Posts by Ray Frankz

51

What are your beliefs now, religious/non religious?

by Jules Saturn in

what are your convictions now that you are no longer one of jehovah's witnesses?

are you a born again christian?

have you joined another denomination of christianity?

Ray Frankz

I feel extremely difficult to decide if I stick to or leave the earthly hope. I am pretty sure that the Bible doesn't emphazise this as much as the org wants it to look like but I still can't buy that the humans won't ever have a taste of what is like being perfect in a physical word.

35

Question for those who went to the RC

by joe134cd in

i'm just curious with all the happy clapping that is now going on with the singing at the conventions.

what has been the reaction to it with the r&f.

has anyone ever commented that it reminded them of a pentecostal revival meeting.

Ray Frankz

It's not that it's bad. It's actually good. The point is that it was unthinkable 10 years ago and as usual they don't even recognize they reproved this behavior that time. a big part of the JW community is acting like it has been this way (happy, clapping, dancing songs) always . It's all 1984 Orwell rewriting of the past.

46

Believers: How do you know your view of your chosen holy book is the correct one?

by punkofnice in

don't start fighting, darlings.

i am genuinely curious.

after all i was a jobo 50 years and thought the wbt$ was 100% correct.. i ask this because i see that, for example, christian denominations (or whatever), likely have differing interpretations of the same writing.

Ray Frankz

I don't believe the Bible is 100% inspired. I just believe in a God and I think Christ was a role model and I try to learn about him in order to becoming a better person.

No I don't have proof he existed. I don't think a person has to be proved real to inspire others, see the books and comic books heros.

30

Finds in Jerusalem shore up biblical account of Babylonian conquest (586 BCE date)

by Hecce in

this is a nice article about archaeological finds, what caught my attention is the use of 586 bce as the date for the destruction of jerusalem.. according to biblical descriptions, in 586 bce, the babylonian king nebuchadnezzar vanquished the judaean king zedekiah and razed his capital city, jerusalem.

the babylonian captain of the guard nebuzaradan was dispatched into the city, where, as told in the book of jeremiah, he “burned the house of the lord, and the king’s house; and all the houses of jerusalem, even every great man’s house, burned he with fire.”.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/new-jerusalem-finds-shore-up-biblical-account-of-babylonian-conquest/.

Ray Frankz

Dates are becoming more and more irrelevant to WT doctrine, the days of the heavy duty interpretations and conclusions are gone.

All dates except the linked 607-1914-1919. 1919 was the 'assignment of the FaDS' because 1914 was the kingdom birth and it's because it is 2520 yars after 607. So, no 607, no kingdom birth, no FaDS, no submission to their authority.

I don't see they changing it ever. In my opinion they will keep giving fantastic nonsense explanations and new people will continue buying it. We can't say anything because one day we bought too.

32

I'm writing a letter to my country's branch

by Ray Frankz in

hi everyone.. well, i have some good news.

after having a terrible moment arguing with my mom about the 1914 teaching and all it evolves (she get really upset and i felt great regret for starting the argument) she came to me next day and started talking with a much more open mind, and she talked about a lot of concerns too.. she and my father naivily expressed the wish to write to bethel to ask about 607bc.

i told in all the possible ways it wouldn't work.

Ray Frankz

Hi Everyone who replied!

Thanks for your thoughts. I noticed that some of you assumed that I'm kind of oblivious to the 607-1914 problem, but I know this subject very well. That is the main reason I won't write them about it because I suppose it will ring their apostate radar.

My case is actually to ask about these themes (the fullfilment of Daniel's prophecy and the prophecy of Jesus) since I don't see many 'apostate' material centered in that, most of the anti JW material focuses on the 607 issue. So I don't think they have a 'apostate radar' for these subjects. Anyway I'll take your counsels and be way more cautious.

32

I'm writing a letter to my country's branch

by Ray Frankz in

hi everyone.. well, i have some good news.

after having a terrible moment arguing with my mom about the 1914 teaching and all it evolves (she get really upset and i felt great regret for starting the argument) she came to me next day and started talking with a much more open mind, and she talked about a lot of concerns too.. she and my father naivily expressed the wish to write to bethel to ask about 607bc.

i told in all the possible ways it wouldn't work.

