*** watchtower 1961 december 15 pp.766-767 questions from readers *** questions from readers
when, in genesis 1:30, god says: "to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul i have given all green vegetation for food," are we to understand that this absolutely excludes the idea that any animals ate meat at that time or before that?
and on this basis are we to conclude that all animals will be vegetarian in the new world?
So, if the Bible itself does not give any answer to these questions about those creatures lower than man, it does not mean that there is no answer to the questions that is consistent with the Bible. It simply means that we are not to preoccupy ourselves with such questions.
Wouldn't it have been easier and faster to just write "We have absolutely no idea."
Robert
in my mom's last letter she made a statement that in 1914 satan was sent to earth.
does anyone know what she's talking about?
i thought everyone pretty much agreed that the snake in the garden was satan, that satan was on earth in jesus day and still is and has always been.
Here is a thread from (I think?) last year by "AlleyMom" which is easy, concise and pretty simply lays out -- using simple subtaction and dates exclusively from WTS publications -- how 607 is a pipe dream.
click here: once smitten by watchtowerlove, twice shy-stered
I gotta admit, the one showing the giant hand holding a paper towel and wiping the earth was pretty creative. A sword? Nah. A mace? Nah. A giant fist? Nah. Lightning? Earthquakes? But a giant paper towel? Yikes, now that one's got me a-shaking'. Maybe it was conceived by a guy who used to be a janitor. Probably shut his "creativity" down when he started Armageddon using a big-assed mop and broom. Robert
my jw girlfriend missed the recent (july or august) dc due to illness.
after she had had a visit by one of her friends who had gone to the convention i noticed a blank name tag on a table.
the visitor had left it for her as, i guess, as souvenier.
My JW girlfriend missed the recent (July or August) DC due to illness. After she had had a visit by one of her friends who had gone to the convention I noticed a blank name tag on a table. The visitor had left it for her as, I guess, as souvenier. What struck me was that the title was "Walk with GOD" and then underneath it said DC of Jehovah's Witnesses and the lines to fill in your name. Shouldn't that name tag have said "Walk with JEHOVAH" ? Are they lightening up in some way? Is that common? I just found it a bit odd that GOD and not JEHOVAH was so prominently visible on the tag. Is somebody ashamed...? Robert
when i was a little dubbie we used the expression "the friends" to describe fellow dubbies.
we would say things like "she's one of the friends," or ask questions like "is he one of the friends?
is this terms still used in that fashion in dubland?
My JW girlfriend uses that "friends" term ad nauseum. I, too, feel like I'm reading a Stephen King book or some other cult-ish writing. It's creepy to hear constant references to "the friends" and it really weirds me out to hear her refer to them like that. It's definitely cultish. Robert
well i haven't done any promotions for the site latley and i see so many people new to the forum.
so for those who are unaware of our beautiful site full of watchtower quotes un-edited, come over for a visit!.
hey if watchtower quotes are considered apostate you may not want to see the contradictions within the watchtowers own publications.. http://quotes.watchtower.ca .
I have referred to this wonderful site many times. It truly has some excellent matierial and I thank those responsible for it. What a good job you've done.
Reading that literature makes me laugh, angry, nauseous, incredulous and woozy all at the same time. How did you all do it? But I have a quick question: How does the intrepid user of the Quotes site get around the objection(s) of those on which one would use the material? (Like a JW at the door...) Don't or can't they just say the quotes are false or incorrect or changed from the real WT literature? Like it's the work of Apostates and such?
I would guess that the burden of proof to show the quotes are false is on the person disputing them, but I can see problems when confronting someone with a quote that smashes their reality to bits. How far back can a JW be expected to have access to records? How complete are the KH libraries should the inquisitive JW wish to see for themself?
Just curious and thanks again for such a tremendous site.
Robert
in the apostle john's day, a variety of religious sects appeared in christian congregations called the gnostics.. many of these gnostics thought that matter and flesh were bad and anything 'spirit' was good, so they believed.
that jesus couldn't have been flesh and blood.
so, john condemned them , in his letters, as the "antichrist" because.
