Jehovah

[artikk]

Hebrew name of God

 

[feelingshorter]

Originally posted by: elektrolokomotive
I sense a public stoning coming on.

no women allowed though. fake beards will be sold at the door.

hahah

 

[spiderrasmon]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

you're angry, and likely it's b/c you tried Jehovah's way and couldn't hack it. If you draw close to him in prayer, perhaps you can allow the truth to reach your heart again.

That's part of what bothers me about the JWs, their pompousness. "Come back into the truth," and "You mustn't talk to him, he's worldly."

More irritating is the constant diversionary responses ("we don't 'refuse blood', we just 'value life'"? What does THAT mean?! And the 'Michael, from West Africa' anecdote was especially amusing. Totally unrelated to the discussion at hand, completely digressive, and irrelevant).

Notice how he didn't even answer several of my questions, anyway!

I wish I could say it's a trait of that religion alone, but most religions and politicians, too, do the same thing. If you cannot or do not want to answer a question, just dazzle them with diversions.

you want your questions answered, take it up with the man himself. It's apparent you have little respect for God in any form, by any name, so I'm not duty-bound to do anything but present what's already in the most perfect form, the good news of Jehovah's kingdom.

 

[dderidex]

Look, you could at LEAST answer the 607 thing. Jerusalem fell in 586/587 BCE and NOT 607 BCE.

I challenged you to prove me wrong on that point, since your entire religion is founded on that teaching.

You have failed to do so.

Who is being dishonest, here?

If your religion prophecies that something happens (the Gentile Times end) 2520 years years after another event happens (the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE)....and it doesn't (nothing world-altering *I* can think of happened in the fall of 1935)....doesn't that make them false prophets?

 

[apoppin]

Whoa just a moment. Didn't JW's WRITE in their official publication (over-and-over) = that those OLD enough to EYEWITNESS the events of 1914 (i.e. those born ~1902) = would be THE surviving generation that would "by no means pass away" until jesus' return and Armageddon?

[yes they did and it is searchable]

i have a little NEWS for THEM - that entire GENERATION is DEAD.
:roll:

Doesn't this meet the bible definition of "false prophet"?
:Q

and what about the Watchtower stating that "the END" should come by 1975 [based on the idea that you could figure when Adam and Eve were created - 4026 BCe - by counting the "begats" and the ages of the partriarchs when they had children]. .

[yes it was "official" in the Watchtower; but presented with a "loophole" - i.e "likely"]

Wrong again.
:thumbsdown:

So, what's their [new] "latest" date"?
:shocked:

 

[murphy55d]

Annoying people at the door and Jay-Z.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Whoa just a moment. Didn't JW's WRITE in their official publication (over-and-over) = that those OLD enough to EYEWITNESS the events of 1914 (i.e. those born ~1902) = would be THE surviving generation that would "by no means pass away" until jesus' return and Armageddon?

[yes they did and it is searchable]

Yes, they did.

They have, however, had 'new light' that this prophecy was not to be taken so literally. The current interpretation is that the world will REMEMBER the events of 1914 at the time the new system comes. As in, having historical knowledge. They re-interpreted "this generation" to be not just the literal generation alive at the time (the teaching they had held to for the past 80 years), but, rather, that particular era of human history.

They continue insisting the end of this system of things is "right around the corner", but no longer will even guesstimate the date any more precisely than 'at some point when we still have written history of 1914'.

Originally posted by: apoppin
and what about the Watchtower stating that "the END" should come by 1975 [based on the idea that you could figure when Adam and Eve were created - 4026 BCe - by counting the "begats" and the ages of the partriarchs when they had children]. .
[yes it was "official" in the Watchtower; but presented with a "loophole" - i.e "likely"]

FWIW, this was also never really "official".

They did HEAVILY suggest it. HEAVILY. But never outright said so.

The most daming quotes come from the book, well, here:

Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God (book) 1966 pp. 26-30
41 Since the time of Ussher intensive study of Bible chronology has been carried on. In this twentieth century an independent study has been carried on that does not blindly follow some traditional chronological calculations of Christendom, and the published timetable resulting from this independent study gives the date of man's creation as 4026 B.C.E. According to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E.

