leaving_quietly

Joined

• started 82 topics
• posted 1,676 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by leaving_quietly

• 
  28

  Why do Jehovah Witnesses hate when you bring up going to Jesus?

  by sheila wright in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  BTW, welcome to the board, Sheila!

  Matt 23:13 shows how the Pharisees shut up the kingdom of the heavens. A recent post by another new poster asked some simple questions in relation to whether one's religion was, in effect, pharisaical. See here
• 
  57

  A Clean Slate When You Die ??

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  for the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.

  - romans 6:7 (nwt).

  i got a chance to witness to my dad scripture for scripture for one whole hour over the holidays.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  *** deleted ***

  Bobcat and I were on the same page, but he beat me to it.
• 
  12

  Bible Reading Rev 7--umm hello?

  by DS211 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i got bored at the meeting and read the bible reading and could not believe some of the false prophetic garbage being commented....anyways heres what i fiund interesting ;-).

  7 after this i saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding tight the four winds of the earth, so that no wind could blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree.

  2 and i saw another angel ascending from the sunrise, having a seal of the living god; and he called with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, 3 saying: do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until after we have sealed the slaves of our god in their foreheads.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  w69 12/1 p.721 par. 32:

  These symbolic locusts were really the ones that were sealed with the “seal of God on their foreheads,” for they were the remnant of those spiritual Israelites, 144,000 of them, whom John saw undergo this sealing, according to his description in Revelation 7:1-8.

  re p. 146 par. 14 says of the locusts:

  This well illustrates the loyal group of revived Christians in 1919. Like horses, they were ready for battle, eager to fight for the truth in the way described by the apostle Paul.

  This is just dumb. The locusts are told to not go harm themselves????
• 
  12

  Bible Reading Rev 7--umm hello?

  by DS211 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i got bored at the meeting and read the bible reading and could not believe some of the false prophetic garbage being commented....anyways heres what i fiund interesting ;-).

  7 after this i saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding tight the four winds of the earth, so that no wind could blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree.

  2 and i saw another angel ascending from the sunrise, having a seal of the living god; and he called with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, 3 saying: do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until after we have sealed the slaves of our god in their foreheads.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  I am SO glad you brought this up. I caught this at the meeting last night and made a note to myself to research this. Yes, this blows the whole 144,000 as a literal number out of the water.

  Update: Minor note here. At this point, the 144,000 is not said to be in heaven. John simply heard the number of them, and the instructions to the angels to hold back the four winds until they were sealed. However, if the 24 elders are the 144,000, as WT claims, then, yes, they would be in heaven. Of course, the 24 elders cannot be the 144,000 because in Rev 14, the 144,000 are singing the new song before the angels and the elders, thus the elders are stated as a separate group. The issue here is that in Rev 9, the instructions to the locusts is to harm only those who do not have the seal of God in their forehead. This would INCLUDE the great crowd. Why would God order the angels to harm them? That's the question.
• 
  36

  This weeks LIE in the brochure

  by DS211 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  this week in the brochure for the "bible reading" it states on subject 24. that jehovahs witnesses wrote a century ago that jehovahs bacjs us and we do t take donations "and we never have!!!!

  ".....please someone post the information to prove this as a lie as we all know they used to charge for literature.

  this is an outright lie lol ridiculous..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  yep, picked up on the same thing. "we will never beg or petition"

  pe·ti·tion (p-tshn)

  n.

  1. A solemn supplication or request to a superior authority; an entreaty.

  2. A formal written document requesting a right or benefit from a person or group in authority.

  3. Law

  a. A formal written application requesting a court for a specific judicial action: a petition for appeal.

  b. The judicial action asked for in any such request.

  4. Something requested or entreated.
• 
  85

  BOE letter: New lights new changes

  by pixel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  re: adjustments to draw close to jehovah.

  dear brothers:.

  some changes involving our understanding of the meaning of gods name and what it re p- resents have been made to the first chapter of draw close to jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  Hmm. For folks that don't have or can't afford internet access, this is going to cause a major problem for their claim that whereever you go on earth, into whatever KH, everyone is studying the same material. Well, now, not really.
• 
  85

  BOE letter: New lights new changes

  by pixel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  re: adjustments to draw close to jehovah.

  dear brothers:.

  some changes involving our understanding of the meaning of gods name and what it re p- resents have been made to the first chapter of draw close to jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  I seem to recall reading something about people who "debate about words"... now where was that, and who did that apply to?
• 
  3

  Governing Body rules on having parties and social gatherings......

