this is a reply ireceived from a poster on another forum.
"actually the vast majority of interpretations of prophecy are absolutely spot on.. .
people harp on over this and that that was wrong 50 years ago, but today jehovah's witnesses have all the bible's prophecies pretty much figured out in their entirety.. .
Smiddy--exactly lol i thought for a good 15 20 minutes at least---nope nada. Lol
he mustve been referring to the peetilences and earthquakes and natural disasters....oh wait! He said the prophecies that THEY were right about...isnt supposd to be that THE BIBLE was right about? Wouldnt that make them prophets?
either way the guy was a loon.
this is a reply ireceived from a poster on another forum.
"actually the vast majority of interpretations of prophecy are absolutely spot on.. .
people harp on over this and that that was wrong 50 years ago, but today jehovah's witnesses have all the bible's prophecies pretty much figured out in their entirety.. .
Lets stick with the last 50 years....like 1975? Lol oooooooops. i think this person is saying that theyve fixed it in the last 50 years or so....how about 1975? Generation change? FDS change?
this is a reply ireceived from a poster on another forum.
"actually the vast majority of interpretations of prophecy are absolutely spot on.. .
people harp on over this and that that was wrong 50 years ago, but today jehovah's witnesses have all the bible's prophecies pretty much figured out in their entirety.. .
This is a reply ireceived from a poster on another forum.
"Actually the vast majority of interpretations of prophecy are absolutely spot on.
People harp on over this and that that was wrong 50 years ago, but today Jehovah's Witnesses have all the Bible's prophecies pretty much figured out in their entirety.
People forget that for ever line the haters quote that turned out to be wrong there was an entire magazine full of other stuff that was completely correct."
what shall we make of this
because the gb say so, and they are guided by hs.. anyother offers from the brochure?
kate xx.
I really enjoy the pamphlet on visiting bethel...shows how brothers and sisters what to wear and not wear...theeeeeen it shiws a few pics on tours given and you get to spot whos wearing whats acceptable and whats not...kinda like i-spy or wheres waldo.
i thought that it was a good time to post my experience about visiting new york last spring.
enough time has passed that no one can put my experiences together with any kind of timeline..... so our family discussed the trip to the holy land (ny bethel), as none of us had ever been.
anyone who is anyone knows that you aren't really a good jw christian until you visit bethel!
Know all them boys and girls were playing soccer. Thats funny because it is of known pagain origin that the game started. Theyd kick severed heads around......how many more beheadings were needed for a footy match vs. Birthdays? Hmmm
i have had requests to add an article about beards and jehovah's witnesses.
it is interesting that there is virtually no statement that says a witness cannot have a beard, yet universally they do not have beards.
i have scoured quotes from all the threads on jwn, all references to beard on the cd watchtower library, and copies of elders letters that i have.
No iffense to any moustache-ians but i would trust a bearded man before one with a mustache......
A wt of '09
A Text That Teaches the Trinity?
One example of a Bible verse that is often misused is John 1:1 . In the King James Version, that verse reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton the·on′ ], and the Word was God [ the·os′ ].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·on′ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·os′ has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out?
The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an example Matthew 13:38 , which reads: “The field [Greek, ho a·gros′ ] is the world [Greek, ho ko′smos ].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field.
What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1 ? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”
Which magazine was this published in or where can i find it to show my wife
I cant help but get emotional when reading this. The nail in the coffin for me.
Interesting