42 So six thousand years of man's existence on earth will soon be up, yes, within this generation.

And

Awake! October 8 1966 pp.19-20
6,000 Years Completed in 1975 ? In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of God's rest day come to an end? The year 1975? Hence, the fact that we are nearing the end of the first 6,000 years of man's existence is of great significance. Does God's rest day parallel the time man has been on earth since his creation? Apparently so. From the most reliable investigations of Bible chronology, harmonizing with many accepted dates of secular history, we find that Adam was created in the autumn of the year 4026 B.C.E. Sometime in that same year Eve could well have been created, directly after which God's rest day commenced ? There is another chronological indication that we are rapidly nearing the closing time for this wicked system of things. It is the fact that shortly, according to reliable Bible chronology, 6,000 years of human history will come to an end.. After six thousand years of toil and bondage to sin, sickness, death and Satan, mankind is due to enjoy a rest and is in dire need of a rest. (Heb. 4:1-11) Hence, the fact that we are nearing the end of the first 6,000 years of man's existence is of great significance.. In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of God's rest day come to an end? The year 1975. This is worthy of notice, particularly in view of the fact that the 'last days' began in 1914, and that the physical facts of our day in fulfillment of prophecy mark this as the last generation of this wicked world. So we can expect the immediate future to be filled with thrilling events for those who rest their faith in God and his promises. It means that within relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the 'time of the end.'

And this is a good one:

Watchtower 1966 October 15 p.631 Rejoicing over "God's Sons of Liberty" Spiritual Feast
'What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?' asked Brother Franz. 'Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah's witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.

This highlights their classic double-talk for a talk given in 1966. Is the end coming in 1975? Will 1975 be the fall of Babylon the great?. Will prohesies be fulfilled in 1975? 1975? 1975? But don't jump to any conclusions now, ya hear? [wink, wink] 1975! 1975!

Of course, the FOLLOWING year, in 1967, this was stated in a talk by a District Overseer:

Public Address by District Overseer Bro. Charles Sunutko in Spring 1967 in Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Well now, as Jehovah's Witnesses, as runners, even though some of us have become a little weary, it almost seems as though Jehovah has provided meat in due season. Because he's held up before all of us, a new goal. A new year. Something to reach out for and it just seems it has given all of us so much more energy and power in this final burst of speed to the finish line. And that's the year 1975.

Suffice it to say, the JWs have traditionally been pretty awful about dates. I could keep going, there are literally hundreds of references to 1975 specifically in their literature throughout the 60s.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Vic
It reminds me that there is no "J" in the Hebrew language.

And that Jehovah is not His proper name anyways.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: apoppin
Whoa just a moment. Didn't JW's WRITE in their official publication (over-and-over) = that those OLD enough to EYEWITNESS the events of 1914 (i.e. those born ~1902) = would be THE surviving generation that would "by no means pass away" until jesus' return and Armageddon?

[yes they did and it is searchable]

Yes, they did.

They have, however, had 'new light' that this prophecy was not to be taken so literally. The current interpretation is that the world will REMEMBER the events of 1914 at the time the new system comes. As in, having historical knowledge. They re-interpreted "this generation" to be not just the literal generation alive at the time (the teaching they had held to for the past 80 years), but, rather, that particular era of human history.

They continue insisting the end of this system of things is "right around the corner", but no longer will even guesstimate the date any more precisely than 'at some point when we still have written history of 1914'.

Originally posted by: apoppin
and what about the Watchtower stating that "the END" should come by 1975 [based on the idea that you could figure when Adam and Eve were created - 4026 BCe - by counting the "begats" and the ages of the partriarchs when they had children]. .
[yes it was "official" in the Watchtower; but presented with a "loophole" - i.e "likely"]

FWIW, this was also never really "official".

They did HEAVILY suggest it. HEAVILY. But never outright said so.

The most daming quotes come from the book, well, here:

Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God (book) 1966 pp. 26-30
41 Since the time of Ussher intensive study of Bible chronology has been carried on. In this twentieth century an independent study has been carried on that does not blindly follow some traditional chronological calculations of Christendom, and the published timetable resulting from this independent study gives the date of man's creation as 4026 B.C.E. According to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E.