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i decided to do a few threads the next few days on ridiculous sets of rules the gb makes about things which are none of their business and showing what rules they make, which are in no way scriptual.

  they claim they are not inspired but everybody has to obey them.

  these threads will also show how they strip and attack anything that can possibly be fun and joyful in one's life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  >>Can they show me where in the bible does it say having large social events is wrong?

  Gal 5:21 and 1 Pet 4:3 discuss parties a bit. Both have specific meanings, and both are in a negative connotation.

  kómos: a village festival, revel

  Original Word: κῶμος, ου, ὁ
  Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
  Transliteration: kómos
  Phonetic Spelling: (ko'-mos)
  Short Definition: a feasting, reveling
  Definition: a feasting, reveling, carousal.

  2970 kṓmos (originally, village-merrymaking that took place at the gathering of the grapes, Souter) – a riotous party (drunken feast) which hosted unbridled sexual immorality; hence, revelings (debauched "partying").

  [2970 (kṓmos) had the original meaning, " 'a carousal,' such as a party of revelers parading the streets, or revels held in religious ceremonies, wild, furious, and ecstatic" (K. Wuest, Word Studies, Vol 2, Pastoral Epistles, 1 Peter, 112).]

  1 Peter 4:3 uses the word potos:

  potos: a drinking bout

  Original Word: πότος, ου, ὁ
  Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
  Transliteration: potos
  Phonetic Spelling: (pot'-os)
  Short Definition: a drinking, carousing
  Definition: a drinking, carousing.

  That said, WT says "it is not advisable". Most read that as a rule, but there is no rule stated in that particular quotation. To say that a large party is "wrong", as what you quoted from the Canadian branch, is in and of itself simply becoming masters of everyone elses' faith. What is wrong in one person's eyes is not wrong in another's. This entire argument is known as the "slippery slope" fallacy. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope)

  There's actually numerous fallacies to this because, as we know, festivals were in the Bible, and they included thousands of people at a time, and they were a-okay. It all has to do with what happens at those occasions. For example, at Colossains 2:16, the Greek word used for festival is:

  heorté: a feast, a festival

  Original Word: ἑορτή, ῆς, ἡ
  Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
  Transliteration: heorté
  Phonetic Spelling: (heh-or-tay')
  Short Definition: a festival, feast
  Definition: a festival, feast, periodically recurring.

  So, when WT is talking about large parties or large gatherings, they must have in mind the first two examples, not even entertaining the thought that the third example could be possible among JWs. Again, a fallacy, black-and-white thinking.

  The bit about not having themed parties does go overboard, and is not, to my knowledge, based on scripture.
• 
  85

  BOE letter: New lights new changes

  by pixel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  re: adjustments to draw close to jehovah.

  dear brothers:.

  some changes involving our understanding of the meaning of gods name and what it re p- resents have been made to the first chapter of draw close to jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  VM44 . . . read my comment above. In thinking about their statement in the appendix in the revised NWT ("Scholars hold varying views, so we cannot be dogmatic about this meaning") I consider this to mean: we *think* this is right, but we're not quite sure. The changes I saw in the Draw Close book reflect that... from: '"Jehovah" literally means...' to '"Jehovah" is understood to mean...'
• 
  85

  BOE letter: New lights new changes

  by pixel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  re: adjustments to draw close to jehovah.

  dear brothers:.

  some changes involving our understanding of the meaning of gods name and what it re p- resents have been made to the first chapter of draw close to jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  Scholars hold varying views, so we cannot be dogmatic about this meaning.

  This may very well be the change.

  Original version:

  "Jehovah" literally means "He Causes to Become." True, he brought all things into existence. That in itself is an awe-inspiring point. But is that the point of God's name? Moses evidently wanted to learn more. You see, the divine name was not new. People had been using it for centuries.

  Updated version:

  "Jehovah" is understood to mean "He Causes to Become." He is unique in all the universe, for he brought all things into existence, and he causes all his purposes to be fulfilled. That is an awe-inspiring thought. But is there another facet to the meaning of God's name? You see, he knew that Jehovah is the Creator, and he knew God's name. The divine name was not new. People had been using it for centuries.

  There's more in the next paragraph.

  Original version:

  In response Jehovah explained the meaning of his name.

  New version:

  In response Jehovah revealed a thrilling aspect of his personality, something that is related to the meaning of his name.

  I'm sure there's more, but I don't want to do a line-by-line comparison today.