Ray Frankz

Hi everyone.

Well, I have some good news. After having a terrible moment arguing with my mom about the 1914 teaching and all it evolves (she get really upset and I felt great regret for starting the argument) she came to me next day and started talking with a much more open mind, and she talked about a lot of concerns too.

She and my father naivily expressed the wish to write to Bethel to ask about 607bc. I told in all the possible ways it wouldn't work. They insisted (believing the men who would get the letter would get as surprised as they were when faced the evidence) so I had to show them my PDF of The gentiles times reconsidered and I summarized Olof's story briefly. They got perplex and for the first time I think they started to see the Org as the powerful people-controller entity it is.

Well, reading the material for the meeting of this week in the workbook, I noticed the 'bible study' part is about 1914. The portuguese version of the workbook for the Brazilian witnesses had a reference to the new simplified Bible Teach book (I think the name is 'You can learn from the Bible'). This article about 1914 on this book is so poor, so poor, poorer than anything else the org has ever published. I checked the original (english) version on the website and I got a surprise. The original reference was to the actual Bible Teach book, which has a way more elaborated material on the bs teaching of 1914, 2520 years etc.

Anyway, just beacuse of this little reading I had an idea.

I've been always sure that no questioning about the validity of 607bc would bring good results. surely they would respond me with a reference to the watchtower and send a letter to my elder and circuit oversee to "take note" of me, or even check my beliefs. But I realized that I could face then with a more succinct questioning.

I intend to ask them about:

1) What proof do we have that the dream that the king of Babylon had held a hidden fulfillment besides the one clearly stated in the Bible by Daniel the inspired prophet?

2) If Jesus said that Jerusalém would be trampled by the nations, why do we assume that he was talking about something that was already ongoing instead of understand he was making a prophecy about the imnent second fall of Jerusalém by the Romans?

3) Maybe I will ask them why some material for the meetings difer from the original material in english.

Well, I've decided to do it. unlike all the 607 thing I don't think they will be so paranoid with this kind of questions. I will use the pronoun 'we' instead of 'you' in order to them not to feel intimidated and started their ad homini attack.

Any of you guys has ever sent such letter to ask abou the wt beliefs? Any suggestions?

3

Traslation dep in Brazilian branch, W0517

by Ray Frankz in

i got shocked when i read the article of the watchtower study of this week.

that's because i read this: the highlights are mine.. quando jesus esteve na terra, ele disse que nos últimos dias o amor da maioria das pessoas ia esfriar.

(mateus 24:3, 12) isso começou a acontecer com os judeus nos dias dos apóstolos.

Ray Frankz

The article also says that "some" jws have allowed their love to grow cold. If they are looking for fulfillment of this prophecy, they should say "most" have done so.

Yeah I noticed this contradiction too

3

Traslation dep in Brazilian branch, W0517

by Ray Frankz in

i got shocked when i read the article of the watchtower study of this week.

that's because i read this: the highlights are mine.. quando jesus esteve na terra, ele disse que nos últimos dias o amor da maioria das pessoas ia esfriar.

(mateus 24:3, 12) isso começou a acontecer com os judeus nos dias dos apóstolos.

Ray Frankz

I got shocked when I read the article of the Watchtower study of this week. That's because I read this: the highlights are mine.

QUANDO Jesus esteve na Terra, ele disse que nos últimos dias o amor da maioria das pessoas ia esfriar. (Mateus 24:3, 12) Isso começou a acontecer com os judeus nos dias dos apóstolos. Esses judeus falavam que eram servos de Jeová, só que com o tempo o amor deles por ele diminuiu.

literal translation:

When Jesus was on Earth, He said that in the last days the love of the most would grow cold. (MAthews 24 3 12) This began to happen with the jews in the days of the apostles. These jews claimed to be servants of Jehovah, but in time their love for Him grew cold.