42 So six thousand years of man's existence on earth will soon be up, yes, within this generation.

And

Awake! October 8 1966 pp.19-20
6,000 Years Completed in 1975 ? In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of God's rest day come to an end? The year 1975? Hence, the fact that we are nearing the end of the first 6,000 years of man's existence is of great significance. Does God's rest day parallel the time man has been on earth since his creation? Apparently so. From the most reliable investigations of Bible chronology, harmonizing with many accepted dates of secular history, we find that Adam was created in the autumn of the year 4026 B.C.E. Sometime in that same year Eve could well have been created, directly after which God's rest day commenced ? There is another chronological indication that we are rapidly nearing the closing time for this wicked system of things. It is the fact that shortly, according to reliable Bible chronology, 6,000 years of human history will come to an end.. After six thousand years of toil and bondage to sin, sickness, death and Satan, mankind is due to enjoy a rest and is in dire need of a rest. (Heb. 4:1-11) Hence, the fact that we are nearing the end of the first 6,000 years of man's existence is of great significance.. In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of God's rest day come to an end? The year 1975. This is worthy of notice, particularly in view of the fact that the 'last days' began in 1914, and that the physical facts of our day in fulfillment of prophecy mark this as the last generation of this wicked world. So we can expect the immediate future to be filled with thrilling events for those who rest their faith in God and his promises. It means that within relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the 'time of the end.'

And this is a good one:

Watchtower 1966 October 15 p.631 Rejoicing over "God's Sons of Liberty" Spiritual Feast
'What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?' asked Brother Franz. 'Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah's witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.

This highlights their classic double-talk for a talk given in 1966. Is the end coming in 1975? Will 1975 be the fall of Babylon the great?. Will prohesies be fulfilled in 1975? 1975? 1975? But don't jump to any conclusions now, ya hear? [wink, wink] 1975! 1975!

Of course, the FOLLOWING year, in 1967, this was stated in a talk by a District Overseer:

Public Address by District Overseer Bro. Charles Sunutko in Spring 1967 in Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Well now, as Jehovah's Witnesses, as runners, even though some of us have become a little weary, it almost seems as though Jehovah has provided meat in due season. Because he's held up before all of us, a new goal. A new year. Something to reach out for and it just seems it has given all of us so much more energy and power in this final burst of speed to the finish line. And that's the year 1975.

Suffice it to say, the JWs have traditionally been pretty awful about dates. I could keep going, there are literally hundreds of references to 1975 specifically in their literature throughout the 60s.

"new light"!?!
:roll:
. . . i don't remember anywhere in the bible where a false prophet - about to be stoned according to Moses' Law for his false prophecy - had a "second chance" for reinterpreting his forecast.

From the 1870s-till [almost] now they have been saying that "the generation old enough to EYEwitness the events of 1914 would be THE generation that would 'not pass away' till the End comes."

very convenient - "new light" - AFTER the fact - and after 130 years of insisting this is the "truth"
:thumbsdown:

about 1975 . . . i did say that they said "should come by 1975" . . . although they danced all around it without "officially stating", it was pretty clear that they EXPECTED armageddon by 1975.

So, more bogus "chronology"?
[it IS ridiculous to use the ages of the patriarchs and when they "begat" to figure ANY dates without the roughest of approximations - EACH "begat" could be a year to 2 years 'off' [depending on birth month . . . and IF we are to believe the EXTREME age of some of these - i.e. +900 years; how long do they thing it took for Adam to have sex with Eve? IF i were adam and Eve was beautiful, i'd 'have' her the first night . . . so the 'sin' must have happened pretty quickly . . . but i digress . . . ]

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Whoa just a moment. Didn't JW's WRITE in their official publication (over-and-over) = that those OLD enough to EYEWITNESS the events of 1914 (i.e. those born ~1902) = would be THE surviving generation that would "by no means pass away" until jesus' return and Armageddon?

[yes they did and it is searchable]

i have a little NEWS for THEM - that entire GENERATION is DEAD.
:roll:

Doesn't this meet the bible definition of "false prophet"?
:Q

and what about the Watchtower stating that "the END" should come by 1975 [based on the idea that you could figure when Adam and Eve were created - 4026 BCe - by counting the "begats" and the ages of the partriarchs when they had children]. .

