It reminds of the story of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Romania that were cut off the organization for decades because of the communist regime, when freedom came and they opened the borders a large part of the brothers and sisters in Romania refused to join the organization because so much had changed doctrinaly in the main time and they thought the organization had gone aposrate
raymond frantz
JoinedPosts by raymond frantz
-
9
Any reason for my mother and I not to go back, this is one of them.
by Truth and Justice inhi to all, i have been away from the organization since the 1980's and as it seems, i haven't missed a thing.
i have seen a deterioration take place that is continually getting more dramatic than i have ever seen.
the thumbing down or the minimizing of spiritual food is reason enough that people are starving for something good.
-
-
raymond frantz
-
32
The King of the North as you Never Heard ity Explained Before
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
-
-
raymond frantz
Vidqun
The structure of the verse, with two kings acting against a "him," suggests a separate entity. Now if this verse is all we had to go with it would be difficult to identify the HIM but thankfully we have the immediate few verses 36-39 that talk about this 3rd king as HE many times.Read verses 36 to 40 as one single verse and then it all makes sense.
And the king shall do as HE wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify HIMSELF above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. HE shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done. 37 HE shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. HE shall not pay attention to any other god, for HE shall magnify himself above all. 38 HE shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these. A god whom his fathers did not know HE shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 HE shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god. Those who acknowledge HIM HE shall load with honor. HE shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price.[f]40 “At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack[g] HIM, but the king of the north shall rush upon HIM like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. And HE shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through.
After reading these verses as one isn't it obvious that the HIM of verse 40 refers the king of 36-39?
-
32
The King of the North as you Never Heard ity Explained Before
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
-
-
raymond frantz
Jeffro
Your concern regarding the interpretation of a third king in Daniel 11:40 is appreciated, but it is important to clarify why this is not a mere repetition of Adventist or 19th-century interpretations, nor a "tedious superstition." The argument for a third party in this passage is rooted in the clear structure and context of Daniel 11 itself.
-
The Pronoun Issue:
You argue that the pronoun "him" is not ambiguous, but a careful reading of the Hebrew text suggests otherwise. The passage states:"At the time of the end, the king of the South will engage with [him] in a pushing, and against [him] the king of the North will storm with chariots and horsemen…"
If the conflict were exclusively between the king of the North and the king of the South, we would expect more explicit parallelism, such as “the king of the South will engage with the king of the North,” rather than the ambiguous him. This linguistic structure opens the possibility that "him" refers to a third entity distinct from the two kings.
-
Consistency with the Previous Verses:
The interpretation of a third figure is not arbitrary—it aligns with the pattern established earlier in Daniel 11. Previous verses describe multiple powers influencing and intervening in the affairs of the North and South. The passage has repeatedly introduced new figures, such as rulers, alliances, and invading forces that shift the balance of power. This contextual precedent suggests that the mention of a third entity at the "time of the end" is entirely in keeping with the passage’s literary and historical patterns. -
Historical Considerations:
While some 19th-century interpretations associated this with Napoleon, the concept of a third power in Daniel 11:40 is not limited to that historical application. Many scholars recognize that geopolitical struggles often involve more than two dominant players, particularly in biblical prophecy, where external forces frequently disrupt the North-South conflict. The claim that this is a "recycled" idea does not negate its validity, nor does it address the textual indications of a third entity. -
Avoiding the “Superstition” Charge:
To dismiss this interpretation as "tedious superstition" overlooks the fact that careful exegetical work has led multiple scholars and interpreters to consider the presence of a third power. The tendency to apply prophecy to contemporary times is not necessarily an error—it is a recognition that biblical prophecy often speaks beyond the immediate historical moment, extending to future events. The passage itself speaks of "the time of the end," indicating that its fulfillment may transcend ancient history.
The argument for a third king in Daniel 11:40 is not an arbitrary reinterpretation nor a relic of 19th-century Adventist thought. It arises from a careful reading of the text, recognizing patterns from previous verses, and understanding the complex nature of prophetic conflict. The idea should be evaluated based on textual evidence rather than dismissed as mere superstition.
-
-
3
SHE EXPOSED THE MADNESS OF JW MINISTRY!
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/f50tjtm8fds?si=h1ptb5aceiqbwmo6.
in 2025, the jehovah’s witnesses have taken their doctrine of isolation to a new extreme.
once known for their door-to-door evangelism, they now stand silently beside literature carts, refusing to engage in meaningful conversation with the public.