When I saw this I thought: What? Am I really still alive to see they start to abandon the teaching of the last days beginning in 1914? Because that's what they say when they teach the love growing cold is a sign of the last days and say that it started in the apostles' days.

It was even more stressed by the question for this paragraph:

1, 2. (a) Quando as palavras de Jesus em Mateus 24:12 começaram a acontecer?
literal translation:
1,2. (a) When did the words of Jesus in Mathews 24 12 begin to happen?

I was really excited to have spotted that. Sadly, that wasn't such a big moment as I initially thought. When I checked the original article in english I realized that this little change wasn't there:

ONE facet of the sign that Jesus gave regarding “the conclusion of the system of things” was that “the love of the greater number [would] grow cold.” (Matt. 24:3, 12) In the first century, the Jews, who claimed to be God’s people, allowed their love for God to grow cold. - W0517 p17

See that there's no "this began to happen" in the english version.

Even the original question for this paragraph emphasizes that there are more than one fullfillment of Jesus' words, by using the adverb 'initially'.

(a) To whom did Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:12 initially apply?

In the simplified version they use the adverb 'firstly'. So, my excitment went away when I saw that never had changed. They still stick to 1914 big time.

However, I find it still curious that this meaning have been lost in the translation for portuguese. There are plenty of words that the translator could have translated initially and firstly (inicialmente, primeiramente, etc). So I wonder if this omission wasn't on purpose. As I said, there's no linguistical reason for not to translate the adverbs,

Would there be someone who has awaken to TTATT in Brazilian branch and this was his/her first silent scream?

Something also sadly remarkable is that everybody will read and don't even notice that the first lines of the article contradicted one of their beliefs.

15

Let's talk about Don Adams.

by Ray Frankz in

it's interesting that the person of the president of wtbts has figured lesser and lesser since f. franz era.

i was born in the religion in the 90's and i got to know about russel, rutherford, knorr and franz; but i never knew until a couple of years ago that m. henschel was the president in that time.

the same happens with don adams now, the first wt president from the 'other sheep'.

Ray Frankz

If he flubs something, he has to report to the Governing Body and say, "Sorry about that, Chief!"

The dog shaking the tail

15

Let's talk about Don Adams.

by Ray Frankz in

it's interesting that the person of the president of wtbts has figured lesser and lesser since f. franz era.

i was born in the religion in the 90's and i got to know about russel, rutherford, knorr and franz; but i never knew until a couple of years ago that m. henschel was the president in that time.

the same happens with don adams now, the first wt president from the 'other sheep'.

Ray Frankz

It's interesting that the person of the president of WTBTS has figured lesser and lesser since F. Franz era. I was born in the Religion in the 90's and I got to know about Russel, Rutherford, Knorr and Franz; but I never knew until a couple of years ago that M. Henschel was the President in that time. The same happens with Don Adams now, the first WT president from the 'other sheep'. We don't hear nothing about him.

Some may argue that nowadays all the power lays on the hands of the GB, so the President is only a decorative legal figure. Well, theoretically yes. But as most of us who read R. Franz books know, even with the empowerment of the GB, the opinions of the current President (Knorr, Franz) were always what unbalanced the votings.

It's true that this time the president isn't member of the GB, so, he supposedly isn't in the meetings. I actually don't think this isn't something hard to overcome. Hallways talks with some member who is close to him could put him inside the room even tohugh not physically.

What made me think that was something quite simple.

Have you noticed that all references of articles in the meetings recently are from publications of Don Adams era?

They only put publications from 2000 on in their online library. They are rarely making reference to wt from 90's even less from previous decades. (only exception is when they put excerpts from Russel's articles to make them look like he would agree with the current doctrines of the org; and from Rutherford's articles to make them look less agressive and political.) But they almost stopped puting references in order to the witinesses search further. So I wondered, since this pruning is saving only the Don Adam's era's material, could it be possible that the org is actually still ruled by one big boss, and the GB are more like 'stage assistants' while the show is happening backstage?