earlier this week a new post on this forum announced that the 2017 worldwide annual service report was available on jw.org.
wow - that's earlier than the statistics for the 2016 service year which appeared in the 2017 yearbook last january!
good effort, jw organization!
Wait, what? So they are so CLEARLY lying about statistics? For some countries, statistics for 2017 are taken straight from statistics for 2016? Really? Did I understand you correctly?
I thought they'd at least try to hide the unfavourable facts... Meanwhile, they are lying in the light of day. I suppose my doubt as to whether I understand you correctly has to do with the fact that it's really surprising. They have a history of hiding embarrassing facts—so why this?
i'm sure many of you are aware of the jwtalk site, a message board which has yet to succumb to apostasy (give it time).. some of the forums there are visible to the public, and i've seen some crazy stuff.
here is a sampling:.
"satan is really trying his best to make things worst for the witnesses, knowing the 6,000 years is almost up, from eve's creation!".
Iv'e never understood why JWs get so hung up (pun unintended) on the position of Jesus's hands when he died. I can't think of anything less important.
How about... beards? or yoga? or oral sex? or saying "Bless you"? At least the last one's gotta be less important :D
There's also the inevitable smattering of threads and posts about how bloodless surgery vindicates the Watchtower's position on transfusions, even though their reasoning is entirely doctrinal, not medical.
Yeah... I hate that boogeyman of theirs. It's true that in plenty of situations, patients can survive and recover without blood transfusion. But then there are plenty of situations where blood transfusions are necessary. So, no, bloodless surgery doesn't vindicate their position at all since their position is that even when blood transfusions are absolutely necessary, accepting them still would be a sin. A sin. Because they view it as a sin and not as a medical error, no medical discovery could ever vindicate their position.
By the way, is it possible to create an account on their website somehow? What troubles me is that you have to give them your information such as the congregation you belong to. Do they somehow contact the congregation you list in order to confirm that you're an active member? I'm asking because I'd like to create an account (just to see what they post), but I'm not sure if they'd be able to see through me.
vowel points were not added to the hebrew language until from what i have read the 10th century ad.
so how can anyone properly translate this language and the older canaanite dialect properly?.
The lack of vowel points isn't much of a problem when it comes to translation. It's only a problem when you're trying to figure out the pronunciation. Some words are indeed similar when you factor out the nikkud, such as the difference between "walk" and "walking" (halakh vs. holeykh, both being "hlk" without the vowels), but the context usually sorts it all out. In fact, Hebrew language today doesn't usually use vowel points anyway; it's usually seen only in grammar books, children's books, and the Bible.
Note: I don't know Hebrew, so don't take my word for it. It just so happens that I was studying this topic a few weeks ago.
Crazyguy, to my knowledge, Inanna isn't stripped naked because that phrasing implies that other people take her clothes off without her consent. That's not quite what happened, is it? In order to pass through the seven gates that lead to Irkalla, people had to take their clothes off as a tradition. It's not that this happened to Inanna specifically; it's that it happened to everyone, and the circumstances are much different from what we see in Jesus' story. As such, the only similarity I see is that Inanna is revived after 3 days. Other than that, everything is different. Perhaps the video points out some other similarities? I haven't watched it as I don't have 10 minutes to spare at the moment.
hey everyone.
i have a question and i hope i'm not confusing this with something else i heard.
while watching ex jw videos on youtube many of them talk about how noah's ark and the flood didn't happen and it's impossible.
Marvel's Daredevil is the best, folks.
hey everyone.
i have a question and i hope i'm not confusing this with something else i heard.
while watching ex jw videos on youtube many of them talk about how noah's ark and the flood didn't happen and it's impossible.
You can take a look at this article. I think the most persuasive arguments include "How did Noah get the animals to the ark?" and "How did Noah care for the animals on the boat?" In addition, it's worth contemplating how the hell kangaroos were supposed to walk and swim all the way up to Australia without leaving a single trace of evidence.
If after all this someone still wants to believe in the flood, he would have to take it blindly on faith. The only answer a Christian could offer is that it was a miracle because without a miracle, it's simply impossible for the flood to be real.
the jw lawyer clearly stated that disfellowshipping only applies to spiritual association, but everyday family contact is ok..
incognito2014 - If the person lives at home with the family then normal family relationships continue.
Yes, that's true, but the exact point is that David (the lawyer who lied) never specified that and therefore misled the Supreme Court.
the jw lawyer clearly stated that disfellowshipping only applies to spiritual association, but everyday family contact is ok..
If we just suddenly start talking to DFed people again and use the Canada court video as our argument, what would happen?
You could be counseled, reproved, or even disfellowshipped for either brazen conduct (continued unnecessary association with a disfellowshipped individual) or a critical attitude towards the judicial decision of the elders (being critical of the disfellowshipping decision), both of which are reasons for judicial action as listed by Shepherd the Flock of God.
What David Gnam said is not true. We all know that. I'm wondering, though, how (and if) David would defend his words...
in a recent canadian case i've seen (on line video in threads on here) the wt lawyer says that disfellowshipping isn't actual shunning but only a cutting off of spiritual association.
but what case is it and is there a transcript available on line?.
any other "good" examples from the point of view that it proves wt speak out of both sides of their mouths?.
So I was wondering... Is the Supreme Court even aware that the lawyer in defense of the JW congregation lied during the hearing? I should think that it would be in the best interest of Randy Wall to inform the court of David's dishonesty.
just spent 8 hours in a 1 day elders school last weekend.
clarification given: "moving forward any elder, ms, or pioneer who themselves or someone under their roof enrolls in higher education, may no longer qualify for privileges in the congregation.
their qualifications will have to be reviewed by their boe.".
Brian J - As was "do not encourage contacting the police but if brought up by the victim do not hinder or make them feel guilty". Immediately render spiritual assistance to the victim is simply not in the vocabulary.
Really? That was brought up in the school? Because I remember that after the ARC there was a change that elders were supposed to explicitly encourage contacting the police... They just weren't supposed to contact the authorities themselves.
So I suppose the Watchtower just changed the policy in theory, but in practice it's still same ol' same ol'— meaning don't contact the police, and don't encourage the victim to contact the police.