-
-
raymond frantz
https://youtu.be/f50TjtM8fds?si=h1ptB5AceiqBWmO6
In 2025, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have taken their doctrine of isolation to a new extreme. Once known for their door-to-door evangelism, they now stand silently beside literature carts, refusing to engage in meaningful conversation with the public. What was once a religion of zealous preaching has devolved into a passive, cult-like performance—offering pamphlets but no dialogue, presence but no answers.
Watch the following recent video where the exchange with a mainstream Christian lady with a bunch of Jehovah's goes horribly wrong as the jws refuse to engage in any meaningful way and she is totally gobsmacked as to why they would do that. This of course exposes the unsettling reality of a group that claims to have "the truth" yet shies away from genuine discussion. It raises a crucial question: If their beliefs are so unshakable, why do they refuse to defend them in open conversation? Is this silence a mark of confidence, or is it an admission that their doctrines cannot withstand scrutiny?
What does their silence reveal about their leadership’s control, their members’ cognitive dissonance, and the inevitable decline of a religion built on fear and isolation?
Watch, listen, and judge for yourself. The silence of Jehovah’s Witnesses speaks louder than their words ever could.
########
For a group that claims to have "the truth," Jehovah’s Witnesses sure seem reluctant to talk about it these days. Back in the day, they were famous for knocking on doors and eagerly engaging in conversation. Now? They stand silently next to carts, staring at their feet, avoiding eye contact, and hoping no one actually asks them anything. It’s almost like they’ve been told not to think too hard about what they believe—because if they did, they might start asking the wrong questions.
The Bible, however, paints a very different picture of what Christian ministry should look like. 1 Peter 3:15 in the New World Translation says:
**“But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.”**
Notice that? "Always ready." Not "stand there in silence." Not "just point to a pamphlet." The verse makes it clear—Christians should be able to explain and defend their beliefs. They should be engaging, reasoning, and making a case for their faith, not standing around like mannequins, hoping nobody asks them anything too difficult.
So why the change? Well, let’s be real—this shift isn’t about following Jesus' example. It’s about control. The Watchtower doesn’t want members thinking critically. It doesn’t want them getting into conversations that could challenge their beliefs. It doesn’t want them encountering people who might ask the wrong questions—the kind of questions that can’t be answered with a neatly packaged Watchtower article.
By keeping their followers silent, the leadership ensures that members don’t have to wrestle with inconvenient facts or alternative perspectives. It’s a clever strategy—if no one talks, no one thinks. And if no one thinks, no one leaves. This isn’t about spreading the gospel. It’s about keeping the rank and file in line.
Jehovah’s Witnesses need to wake up to the reality that their so-called "ministry" has been reduced to a passive, empty performance. Jesus and the apostles didn't just hand out scrolls and stare blankly at people. They engaged. They debated. They reasoned. And they certainly didn’t stand around in silence, waiting for someone to grab a brochure.
The truth is, the Watchtower has silenced its own people, not because it's biblical, but because it's convenient. A ministry that refuses to engage isn’t a ministry at all—it's just a propaganda distribution service. If Jehovah’s Witnesses truly believe they have the truth, they should have no problem talking about it. But their silence speaks volumes -
3026
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)
by Simon inuh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.
-
-
raymond frantz
The drugs have clouded his mind, his eyes look like a man broken inside, unfortunately it is all his doing he had it all and blow it all away
-
32
The King of the North as you Never Heard ity Explained Before
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
-
-
raymond frantz
The way i see it in 2025 rhe king of the south is the United States and the king on the North is Russia, they both have a role to play when it comes to the land of Israel although Rissia's power and it's allies in the area has greatly diminished. Both will come to their end by a third leader the Antichrist who will rise in the Middle East and resurrect the Muslim Caliphate at the time of the End ,that gas been the dream of every Muslim since their last caliphate came to an End because of infighting. This ruler is not Trump or Putin.
-
2
HAS THE WATCHTOWER GONE SOFT ON HOMOSEXUALITY?
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/trt197bko98?si=l_5wnlasm-aaxlh1.
once upon a time, the watchtower had no qualms about making its stance on homosexuality crystal clear.
back in the 1970s, they didn't just oppose it—they called it "detestable.
-
-
raymond frantz
https://youtu.be/TRt197Bko98?si=l_5WnlaSm-AaxLH1
Once upon a time, the Watchtower had no qualms about making its stance on homosexuality crystal clear. Back in the 1970s, they didn't just oppose it—they called it "detestable." No sugarcoating, no careful wording, just good old-fashioned fire and brimstone. In a 1970 issue of *The Watchtower*, they put it bluntly:
> "Yes, even if homosexuality be legalized, even if it becomes ever so popular, even if the whole world becomes like Sodom and Gomorrah, yet for Christians the truth of God’s Word still stands—homosexuality is something detestable, both to Jehovah God and moral man."
