what do you make of this part of the march 2018 watchtower study edition?.
2 among other things, peter urged his brothers: “be hospitable to one another.” (1 pet.
4:9) the word “hospitality” in greek literally means “fondness for, or kindness to, strangers.” note, however, that peter urged his christian brothers and sisters to be hospitable “to one another,” to those whom they already knew and associated with.
Did anyone catch the great irony in the opening artwork for the article? It was depicting a Greek or Roman Christian family welcoming a Jewish family into their home.
The irony is that, in the USA at least, many JWs would have few dealings with a brother who had the temerity to sport a beard.
important notes:.
copy-2018 certificate of destruction and retention schedule samplecertificate of destruction section 1: department overseer/ section 2:person actually destroying records.retention schedule sample: reference s: non-watchtower publicationsused for reference and research.https://we.tl/kn2xigvskgatlantis!.
Hi Smiddy,
Your browser of security software may be the problem.
What immediately stood out to me was the 'home grown' look to the two pages. They look like they were made from Excel with nothing on them that would link them back to the WT. But they do ask for two elder signatures on the forms. So, if anyone makes a stink about who destroyed the records referred to on the forms, well, you know where the buck would stop.
i went to a funeral yesterday and ran into a jdub.
of course, he approached me and it didn't take more than a minute into the conversation for him to get into the jdub gloom and doom mode.
he said that world conditions have never been as bad as they are now.. i looked straight into his eyes and said, "i think that world conditions were a lot worse during world war two.".
In line with CrazyGuy's post, see just the first 45 seconds of this video in this post (from another site). The World Wars were horrendous. But the Dark Ages . . . Who would prefer them?
an eyebrow raiser to be sure.
i can understand the clergyman being so baptist that he'd still use the name jehovah since it was popular in english and german churches for a long time during and after the reformation, but 607?.
see ¶ 6 under the heading "the historicity of the book of daniel".
For Earnest and others who may be interested, here is a link to a page that discusses how CTR came up with 606 as the date for Jerusalem's fall to Babylon. I think the link is written by poster AlanF. (Correct me if I am wrong.) And here is a Google listing of several other possible links to this topic.
The WT's 606/7 dating for the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year appears to be nothing more than taking 536/7 BC and subtracting 70 years, with the assumption that Jerusalem had to have fallen at that time. Thereafter, it represents a decision to hold to that conclusion in the face of history / archaeology, and the possibility that one has misunderstood the scriptures that were used to make the initial calculation.
i heard laurel and the wife heard yanny.
maybe someone can post the spoken word..
Marked
an eyebrow raiser to be sure.
i can understand the clergyman being so baptist that he'd still use the name jehovah since it was popular in english and german churches for a long time during and after the reformation, but 607?.
see ¶ 6 under the heading "the historicity of the book of daniel".
Hey Earnest,
Thanks very much for that research! I appreciate the detail and the effort.
an eyebrow raiser to be sure.
i can understand the clergyman being so baptist that he'd still use the name jehovah since it was popular in english and german churches for a long time during and after the reformation, but 607?.
see ¶ 6 under the heading "the historicity of the book of daniel".
Thanks Earnest and dropoffyourkeylee.
So, it seems that somewhere along the way the WT changed 606 into Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. And then 606 into 607.
an eyebrow raiser to be sure.
i can understand the clergyman being so baptist that he'd still use the name jehovah since it was popular in english and german churches for a long time during and after the reformation, but 607?.
see ¶ 6 under the heading "the historicity of the book of daniel".
The J N Darby translation also has 606 as the year for Jerusalem's fall. I wonder what led them (Miller, Darby, Brown, etc) to think 606 was the year? Was that the state of archaeology back them?
Just curious. Edwin Thiele and COJ have me convinced on 587/6. But it would be interesting to know what made some think 606 was the year.
i had never thought about this until just now when i saw that nathan natas posted some early tract from rutherford, and it made me think back to what little i could remember of the history i was taught.
i now know that in most cases the dubs will spin stories in their favor.
so i'm now assuming i was told some fictitious story about what happened when the leaders were thrown in prison and things looked bleak for the cult way back when.
Marked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bahseeaoof8.
simply fabulous.
ps.
Marked
