so here's a link to the latest jw podcast.
in it they talk about how the organization is structuring things in australia to get out of paying money to victims of abuse.
the short version, as i remember it, is that they are making each congregation its own individual charity.
That is not the only thing Watchtower seems to be doing to move its assets out of reach of the victims. The following is an extract from page 16 of the 2015 accounts for IBSA (UK):
So that is about A$5 million taken out of Australia and put into UK as an interest free, unsecured loan. Note 16 over the page shows that it is not due for repayment within the next 5 years, if ever.
this was sent to me from doug shields blog.
for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.
the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.
First of all, Fisherman, I enjoy having a good friendly debate. However, I warn in advance, I may disappear for long periods, and not respond.
Comments in response:
539-70 is very clear. Wt 607 is a valid interpretation. And that is that.
697 BC may be a valid interpretation, but not for the date of the fall of Jerusalem. That is where CT Russell stuffed up, and where Watchtower is wrong. Russell copied (via Balbour) the work of John Aquila Brown but didn't understand it, stuffed it up, and Watchtower has been trying to assert Jerusalem fell in 606 BC or 607 BC to hide Russell's stuff up, ever since.
Isaiah 50:1 is also clear:
50 This is what Jehovah says:“Where is the divorce certificate of your mother, whom I sent away?Or to which of my creditors did I sell you?Look! It was because of your own errors you were sold,And because of your own transgressions your mother was sent away.
That is as clear as mud. In contrast, the passages I have referred to are clear and unambiguous.
In the above quoted scripture, the prophet Isaiah refers to God's covenanted people as a nation, as the mother of you people, God being in a husbandly like covenant with the entire nation. But the scripture also refers to the nation as being sent away at that time before the desolation actually occured, as if it already happened and the nation was already in captivity, before the desolation. Hence this scripture is prophetic, being "sent away" was future but as certain as if it had already occurred. And so, your enterpretation of the verses you cite and the interpretation of others as to when the Bible says events actually happened versus the prophetic language of the Bible. You, yourself admitting to being confused about Isa 50:1
I am not confused about Isa 50:1. Forget my interpretation, and look at yours. Even your interpretation is consistent with, the 70 years commencing with the first captives being led from Jerusalem, not the fall of Jerusalem.
It is well established and accepted that the king of Babylon raided Jerusalem 2x. The first time taking part of the nation captive Ez1:1.
Yes, agreed.
It was to king Zedekiah that the prophet Ezeqiel said: "Remove the turban and lift of the crown..remove even the high one..a ruin I shall make it.... it shall cerainly become no one's" (the throne still having a king as Ezeqiel spoke)
So what?
The "70 years" was a future event and did not begin with the first raid. But you can believe and interpret what you like, your views not invalidating WT. I respect your views and conclusions about the verses you cite but they do not establish the date of the destruction of the first Temple and of Jerusalem.
On the contrary, I have established the sequence of events, according to the bible alone. If babylon fell on 539 BC (a date Watchtower agrees with) then Jerusalem fell on 587 BC (a date everybody agrees with, except Watchtower).
I have posted a very simple method of extrapolating the date.
...but not what happened on the date.
The desolation begins after the destruction of Jerusalem...
No biblical support for that statement. In fact it contradicts Jer 27:1-6.
...the land rests 70 years, then a remnant is to be restored. Going back in time, Babylon falls and the Jews return; subtract 70 years from the date Jewish feet trample Jerusalem ending its rest and one arrives at circa 607. That is how I see it. And I rest my case.
The bible is very clear that the 70 years ends when (or arguably before) the fall of Babylon: Jer 25:12.
this was sent to me from doug shields blog.
for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.
the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.
Fisherman: Compare Jeremiah 29:10 with Isaiah 50:1.
Seems like you are throwing up random Bible verse to distract and obfuscate. Jeremiah 29:10 is part of a letter if instruction from Jehovah to ex-King Jeconiah and his entourage who were captive in Babylon. So it is a letter:
(a) on how to survive the 70 years of captivity, even though according to Watchtower theology they were not part of that captivity;
(b) at a time when, according to Watchtower theology, there was no captivity; and
(c) couriered by a person who was supposed to be dead (according to Watchtower) by the time captivity commenced.
Isaiah 50:1 is prophetic, the Jews not in exile yet. Your referenced scripture is about the completion of 70 and does not establish its start, and its interpretation must also reconcile with 539-70.
Isaiah 50:1 is so vague and nebulous, I can't see how it adds anything. No mention of 70 years, exile, start, finish or anything relevant. Nothing to reconcile there.
Your belief depends upon interpretation but 607 depends upon 539. So unless you can debunk 539, 607 makes sense to me.
Nobody seeks to debunk 539 BC. Everyone agrees that that is the correct date. The point is, 539 BC is NOT 536 BC, a number that would have fitted well with Balbour's milllerite numerology, and fitted with Russell's "pyramid inches".
* * * * *
There is a simple solution to all of this. The 70 years commenced when the bible says it commenced (see Jer 27:1-6), not when Watchtower® says it commenced.
this was sent to me from doug shields blog.
for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.
the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.
Fisherman: Since the Jews returned to Jerusalem circa 537...
1. As Finkelstein mentions, there is no evidence to support that 2 year adjustment. It is a fudge by Watchtower, to make its numerology work.
2. The Bible clearly indicates 70 years ends when Babylon falls, not when Jews return to Jerusalem: see Jer 25:12.
Fisherman: ...being in captivity 70 years...