[yes it was "official" in the Watchtower; but presented with a "loophole" - i.e "likely"]

Wrong again.
:thumbsdown:

So, what's their [new] "latest" date"?
:shocked:

Yes, False Prophets are to be Stoned to Death, though in this day and Age I think it's preferable that they simply be ignored.

That said, False Prophets extend far beyond just the WT Society.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: apoppin
From the 1870s-till [almost] now they have been saying that "the generation old enough to EYEwitness the events of 1914 would be THE generation that would 'not pass away' till the End comes."

That turns out not to be the case.

Before 1914, they were predicting that 1914 would BE the end of this system, not that those alive during that time would see it. It would HAPPEN then.

The Time Is at Hand (SS-2), 1907 ed., p. 101
The ?battle of the great day of God Almighty? (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth?s present rulership, is already commenced.

The Time Is at Hand (SS-2), 1907 ed., p. 76-78
In this chapter we will present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men
...
Seventhly, It will prove that before that date [italics in original] God?s Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34) - and fully consume the power of these kings.

Interesting, eh?

Originally posted by: apoppin
very convenient - "new light" - AFTER the fact - and after 130 years of insisting this is the "truth"

More amusing that this "new light" excuse (the "light keeps getting brighter" as the system nears the end) has been used to justify....let's just say...."flickering" changes.

For example, in 1964, the Watchtower taught that Rape IS fornication (for the victim) if she doesn't scream:

Watchtower 1964 January 15 pp.63-4 Questions from Readers
? According to the Bible at Deuteronomy 22:23-27, an Israelite engaged girl threatened with rape was required to scream. What is the position of a Christian woman today if faced with a similar situation? Is she to scream even if an attacker threatens her life with a weapon?-M. U., United States.
....
Such Scriptural precedents are applicable to Christians, who are under command, "Flee from fornication." (1 Cor. 6:18) Thus if a Christian woman does not cry out and does not put forth every effort to flee, she would be viewed as consenting to the violation.

:shocked:
By July of 1980, however, they changed this teaching to be that rape was rape as most civilized people know it:

Awake! 1980 July 8 pp.5-6 The Growing Terror of Rape
And the problem is that such fear can be paralyzing.

The illustration was given by a rape victim: "Did you ever see a rabbit stuck in the glare of your headlights when you were going down a road at night? Transfixed-like it knew it was going to get it-that's what happened."

Often coupled with the fear is confusion and uncertainty. For example, a 19-year-old explained: "I never physically fought him off in any way, partly because I was frightened, mostly because in my naïveté I thought a girl has to do what she's told. . . . I was overwhelmingly confused and defenseless against the whole suddenness."

She reacted as many others have under similar circumstances. She submitted. Few are prepared to resist-to resist for all they are worth. Elizabeth R. Dobell, writing in the magazine Seventeen, made the surprising revelation: "In only one of the 4,057 rape cases reported in New York City in 1974 was there an act of resistance. . . . Profound terror in the face of physical threats simply renders most women helpless."

Much better, right?

Except, a few months later, they decided that if she didn't fight him off...it was consensual fornication, again!

Watchtower 1980 October 15 p.7 Avoiding the Tragedy of Rape
This woman did the Scripturally proper thing, which actually is the best thing to do. A Christian woman is under obligation to resist, for the issue of obedience to God's law to "flee from fornication" is involved. (1 Cor. 6:18) By no means would it be proper for her willingly to submit to being raped.

:shocked: :shocked:

But, hey, can't stay crazy for TOO long, right? They come to their senses again in 1983:

Watchtower 1983 March 15 pp.30-1 Honor Godly Marriage
Defining "Fornication"
What do we understand here by "fornication"? The Greek word in this text is porneia.
[?]
[Footnotes]
[?]
A male or a female who is forcibly raped would not be guilty of porneia.

Except....well, no, it doesn't last.

In 1984, rape can be consensual fornication again:

Awake! 1984 February 22 pp.24-7 They Resisted Rapists
But the rapist is asking a person to break God's law by committing fornication. Under such circumstances a Christian is obligated to resist.-1 Corinthians 6:18.

Fear not, for by June of that same year, they have changed their minds again!

Awake! 1984 June 8 p.28 From Our Readers
For the victim to be considered guilty of fornication there would need to be proof of willing consent.

