not to leave their partner; where abuse, endangerment or wilful nonsupport are involved. Jw's who read this WT article WOULD KNOW that domestic abuse is not condoned by the WT, with no need for a footnote disclaimer (which would obviously have been entirely necessary for a magazine article aimed at the public). But you don't explain this at all... You instead let some people believe that this experience was meant for people who didn't already know that domestic violence is not condoned by the WT. The ones who already know that it isn't condoned, the people who the article was intended for, do not need to be reminded with a footnote.
-
59
THE WATCHTOWER SAY'S THEY ARE / ARE NOT INSPIRED
by wasblind in" if any ...organization claim to represent god, but decline to use god's.
personal name....are they measuring up to this important qualification.
of a true prophet?
-
-
The Quiet One
CEDARS - I wasn't accusing you of causing damage to peoples lives, sorry if it sounded like I was. I just meant that if someone starts up campaigns that incite persecution, that are not based on something the WT has directly said, they could cause some damage to jw's lives based on their own assumptions of an articles intent. As for the WT causing more harm.. Whether the damage you may cause with your opinion is less than the damage caused by the WT's opinion is not relevant as to whether it is right or wrong to unnecessarily cause damage. All I meant is that if someone, such as you, bases their public accusations on their view of the Wt's words, (and not their words alone) and runs away with that assumption by saying that (for example, claiming that the WT is telling women to stay with men that regularly beat them, not that you have necessarily said that but some could see it that way) they intended something beyond the actual words they have said, would you not admit that they could possibly be wrong? And if they were wrong, and they had incited trouble for people by that assumption, they would be at least partly responsible for the damage, wouldn't they? I am not saying that your campaigns are wrong, in case that is unclear. I used you as an example because of you are the best known on JWN for starting campaigns.. I'm only suggesting that people should base their accusations on what is printed, not what they think was meant.. The best way is just quoting the words, and even the article as a whole to give context, as an unbiased journalist would do and then letting people decide for themselves or enquire as to what was meant to the person/organisation that made the statement. Just something for people to think about, I'm not trying to damage your reputation. Please don't take a sincere and honest criticism and turn it into a fight. I'm not attacking you, just suggesting what I feel is a better way to give people information regarding the WT, without causing trouble that may not be necessary. Thanks for listening.
-
59
THE WATCHTOWER SAY'S THEY ARE / ARE NOT INSPIRED
by wasblind in" if any ...organization claim to represent god, but decline to use god's.
personal name....are they measuring up to this important qualification.
of a true prophet?
-
-
The Quiet One
CEDARS - Your survey isn't going to cause problems for jw's, I wasn't referring to that. I'll drop this subject, you seem to be getting wound up and you're obviously going through a difficult time, I'm sorry.. On this point, though... CEDARS SAID: "I note that you choose to believe that there are multiple applications for the role of"prophet". The bible only prescribes ONE, but if you choose to believe differently to what the bible says, then that is your decision - and you are in good company in the Witness faith."... The WT do not claim to be inspired to tell the future, but are still 'prophets'. Here's an outside source to counter your claim that there was only 1 kind of prophet in the Bible. -- 'The foretelling of future events was not a necessary but only an incidental part of the prophetic office. The great task assigned to the prophets whom God raised up among the people was “to correct moral and religious abuses, to proclaim the great moral and religious truths which are connected with the character of God , and which lie at the foundation of his government .” Any one being a spokesman for God to man might thus be called a prophet. Thus Enoch , Abraham , and the patriarchs , as bearers of God 's message ( Gen. 20:7 ; Ex. 7:1 ; Ps. 105:15 ), as also Moses ( Deut. 18:15 ; 34:10 ; Hos. 12:13 ), are ranked among the prophets.' http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/prophet.html
-
59
THE WATCHTOWER SAY'S THEY ARE / ARE NOT INSPIRED
by wasblind in" if any ...organization claim to represent god, but decline to use god's.
personal name....are they measuring up to this important qualification.
of a true prophet?
-
-
The Quiet One
WASBLIND - Very sorry for the confusion, it's my mobiles fault, it doesn't use paragraphs.. If you carefully reread my post you'll see that the end part was aimed at Cedars. AGUEST - Yes, that was the point.. I was merely saying that the example of Moses and the rock didn't relate to the WT not being inspired, as far as I can see. Moses was still loved by Jehovah, even though he made a mistake, and I haven't even seen any evidence that the WT has taken the credit for anything that Jehovah has done.. So how does the example apply to the topic? Peace to you as well, anyway. JOOKBEARD - Why would you rely on someone else to explain your own beliefs? Just saying..