so, i was going through some consolation magazines of 1939, and found this absolute prediction by rutherford:.
only 8 years later .....
oooooopssss......!!.
What can be counted on, in any WT interpretation, is the phrase, "the Scriptures conclusively prove ..." or something similar. Always!
But that's what happens when you set yourself up as God's only channel of communication. You can't allow yourself to be tentative. And the irony is, over the long haul people would appreciate the honesty involved in being tentative.
wt wants the generation of 1914 to end soon.
but making the generation anointed contradicts jesus.
jesus said that the end generation would pass away after all these things, including armageddon has occurred so, when will the wicked ( non wt believers) pass away?
If you look at how Jesus (and by extension, the writer of Matthew used "generation" throughout the book, then, "this generation" has long ago passed away. This (off site) post has a number of links to research I posted on this issue. It includes links to how Matthew uses "generation" in the whole book of Matthew, in the more immediate context of the Olivet Discourse, in the illustration that summarizes that portion of the Olivet Discourse, and in a comparison with Rev 16:16-21.
I have no doubt that it can only refer to the contemporaneous Jews of Jesus' time. So that all the verbose WT waffling about who and when it refers to is worth less than the ink used to print it.
each eye-opener in my awakening had nothing to do with apostates.
it was always by looking directly at the so-called spiritual food that helped me awaken.. in 2019 they changed the wording of the second of two baptismal questions which are answered aloud before the audience.
now i realize that these questions have been adjusted over the years.
If the questions changed then the dedication is no longer valid. My baptism therefor is now null and void, thus meaning I no longer subject to disfellowshipping.
What's interesting is how they will tell you that your dedication cannot be revoked or voided. Yet, they will dedicate buildings to God and then later sell them to whomever wants to buy them. Dedication only matters when they want it to matter.
red cross is desperate for blood at work.
i considered doing it.
is this a disfellowshipping sin?
Another aspect of the Biblical blood 'laws' is that they all involved the death of the creature from which the blood came. Only in that way did the blood represent the life of that creature. For example, if a Jew under the Law were to drain a pint of blood from his best bull (while keeping it alive) and bring that blood to the Temple to present as an offering, it would be useless. The Law required the person to put his hand on the head of the sacrificial animal to symbolize that the animal was standing in his place and then the animal had to be slaughtered. Then a sample of the blood was offered in sacrifice.
But blood donation does not involve any loss of life of the person donating. Therefore, the donated blood could not represent any life.
On the other hand, as I understand it, some of the 'minor' fractions used in medicine are derived from animals that have been killed for that purpose. (Correct me if I am wrong about this.) So, what I am thinking is that, in theory, if one is going to use the Law (or even Gen 9) as a basis for one's blood theology, it would be these very fractions that should be forbidden.
Having said that, I am not entirely sure how much animal blood is used nowadays to derive fractions or medicines.
red cross is desperate for blood at work.
i considered doing it.
is this a disfellowshipping sin?
Interestingly, under the Law (De 14:21) an Israelite could sell unbled meat to the alien and foreigner. (Here) WT sometimes cites the Law for support; sometimes they ignore it.
Since (in theory) JWs don't accept whole blood, then, they should be free to donate it, or even sell it.
In reality, WT does what it wants, and cites whatever laws that suit themselves.
Another reality is that JWs (for the most part) do not really care what the scriptures say. They will say they do care. But what matters most is what the GB says.
interesting find through a book "inside story of jehovah's witnesses" (1967) by w.c. stevenson, supposedly a former jw circuit overseer.
it's an interesting "apostate" perspective written prior to the wts 1975 debacle.. anyway, at a certain point, there's a quote from a book called "the four cults", by professor anthony a. hoekema (1963, william b. eerdmans publishing company), a calvinist, which makes some sharp remarks about the way jehovah's witnesses teach the dead coming back to life:.
