They always held that the days of Genesis 1 were specifically regarding the preparation of the earth for life. All time before that was lumped under Gen 1:1.
Posts by Bobcat
-
38Watchtower Change On Origins from 42,000 Years to the "Day Age" Theory
by Sea Breeze indoes anyone know when and how the change took place?
is the "day age" theory still the current position of watchtower?.
-
-
-
8
Interesting bit of JW World War II Trivia.
by Athanasius induring world war ii when the nazis occupied a large section of the western part of the ussr, heinrich himmler considered various methods to help control the indigenous population.
alexander dallin reports in his book german rule in russia 1941-1945—a study of occupation policies, page 616:.
“himmler conceded that the easterners needed some general system of values, but it was madness to spread nazism among them, and to revive the orthodox or to promote the catholic church in the east was dangerous.
-
-
Bobcat
Hi Phizzy,
That was interesting. That was one aspect I had never heard before.
-
8
Interesting bit of JW World War II Trivia.
by Athanasius induring world war ii when the nazis occupied a large section of the western part of the ussr, heinrich himmler considered various methods to help control the indigenous population.
alexander dallin reports in his book german rule in russia 1941-1945—a study of occupation policies, page 616:.
“himmler conceded that the easterners needed some general system of values, but it was madness to spread nazism among them, and to revive the orthodox or to promote the catholic church in the east was dangerous.
-
-
Bobcat
The WT is very brief in what they say about WWII probably because they maintain a narrative that puts them as foreknowing all that was going to happen, For example, see this relatively brief thread for some less than savory WT history about WWII. They actually counseled the US and Britain not to resist the Axis because the Axis powers were destined to win the war.
The Society (at more recent convention talks) maintains that they knew all along that the Axis would lose. The "faithful slave" was on the ball, so-to-speak. I can see them not wanting the R&F exploring all the details.
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
Bobcat
Had the Jewish Christians not stirred up trouble in the congregations, the issue of the Gentiles and the Law would never have been addressed, which means that the Gentiles would not have been asked to follow those parts of the Law. They would have continued alongside the Jewish brothers as they had for the previous 13 years.
That is a very good point GG.
As an aside, does anyone know where the article is wherein WT encourages JW healthcare workers to report blood use (or other WT health infractions) by other JWs to their elders?
-
17
2021-March-S-147-English and German--Announcements And Reminders!
by Atlantis in2021-march-s-147--announcements and reminders.. english and german.
https://filetransfer.io/data-package/jtoy3vol#link.
another link:.
-
-
Bobcat
Thanks Atlantis for posting this. Quite interesting! It's amazing how afraid they are of any extraneous meetings. And all that angst is a result of their misapplication of Mt 24:45.
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
Bobcat
TD,
I really appreciate that post!
-
17
"Modern Bibles" New World Translation - Part II
by Perry inbehold, the days come, saith the lord god, that i will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the lord .
amos 8: 11. .
most of us who have been raised as jehovahs witnesses since at least the 1960s were occasionally reminded of the scholarship of fred franz and his command of eight or more languages, including the biblical languages of hebrew and greek.
-
-
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
Bobcat
GG,
Setting the risks and benefits of blood therapy aside right at the beginning of your debate was a good step. If one is refusing blood for religious reasons, then, the possible physical risks (or benefits) of medical blood use is a moot issue. JWs will often fall back on that because the WT often uses that in their argumentation. But it is a red herring.
One thing JWs don't appreciate is the fact that in the Bible (both the Noah Covenant and the Mosaic Law) blood is only a symbol for life when the source of the blood has been killed. God gave Noah and his descendants permission to eat animal meat on the proviso that they pour out the blood in recognition of the fact that the life belonged to God. So, the blood only symbolized the life when the life of the animal had been taken.
Similarly under the Law Code, an Israelite could not simply bring a blood sample from his best bull/goat/sheep to the Temple for splashing on the altar. The animal had to be killed first (after the Israelite laid his hand on the animal's head in symbol of the animal representing him). Only then did the blood represent that life and had atoning value at the altar.
On the other hand, if an Israelite found an animal already dead (naturally or from a predator), eating its unbled flesh only incurred ceremonial uncleanness (as opposed to the death penalty if he himself had killed it).
With that understanding, blood transfusions or blood therapy of some sort should, theoretically, incur no blood guilt or wrath by God since no human life was taken. And thus, the blood involved did not symbolize any life. (Like a wedding ring, it only represents a particular marriage when it has been given to someone. A wedding ring in a jewelry store does not represent anyone's marriage.)
Moreover, Jesus said that there is 'no greater love than for someone to lay down his life for a friend.' (Jn 15:13) It would not make sense for the giving of one's whole life to be praised, but the giving of some part (like a pint of blood) to be completely condemned.
Just extending this thought a little: What if the blood product was some derivative of animal blood? That should not be a problem either, especially if it was not whole animal blood (that is, it was a fraction of some sort). When draining an animal's blood it is understood that every last bit of blood would not be drained. Draining it was a symbolic act. And thus, a fraction from animal blood (supposing that the animal had been killed for it) would not represent a disrespect for God's Covenant with Noah. (And in fact, the WT usually has no qualms with such fractions.)
Having said all that, I also agree with some of the sentiments above that JWs are usually taught to be aloof in their thinking with 'pagans.' They probably can't be reasoned with unless something has happened in their lives to start the process of thinking outside the box.
Just as an aside, the WT's often treacherous reasoning can be seen in the Reasoning book under the topic of the Memorial. Under that topic they claim that Jesus' statement about 'eating his flesh' (in John chapter 6) cannot be equated with the bread at the Memorial since at the time of John chapter 6 the disciples knew nothing about the Last Supper. If one were to use that same WT logic, then, the order to "abstain from blood" could not be referring to transfusions since transfusions were unknown at that time. But let a JW try and use that logic. It would only result in a JC.
-
7
2021-Emergency Contact Information!
by Atlantis inemergency contact information.. .
this form may compromise data that unbelieving members of a family don't want released.. download:.
https://filetransfer.io/data-package/6dgljbjl#link.
-
-
Bobcat
What's interesting about this and similar forms is that there is no owner information on the form. No name of the party that is to receive this information. You fill it out and effectively give your information to any anonymous interested party. And if you indicate any reluctance to give out your information in this manner they get testy with you.
In the USA there should be a privacy statement with this form. And the originator of the form should have identified himself/herself/itself on the form.
If anyone is tempted to fill this out, demand that the requesting elder put his name and contact information on the form and tell him you must xerox it first. And demand in writing to know everyone this information will/could be given to. And tell him it is only out of legal consideration that you want this.
And then stand back and watch him walk away from you (in disgust, of course, over your "disobedient attitude").