hello.. i remember some time ago someone brought up a letter to congregations or some other similar instruction, instructing the elders to "contact the authorities immediately" if something like a robbery or trouble came upon a kingdom hall.. does anyone remember that?
and what was the source of that instruction please?
.
Hi EdenOne,
If I remember correctly, the elder's handbook has instructions about calling the authorities when there is a meeting disturbance.
I think I already see the irony in your question: Going immediately to the police to protect WT property, but refraining when a member of the congregation has CSA issues. (And I think they no longer say "member." I think currently they are now saying an "associate" or something like that.)
folks: as you probably all know, it has been speculated that the whole universe, or cosmos, started with what has been called "the big bang.
" but, i've thought up some other terms for the "bb".
how about the big boom....or, the big kaboom....or, the big explosion...the big ignition...or...the big cosmic fartation.
I think "Expansion Theory" was the more correct term. If I remember correctly, "The Big Bang" was a term coined by someone who was making fun of the idea. Only, it caught on to general use.
Also, I don't think "the big bang" or "expansion theory" is really meant to explain a first cause. Rather, it is a theory meant to explain how the universe arrived at its present expanding condition. Since the universe appears to be expanding (and cooling) at an accelerating rate, it can be logically inferred that you can deduce backwards to a single point condition (an infinitely hot and dense singularity). What caused it to expand in the first place is not really part of the expansion theory. That's my understanding, at any rate.
To me, there also seems to be a relationship between this theory and the idea in quantum physics of energy/matter at the theoretical Planck Level. (Where energy/matter cannot be divided into smaller parts and is infinite and everywhere at the same time.)
Biblically, the theory could be understood to coincide with a statement in Isaiah that God is 'spreading out the heavens.' (Isa 40:22b; Some translations take "the heavens" to refer to "the sky.")
It is interesting that "The Big Bang" is usually (in my experience anyways) dismissed as non-sense in Kingdom Hall discussions. But ironically, I think the Society actually takes a wait-and-see attitude towards it.
for friends of "truth" about the wt theme: "what do we learn from jesus' last words?
if you learned anything, even in the greatest distress you do not utter the sacred name.
the article is full of "jehovahs" but not once did jesus himself actually use the term.
I ran out of editing time on my post above, but Luke 24:49 & Acts 1:4-5, 12-14 place John (and Mary possibly) in Jerusalem (and its local surroundings) until Pentecost. Thus, he could not have taken Mary to his home "that very hour," even supposing he had a home. (Compare Mt 19:27)
for friends of "truth" about the wt theme: "what do we learn from jesus' last words?
if you learned anything, even in the greatest distress you do not utter the sacred name.
the article is full of "jehovahs" but not once did jesus himself actually use the term.
On a different note regarding this particular WT Study:
The material went on to describe Jesus handing over care of his mother to the apostle John. (Jn 19:26-27) To be fair, the WT is not alone in saying that it was John. But ...
"The disciple [Jesus] loved" in Jn 19:26 is never identified with John in the entire 4th gospel. He is only ever identified by name with Lazarus. (Jn 11:1-3)
Moreover, Jn 19:27 says that this disciple 'took Mary into his home that very hour.' What makes this interesting is that we are never told in the NT whether the apostle John has a home. And if he did, it would have been in Galilee which is several days walk from Jerusalem (especially with an aged parent in tow). On top of that, the gospel accounts seem to indicate that both John and Mary were in Jerusalem at least until Pentecost.
On the other hand, Lazarus did have a home (and nearby, at that). He was also a faithful disciple of Jesus, just not a travelling companion like the apostles. And, he also had two faithful sisters who, based on the limited commentary in the gospel accounts, would have been more than happy to have helped take care of Mary.
There is more that could be added to that. For example, Jesus predicted that the apostles would all abandon him during his execution. Peter is the only apostle who followed behind. But he also eventually abandoned him after denying him. So that would imply that the "disciple that [Jesus] loved" who was at the execution site was someone other than John.
I have a few more details about this (such as how Acts 6:1-2 relates to this) posted here (and see included links) (Off site)
anybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
The VAT4956.Com website says that "due to recent discoveries this website is restricted to members only."
I was curious what recent discoveries are being referred to? Anybody know what's up?
And thanks for the PDF link Jeffro.
anybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
anybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
Just to add to Phizzy's link, here is GTR from Jonsson's own website. And here is another copy of GTR in a single PDF. (The first link is a series of PDFs linked together. So if you want a single PDF to download the second link is better for that.)
Here is a reverse listing of Babylonian kings starting with Nabonidus (& Belshazzar, who were the last Babylonian kings) and working backwards to Nebuchadnezzar II. This listing was originally on this site (JWN). I just copied it over to the DTT site and expanded the list to go back to Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year. What is ironic about the list is that the vast majority of it is agreed upon by the WT.
This post (off site and, admittedly, somewhat long) shows how WT's 20 year difference in chronology shrinks to 18 years at the exile of the ten tribe kingdom, and then expands to 67 years at the split in the Jewish kingdom after Solomon.
This post (off site) lists major problems with the WT's 607 BCE and Daniel chapter 4 interpretation.
And here is Carl Olaf Jonsson's home page with numerous other documents including his reply to the two part WT articles on 607 BCE in 2011.
Just as an aside, I think Vanderhoven is simply opening up a discussion. I don't believe he agrees with 607 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon. I have noticed that some JWs get their FS time in posting on Quora.
One final irony: A few years ago I told myself that all this arguing over whether 607 was correct was too involved for me and I would just leave it to others to sort it out. 'Famous last words!'
this letter will be read this week.
you read it here first!.
re: use of revised new world translation .
the books of matthew, mark, luke, john, and the beginning of acts are filled with what the authors purport are statements of jesus.
jesus is quoted as making several statements about "the kingdom of heaven" or "the kingdom of god".
those statements are often given as parables that start with a phrase something like "the kingdom of heaven is like...".
don't know how many of y'all still watch it.. this month's topic is "the king of the north" - cook goes into monotonous detail over the jw interpretation about rome, germany, ussr, russia, etc.. leaving aside for other commentators the emotionally manipulative videos of jws in russian holding cells, the tearjerker interviews, the god-awful stiffness of cook (i suspect he has never genuinely smiled, much less laughed, in his 60+ years), just thought i'd comment on one topic.. the centerpiece of the program is a "morning worship" monologue from splane.
let's again just leave to the side the dude's pomposity, smugness, and inflated sense of his own genius, and think about this part of his monologue.. he was tracing the history of the "king of the north" and talked about how "britain" (not england, not the united kingdom, not great britain, but "britain" - no idea why they have that fixation - anyway...) became the kotn in the 19th century.. paraphrasing his comments: "britain would not have become kotn if france had its way.
france was much wealthier and more powerful, but at the battle of waterloo, britain defeated france.