But....well, that doesn't last, does it? In 1986:

Awake! 1986 May 22 p.23 "Now You Are Going to Die!"
Why you should resist an attacker from the first moment:
....
5. Your conscience will be clear. (Even if you are raped, you will not sacrifice your self-respect or cleanness before God)

And 1989 backs this up:

Awake! 1989 August 22 p.24 Rape?Protected by What She Read
...if a woman does not cry out when attacked, it indicates she is submitting to the man and is committing a sin against Jehovah.

By 1993:

Awake! 1993 March 8 pp.4-5 The Reality of Rape
Myth: A rape victim bears part of the blame unless she actively resists.

Fact: Rape by definition takes place when force or the threat of force is used to gain sexual penetration, of any kind whatsoever, against a person's will. It is the rapist's use of force against an unwilling victim that makes him a rapist. Thus, a rape victim is not guilty of fornication.

Hurray!

Right? RIGHT? Well....no.

1998:

Watchtower 1998 December 15 pp. 23-25 When Armed Robbers Strike
Jehovah's servants do not cooperate in any way that violates God's law. For example, a Christian would not willingly submit to rape.

and 2003:

Watchtower 2003 February 1 pp.30-31 Questions From Readers
the woman did not scream or cry for help. Consequently, it was determined that she was guilty "for the reason that she did not scream in the city."
....
Although Christians today are not under the Mosaic Law, the principles mentioned therein provide them with guidance. The above account underscores the importance of resisting and screaming for help.

FWIW, that appears to be the most current comments on the topics for them.

So...hurray for the JWs! The only religion where a woman can be raped and SHE BE GUILTY OF A SIN!!!

Of course, that's only until they change their minds AGAIN about this.

 

[dderidex]

Seriously, though, in case spiderrasmon comes back to this thread (doubt he will, they aren't allowed to read material that questions any aspect of their religion), I want this question quoted below to be the main focus.

Their entire religion DOES rest on this, and I'm curious to see how he answers it for you guys.

Or doesn't, as the case may be. But I think we all know what silence in this case means.

Originally posted by: dderidex
Look, you could at LEAST answer the 607 thing. Jerusalem fell in 586/587 BCE and NOT 607 BCE.

I challenged you to prove me wrong on that point, since your entire religion is founded on that teaching.

You have failed to do so.

Who is being dishonest, here?

If your religion prophecies that something happens (the Gentile Times end) 2520 years years after another event happens (the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE)....and it doesn't (nothing world-altering *I* can think of happened in the fall of 1935)....doesn't that make them false prophets?

 

[Brian23]

Originally posted by: Vic
It reminds me that there is no "J" in the Hebrew language.

Indiana Jones!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dderidex
Seriously, though, in case spiderrasmon comes back to this thread (doubt he will, they aren't allowed to read material that questions any aspect of their religion), I want this question quoted below to be the main focus.

Their entire religion DOES rest on this, and I'm curious to see how he answers it for you guys.

Or doesn't, as the case may be. But I think we all know what silence in this case means.

Originally posted by: dderidex
Look, you could at LEAST answer the 607 thing. Jerusalem fell in 586/587 BCE and NOT 607 BCE.

I challenged you to prove me wrong on that point, since your entire religion is founded on that teaching.

You have failed to do so.

Who is being dishonest, here?

If your religion prophecies that something happens (the Gentile Times end) 2520 years years after another event happens (the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE)....and it doesn't (nothing world-altering *I* can think of happened in the fall of 1935)....doesn't that make them false prophets?

well, IF the "1914 thing" changed SO MANY TIMES, why is it important that their "start date" be right?

they DO have their own chronology and they discuss it in depth in their books . . . . since they are DEAD WRONG about the Adam and Eve's creation at 4026 BCe . . .. does it really make ANY difference about the rest of their "dates"?

The bible doesn't allow for it's prophets to make even ONE mistake. From what i see, they PICK & CHOOSE among "bible scholars" - grabbing dates that SUIT them. They pick 539 BCe as a "pivotal date" [the overthrow of the Babylonian kingdom by the Persians] using verious historical sources they CONDEMN elsewhere.

If they can't READ material that questions their religion, how do they answer questions when they "witness'?