Bible does NOT say Jews would be in captivity for 70 years. Watchtower tricks you into thinking the Bible says that. See what Bible actually says at Jer 25: 8-11. Bible says the nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years (Jer 25:11). That service (and hence the 70 years) had began by the beginning of Jehoakim's reign (see Jer 27:1-6), and Judah had become a vassal state of Babylon. Jeremiah warned that rebelling against Babylon would only make the subjugation worse (Jer 27:8-22). But Jews listened to a false prophet instead (Jer 28), and as a result Jerusalem is destroyed.
If there was any doubt about the 70 years beginning before the fall of Jerusalem, I think that doubt is removed by Jeremiah 29, where a letter is sent to the earlier exiles in Babylon (ex-King Jeconiah and his entourage) by a courier under instruction of King Zedekiah. Zedekiah sending the letter indicates he must have been still alive at that point, and Jerusalem had not fallen. The letter specifically mentions the 70 years (Jer 29:10) and indicates the 70 years are already underway.
this was sent to me from doug shields blog.
for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.
the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.
Just for lurkers, I better add that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (see 2 Kings 25:8). That means that the bible tells us that Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BC (depending on an interpretation issue).
i know most of you know that already, but I thought I would spell it out. Watchtower tries to argue that they don't care that secular history says Jerusalem fell in 587 BC because the bible says different. They are wrong; the bible agrees with secular history and nobody agrees with Watchtower.
this was sent to me from doug shields blog.
for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.
the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.
Yes, Fisherman, 539 BC as the fall of Babylon is a historical date, that can be demonstrated in multiple independent ways.
Even Bishop Ushher, writing in 1658 was close. (He thought it was 538 BC, probably because of the way Ptolomy's Canon works, but that is a discussion for another day.) Bishop Ushher was also puzzled why there was only a gap of 66 (or in his view 67) years between Nebuchadnezzar coming to the throne in 605 BC and the fall of Babylon. He describes it as "almost 70 years".
There is another way to look at it, in my view, and I mentioned this on another thread. You can easily interpret the passages of Jeremiah as the 70 years starting before Nebuchadnezzar became king. He was clearly in charge of the army and waging war (including winning the battle of Carchemish) before his father died. If you think that that is inconsistent with Jeremiah 25:9, because it refers to "King Nebuchadnezzar", and so he must already be king, then check Jeremiah 27:1-6, where he is also referred to as "King Nebuchadnezzar" at a period of time that clearly preceded him being king.
http://avoidjw.org/2017/02/stephanie-fessler-v-watch-tower/.
stephanie fessler v watch tower.
stephanie fessler was brought up as a jehovah’s witness by her parents, jodee and kevin.
In camera hearings can be for a variety of reasons. Hearings in relation to whether a party can access information (including discovery) are usually heard pre-trial, and are not normally "in-camera", so this is not the likely explanation, here.
Sometimes the public might be excluded from a hearing, for a variety of reasons, but this is unusual. It is also possible the plaintiff has been advised not to discuss the matter in public.
The most likely explanation, however, is that settlement negotiations of some sort are taking place, or have taken place. If so, we may never hear what the outcome was.
i grew up in the org and never got baptised, however i was wondering recently about how much money my family and old friends are wasting in all that.
.
i remember of course never talking in amounts, that it was important to give from what you can not what you have etc but i admit i have no clue how much the average witness gives (say in % of their income).. i'm sure it varies greatly, i'd love to hear what you guys have to say..
According to 2015 accounts, Watchtower BTS of Britain and IBSA (UK) received £41.2 million and £14.5 million respectively, totalling £65.7 million. That does not include legacies, "grants" or donations of literature.
Given Britain has 138,000 publishers, that works out at £476 per publisher p.a., or about £40 per publisher per month.
I have not seen figures from any other countries.
my definition of a cult is just this:if you are not allowed to research outside of your religion's published sources, you are in a cult.what other religions (cults) are there that absolutely forbid outside research on threat of punishment / shunning?
I seem to come across the Exclusive Brethren a bit. I gather they have some pretty fierce shunning rules, and members are not allowed to access the internet at all. It seems like Watchtower on steroids.
I haven't heard the Amish described as a cult, but surely they are, as well.
http://avoidjw.org/2017/02/stephanie-fessler-v-watch-tower/.
stephanie fessler v watch tower.
stephanie fessler was brought up as a jehovah’s witness by her parents, jodee and kevin.
Thank you Richard for pulling out those cases. Since I asked for them, I guess I owe you a response. I can only find:
Berry v Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and
John Doe v Roman Catholic Diocese of Galveston-Houston.
I can't find the other 3 you mentioned.
The John Doe case is irrelevant. John Doe brought a case 20 years beyond the statute of limitations, and the decision was in relation to whether there was an exception to allow him to make the claim.
Berry v Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is much more interesting (also upsetting if read in detail). In that case, the abuser was the step father. He abused his daughters for about 6 years. The mother reported it to the Elders of the congregation during counselling between the mother and step-father for domestic violence. She did not report the matter to the Police or give Elders permission to report the matter to the Police. It appears that the elders suggested she not do so.There is no allegation that the elders created any opportunity for Berry to abuse his daughters. As noted, there was no allegation that the alleged abuse took place on congregation property or at congregation-related activities. There is no allegation that the elders acted in any way other than by providing spiritual guidance and scriptural advice, at the request of the plaintiffs' mother.One obvious difference between the Berry case and the above matter relates to the part I put in bold in the above quote.
Further, the Berry case confirms (if there was ever any doubt), that whilst a failure to report may not, of itself, be actionable, it can be evidence of a common law breach of duty of care.
I also note that Watchtower tried to argue clergy privilege, but that issue was not decided. The dissenting decision was strongly worded; the judge was almost scathing of his/her co-judges.
I guess I have to agree that this case may well go to appeal, and the outcome is far from certain.