Subtle, wasn’t it? You could almost hear the righteous indignation dripping from the page. Back then, the message was loud and clear: homosexuality was bad, God hated it, and that was that.
Fast-forward a few decades, and suddenly, the Watchtower started getting a little... shall we say, diplomatic? By the 1990s and 2000s, the rhetoric had undergone a curious transformation. The doctrine hadn’t changed—oh no, absolutely not—but the wording? Now, that was another matter. The fire-and-brimstone approach was quietly swapped for something a bit more palatable. Take this gem from a 2016 *Awake!* magazine:
> "Although the Bible condemns homosexual acts, it does not encourage prejudice, hate crimes, or any other kind of mistreatment of homosexuals."
Ah, how the times had changed! No longer were they thumping the Bible with quite the same gusto. Instead of hammering home the old "homosexuality is detestable" mantra, they now preferred a softer touch, something that wouldn't send the modern, more progressive world into an uproar. After all, hate speech laws are a real thing now, and the Watchtower is nothing if not mindful of its public image.
But the cherry on top? Their newfound love for the Golden Rule:
> "Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to follow the Golden Rule by treating others the way they themselves would like to be treated."
A touching sentiment, really. Almost makes you forget that not too long ago, they were happy to declare that homosexuals were bound for fiery destruction. Now, it's all about "respect" and "treating others kindly"—not because they’ve suddenly developed a newfound compassion, mind you, but because, well... the governments are watching. And if there’s one thing the Watchtower understands, it’s money.
You see, they’re not daft. In a world where LGBTQ rights are enshrined in law, where inclusivity is the golden standard, and where spewing outright condemnation could land you in legal or financial hot water, it simply wouldn’t do to be too explicit. So, out went the verses about "men lying with men" and all that jazz—at least in public materials. Because, let’s be honest, if they were to air those on JW Broadcasting or splash them across *The Watchtower* today, it wouldn’t take long before the lawsuits came knocking and their tax-exempt status started looking rather precarious.
So here we are. The doctrine hasn’t changed, but the message? That’s been polished to a fine corporate sheen. They still believe the same things, of course, but they’ve learned the art of saying it without actually saying it. After all, it’s much easier to appear loving and inclusive when you carefully curate your wording, isn’t it?
This is exactly what they used to condemn in so-called "false religion"—Babylon the Great. They accused mainstream churches of compromising with the world, watering down their message to stay in favor with the authorities. And yet, here they are, doing the very same thing. They still believe homosexuality is wrong, but they’ve switched from shouting about Sodom and Gomorrah to vague messages of "respect" and "love." They won’t dare put the clear-cut Bible verses in their public materials anymore—because talking the talk is easy, but walking the walk? That could cost them.
At the end of the day, the Watchtower is no different from the religions they claimed to be separate from. They claim to be fearless preachers of truth, but when money and legal trouble are on the line, they soften their tone just like Babylon the Great. The only difference? They still pretend they haven’t changed at all. -
32
The King of the North as you Never Heard ity Explained Before
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
-
-
raymond frantz
Vidiot 🤣🤣🤣
A little click bait never hurt anyone
-
12
Beroean Pickets - Is there a problem?
by BoogerMan inhaving watched the latest offering from beroean pickets - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpuelgtf4ka - i contributed the following factual information along with several consolidating scriptures:.
"naos - metaphorically the spiritual temple consisting of the saints of all ages joined together by and in christ,
of a company of christians, a christian church, as dwelt in by the spirit of god.
-
-
raymond frantz
So who do you think is the great crowd booger man? -
32
The King of the North as you Never Heard ity Explained Before
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
-
-
raymond frantz
https://youtu.be/w32nomE-K20?si=a8BhXh5tjRKOmgzq
Rather than seeing the King of the North as the final opponent of God’s people, I propose that Daniel 11 points to a completely different figure. While the Watchtower Society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the New World Translation. There, it says:
"At the time of the end, the King of the South will engage with him in a pushing, and against him, the King of the North will storm with chariots and horsemen and many ships, sweeping through like a flood."
A quick reading of the verse will have you believe that there are only 2 kings fighting out in this verse, the King of the North and the King of the South but look again and a third separate King is emerging.