 

[SilverThief]

Man this is a sad thread indeed. Thank you Father God for your love and your compassion, for your mercy and your guidance. Thank you for the strength that you give, the grace that you pour out on those who love and worship you.
Amen

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Vic
It reminds me that there is no "J" in the Hebrew language.

But in the Latin alphabet, "Jehovah" begins with an "I

Indiana Jones!! w00t!

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: dderidex
Seriously, though, in case spiderrasmon comes back to this thread (doubt he will, they aren't allowed to read material that questions any aspect of their religion), I want this question quoted below to be the main focus.

Their entire religion DOES rest on this, and I'm curious to see how he answers it for you guys.

Or doesn't, as the case may be. But I think we all know what silence in this case means.

Originally posted by: dderidex
Look, you could at LEAST answer the 607 thing. Jerusalem fell in 586/587 BCE and NOT 607 BCE.

I challenged you to prove me wrong on that point, since your entire religion is founded on that teaching.

You have failed to do so.

Who is being dishonest, here?

If your religion prophecies that something happens (the Gentile Times end) 2520 years years after another event happens (the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE)....and it doesn't (nothing world-altering *I* can think of happened in the fall of 1935)....doesn't that make them false prophets?

well, IF the "1914 thing" changed SO MANY TIMES, why is it important that their "start date" be right?

they DO have their own chronology and they discuss it in depth in their books . . . . since they are DEAD WRONG about the Adam and Eve's creation at 4026 BCe . . .. does it really make ANY difference about the rest of their "dates"?

The bible doesn't allow for it's prophets to make even ONE mistake. From what i see, they PICK & CHOOSE among "bible scholars" - grabbing dates that SUIT them. They pick 539 BCe as a "pivotal date" [the overthrow of the Babylonian kingdom by the Persians] using verious historical sources they CONDEMN elsewhere.

If they can't READ material that questions their religion, how do they answer questions when they "witness'?

1) It's important because it's the current teaching. That "new light" thing allows JWs to treat their entire history up to the present teachings as meaningless (indeed, they even re-write their history. VERY few modern JWs realize their religion actually supported Hitler until Hitler turned on them.)

2) I don't believe they hold to the 4026 BCE date any longer. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it - I certainly never heard that date at any time.

3) Yes, they do tend to 'pick and choose' dates that suit them, numbers that suit them, when to convert days or weeks to years, etc. I don't know how to answer that, it's just what they do.

4) Easy, they don't. You can ask questions like "How are you guys so wonderful!?" or "How did you get so amazingly close to the truth of god?!" - those kinds of questions are good and encouraged. If you really start asking questions about details of their teachings, they will give you canned responses (see his above post for the canned 'blood transfusion' and 'women as the weaker vessel' responses - likely copied verbatim out of their Reasoning book). If you can retort to the canned responses - well, as you saw, they don't have anything to fall back on since they aren't allowed to do the research for them.

A key facet of being a JW is that you are NOT ALLOWED TO THINK FOR YOURSELF. It's called "independent thought" and is considered a sin.

Watchtower 2001 August 1 How to Make Your Advancement Manifest
First, since "oneness" is to be observed, a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave."

The "faithful and discreet slave" is what they call their leaders in New York.

Awake! 1986 October 22 p.16 A Tragic Saturday That Shattered My Family
My father said that the Witnesses would brainwash me, to which I replied that my brain needed a good washing, since I had been taught so many untruths for so many years.

LOL @ that! They print that as a 'good example' of how a Christian should be!

Watchtower 1961 Sept 1 p.539 Staying Awake as Approved Slaves
And lastly, we can stay awake by being respectful and obedient to the organization, the Watch Tower Society and its appointed servants. Yes, "remember those who are governing you, . . . and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out imitate their faith."--Heb. 13:7.

Watchtower 1952 June 1 p.351 Questions from Readers
We must be willing to dismiss our own thoughts to make room for God's thoughts, and bend our thinking to conform to the principles of God as shown in his Word, even on this point of family and community responsibility.

The Watchtower, February 1, 1952, pp. 79-80.
Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings.

The Watchtower, August 15, 1981.
From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude

See? Independent thought = Satan. Nice!