1) in the case of those "resurrecting" for everlasting life on earth, one asks: if the soul is extinct at death, and the body disintegrates and its components are integrated into other forms of life, what is there to "resurrect"?
It could be pointed out that every person, while still alive, is continuously losing cells and manufacturing new ones, so that, over the course of several years, a person does not have the exact same physical body. Yet, they are still the same person, except for the fact that they have accumulated new experiences, etc.
One could argue that an individual alive now is not exactly the same individual that existed 5 or 10 years ago due to life experiences and gained knowledge, and so on.
On a different note, if one sees a person, as they exist right this moment, as a multitude of atoms with particular 'settings' unique to that individual, then, the theory of quantum entanglement would allow re-creating that individual from a different clump of entangled atoms that had their 'settings' (as it were) set to exactly how that individual was. This is the idea behind Star Trek's transporter. It is understood to be theoretically possible. Humans just don't have the ability to pull it off yet. Physicist Brian Greene discusses this in one of his PBS Nova programs.
in job 31 v11 it states that an inappropriate sex act is a crime not a 'sin'.
if this so between adults then it must extend that it is so if children are involved.
but the wt refers to paedophilia as a sin..
If my theory above is on target, then one would expect that the more centralized the authority is in any religion, the greater the problem that religion would see in pedo reporting laws.
in job 31 v11 it states that an inappropriate sex act is a crime not a 'sin'.
if this so between adults then it must extend that it is so if children are involved.
but the wt refers to paedophilia as a sin..
Modern western culture makes a distinction between religion and secular. But in the ANE (from which the Bible comes) both were usually seen as part of the same. A wrong in the community was also seen as a wrong against God or the gods.
As the modern becomes increasingly secular and less religious, I could see conflicts of interest such as this inrceasing.
As far as the WT goes, I don't think pedophilia is their main concern. Rather, it is how the current secular laws regarding pedophilia affect the status of their clergy-client privilege. And by extension, the status of the clergy-client privilege affects WT's control over their followers. For example, if the secular law required reporting cases of adultery (such as what Job 31:9 is referring to) then I believe you would find WT having a similar reaction as they do with the reporting of pedophilia.
That's my take on it, at any rate.
the emphasized bible (rotherham) is now included in the wt library under "other bibles.".
therefore it joins kit, kjv, asv, & the bible in living english in such group.. any thoughts?.
I wonder if this will be included in the JWLibrary app?
I'm glad. You don't usually see the Emphasized Bible online like at BibleHub.
latest advice for jw parents: if your kids get disfellowshipped, fight the urge to blame yourself.
yes, great advice.
if your clueless, underage child is struggling in life, don't blame yourself, stop thinking about it and move on.
Surely Hebrews 12 : 11 is talking about God's discipline, not man's.
If you look at the entire immediate context (Heb 12:1-13) it shows that it is talking about opposition or persecution that God allows as a form of discipline or training.
First, it shows how Jesus faced opposition. (Heb 12:1-3)
Next, the writer tells the reader that they haven't yet shed their blood over opposition like Jesus did (an obvious point, seeing how the reader is still alive). (Heb 12:4)
Verses 5 thru 8 then make the comparison of a son (the reader) with a father (God) who administers the discipline for the long term benefit of the son. And if the father didn't give discipline it would seem that the father was acting as if the son was illegitimate or not his own son.
Verses 9 and 10 continues the father-son example by comparing God's discipline with the imperfect discipline we may have received from our human fathers. We accepted that, therefore, if we consider God as our father, we should also accept the discipline from God, which, as the context is discussing, is opposition to being a disciple of Jesus. (Heb 12:2)
Verses 11 thru 13 then offer encouragement to allow the discipline to make the reader a better Christian.
The WT is taking these verses out of context when they apply them to DFing. And from what I have seen, they only apply these verses to discipline within the congregation, not to outside opposition. It serves as a good example of WT twisting the scriptures to their own use. They are teaching "the commands of men as doctrine."