The people of all nations who have the hope of everlasting life on earth benefit even now from Jesus? services. Though he is not their legal Mediator, for they are not in the new covenant, he is their means of approaching Jehovah.
Huh? Isn't this "hair-splitting" also a direct contradiction? Jesus is not "their legal mediator" .... but he is "their means of approaching jehovah." Po-tay-to <-> po-tah-to if you ask me. Isn't someone who affords (among other things) a means to approach someone or something, by their very definition, a mediator? This article was a lot of words but saying nothing.
I really don't think Jesus acted as a legal entity. C'mon, he was a hippie for the most part (not that that is a bad thing. )
Robert
when you stop believing the bible to be the word of god the motives behind the actions of gods prophets and followers come across rather differently.
in fact much like fundlmentlists today.you have joshua comiting genocide , and paul moving in and tacking control of the christians and changing the religion to his own beliefs.
which other characters actions can be interpreted differenly when you see them just as ordinary humans with more selfish motives?
It would probably be easier and quicker to list the people who don't sound dodgy. Almost all the people who get more than a cursory mention in the bible have some really weird stuff going on!
Who needs 1000 wives?!?! Who could kill 700 (7000?) warriors using a donkey's jawbone? I don't think so! And all the other various and sundry folk who have either some supernatural ability, some "who cares?" ability and on and on. It's like any other story ever written since writing was invented: Who wants to read boring, banal crap? You've gotta "punch it up" a bit to keep people's interest.
If Solomon had even 5 wives, who would care? Some Mormons do better than that ... today! And killing a guy using a sharp or hard piece of bone (but why the jawbone? Hmmm...) isn't a big deal. You can kill somone pushing them down a stairway. But killing hundreds of people, that's a kick-ass deed! Even Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwartzenegger have yet to top it.
So, I think it is all poetic license of a sort. Marketing the book to the masses is a whole lot easier with sex and violence on a huge scale.
Robert
how many times did we, as jws, see that question?
how many times did we read or recite the same ole bs about allowing wicked people to try to rule themselves and failing?
god's soverienty was brought into question and now he'll give satan and man so many thousand years to give it a try.
Reading Job made me question what the motivation really was. Satan places basically a "bar-bet" with jehovah and jehovah takes the bait, makes poor Job's life a living hell all to prove a point to the debil! Seems jehovah would be a better person than that.
He coulda told beelzebub to take a hike and that he (jehovah) didn't plan on being his bitch anytime soon and making a bet with him. If jehovah was all-knowing then he already knew Job would stay faithful and subservient to him so their bet was unnecessary. It was also sadistic, cruel, childish, petty, small and just plain chickenshit!
You'd think the supposed creator of the entire universe would have a little better character than that, eh?
one of the hardest doctrines of the witnesses that i couldn't wrap my little brain around, was the teaching that the resurrected would not marry.. i remember one assembly, a whole talk was spent on the resurrection, and emphasis was placed on the fact that they would not marry.
the couple sitting in front of me (obviously a happy couple, 'cause this distressed them) whispered how they just couldn't believe it.. here's the scripture they use to back their doctrine:.
matt 22:22-33 specifically vs 30 "for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven...".
There was a discussion similar to this a while ago. The whole not getting married is one thing, but "being as the angels in heaven" is a completly different conundrum.
Matthew 22:29-30 (new world translation):
"In reply Jesus said to them: "You are mistaken, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God; for in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven."
But didn't some angels mate with earthly women and spawn giants -- the Nephilim and Rephaim like Goliath? (1Sa 17:4, Gen 6:4 see also Num 13:33) does being like angels allow you to swoop down and mate and/or spawn with any woman you want?
Sounds like a sort of "drive-by rape" to me ... with nothing wrong about it. It's all just a load of B.S. as far as I am concerned.
Robert