First of all, there is an ambiguity in the use of the pronoun, Him.Who is "Him"? The first subject “the king of the South” is engaging Him in battle, whereas the second subject, “the king of the North," comes against him with chariots and horsemen and ships.
This unclear pronoun ("him") suggests a distinct third party, separate from the king of the South and the king of the North.
If "him" referred to either the king of the South or North, the sentence would logically state this explicitly. Instead, the construction implies that both the king of the South and the king of the North are interacting with a third figure.
Secondly, the military actions taken here differ. What do i mean by this?
The king of the South in the original Hebrew rendering is actually the one who initiates battle, the verse's original rendering says that "He will push at him"—a "phrase" implying provocation or challenge.On the other hand, the king of the North does not merely respond; he storms against him, the original rendering is "he will come like a whirlwind", with an overwhelming military force.
So this ambigious HIM suggests a neutral power caught between the king of the North and the king of the South.
The intensity and escalation suggest a third party being overwhelmed, not merely a reciprocal war between two known kings.
Now, the new picture emerges that supports this understanding once you read the previous 4 verses. Daniel 11:36-39 describes a ruler who exalts himself above all gods, showing no regard for traditional deities.This is the ambiguous HIM.We read there about a
King who is not described as the King of the North or the King of the South but as a HIM and when we read the verses in their entirety that becomes apparent. Let's read together:
"The king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt himself and magnify himself above every god; and against the God of gods he will speak astonishing things. And he will prove successful until the denunciation comes to a finish; because what is determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the God of his fathers; nor will he show regard for the desire of women or for any other god, but he will magnify himself over everyone. 38 But instead he will give glory to the god of fortresses; to a god that his fathers did not know he will give glory by means of gold and silver and precious stones and desirable things. 39 He will act effectively against the most fortified strongholds, along with a foreign god. He will give great glory to those who give him recognition, and he will make them rule among many; and the ground he will apportion out for a price. 40 “In the time of the end the king of the south will engage with him in a pushing, and against him the king of the north will storm with chariots and horsemen and many ships; and he will enter into the lands and sweep through like a flood."
Historically, these verses were fulfilled in part by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Seleucid ruler who desecrated the Jewish temple and installed the worship of Zeus. However, many aspects of this prophecy were not entirely fulfilled by Antiochus, leading some Christians, including myself, to believe that this prophecy has a future fulfilment.
I argue that Daniel 11 points to the well known figure by many other places of the Bible the Antichrist the ultimate figure of power in the last days and what Daniel 11:40 actually says when you open your eyes to this possibility and read a third king in this verse as i made my case earlier them a completely different scenario emerges
The Antichrist will not merely be another King of the North OR the South but a ruler who surpasses and destroys both the King of the North and the King of the South. This interpretation is one that aligns with the Book of Revelation, which speaks of a world ruler who consolidates power before the final battle at Armageddon. For example we read in
Revelation 13:7,8:"It was given power(=the beast, the Antichrist) to wage war against the saints and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life." You see there is no king of the North or king of the South here ONLY the Antichrist. Why? Because Daniel 11:40 has already taken place, both these kings have been destroyed. So this is past Daniel 11:40.
If this understanding is correct, then today’s King of the North (which the Watchtower identifies as Russia) and the King of the South (likely the United States) are temporary players in a larger conflict. Eventually, the Antichrist will emerge, exploiting a global crisis or power vacuum—possibly linked to instability in Israel and the Middle East. Given current geopolitical shifts, such a scenario is becoming increasingly plausible. For instance, President Donald Trump suggested only few days ago withdrawing NATO forces from Europe, which could create a power void that the Antichrist could exploit.
You need more evidence? Read Revelation 16:14:"They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the entire inhabited earth(=where are the kings of the North and the king of the South?), to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty"
The final confrontation involves "the kings of the Earth" uniting against Christ. Interestingly, the King of the North and the King of the South are not mentioned in this ultimate battle, this again suggests they have already been eliminated. This supports the idea that the Antichrist will consolidate power and remove these two opposing forces before Christ’s return.
So what is the final take here? The traditional Watchtower interpretation of Daniel 11 focuses too much on identifying the King of the North in a way that aligns with their historical experiences. However, a broader examination suggests that this prophecy is not merely about a continuous political struggle but about the emergence of a final world ruler—the Antichrist—who will surpass and destroy both the King of the North and the King of the South.
While the Watchtower continues to emphasize Russia as the King of the North, this perspective does not hold up under scrutiny. If the prophecy is truly about the final world power, then we should be looking beyond mere geopolitical struggles to a more significant end-times figure who will usher in the final tribulation before Christ’s return.