Watchtower 1967 June 1 p.338 Move Ahead with Jehovah's Organization
But in Jehovah's organization it is not necessary to spend a lot of time and energy in research, for there are brothers in the organization who are assigned to do that very thing

And that's the kicker, right there.

They aren't supposed to do independent research - if something is important, the brothers in charge of them will do the needed research and let them know.

Watchtower 1983 January 15 p.22 Exposing the Devil's Subtle Designs
20 From the very outset of his rebellion Satan called into question God's way of doing things. He promoted independent thinking. 'You can decide for yourself what is good and bad,' Satan told Eve. 'You don't have to listen to God. He is not really telling you the truth.' (Genesis 3:1-5) To this day, it has been Satan's subtle design to infect God's people with this type of thinking.-2 Timothy 3:1, 13.

21 How is such independent thinking manifested? A common way is by questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization.

Again, questioning the religion or independent thought = Satan.

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: dderidex
All I know is that the Wikipedia is REALLY letting me down on this!

Facts on the name differ substantially from "The Truth" about it I was raised with.

Interesting link

Some have thought YHWH should be pronounced "Jehovah." In ad 1520, Peter Galatin, the confessor of Pope Leo X, invented this name by interjecting the vowels of Adonai (a-o-a) between the consonants YHWH. This produced the hybrid YaHoWaH, later pronounce "Jehovah." This name, contrived through human reasoning, has no biblical basis.

And that YHWH was originally merely one of many pagan gods - in fact, a sky god (a god of thunder and lightning). He was called by enemies of Israel 'a god of the hills'. Once ancient Israel sufficiently conquered their neighboring tribes, they took to re-writing their history, and setting YHWH up as a single deity.

Yeah, I read an article in Biblical Archeology that confirmed that...It was fairly interesting...Baal and his wife (the Caanite [sp?] goddess of sex) were represented, but then Israel made it into one deity...Don't know if it's true, but it's interesting...What's really cool is how Egypt did it...They took all their gods (who bear a striking resemblence to Babylonian & Caanite gods), and converted into monotheism under Akhenatun (sp?)...Of course, he died and his temple was destroyed, followers murdered, priest buried alive, ect...

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: dderidex
EDIT #3: It'd REALLY do you some good in 'opening your eyes' to read some of the books by Prof. Herzog of the Tel Aviv University.

Since I doubt you'll bother to look it up, here is an article he wrote and a story on it.

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel,
archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the
Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer
the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon,
nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known
for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel:
the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the
land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps
even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon,
which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal
kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel,
Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism
only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who
are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and
the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to
corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of
the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm

(Yes, that links to an article at Cornell University. I don't know how much more 'proof' you need!)

OK, I haven't read all the posts yet, but I'm gonna ask...If the Israelites didn't do any of that, then why did Nebucan (yeah, the Babylonian king...don't want to think about THAT spelling ) feel the need to send such a MASSIVE army and conquer/drag off/enslave the Jews? Seems like they were more of a regional power than a small power...Egyptian history confirms that...All the battles fought against Israel...Espicially at one place, called Meggido, translated as "Armaggedon"...Hmm...

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: apoppin
From the 1870s-till [almost] now they have been saying that "the generation old enough to EYEwitness the events of 1914 would be THE generation that would 'not pass away' till the End comes."

That turns out not to be the case.

Before 1914, they were predicting that 1914 would BE the end of this system, not that those alive during that time would see it. It would HAPPEN then.

The Time Is at Hand (SS-2), 1907 ed., p. 101
The ?battle of the great day of God Almighty? (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth?s present rulership, is already commenced.

The Time Is at Hand (SS-2), 1907 ed., p. 76-78
In this chapter we will present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men
...
Seventhly, It will prove that before that date [italics in original] God?s Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34) - and fully consume the power of these kings.

Interesting, eh?

Originally posted by: apoppin
very convenient - "new light" - AFTER the fact - and after 130 years of insisting this is the "truth"

More amusing that this "new light" excuse (the "light keeps getting brighter" as the system nears the end) has been used to justify....let's just say...."flickering" changes.

For example, in 1964, the Watchtower taught that Rape IS fornication (for the victim) if she doesn't scream:

Watchtower 1964 January 15 pp.63-4 Questions from Readers
? According to the Bible at Deuteronomy 22:23-27, an Israelite engaged girl threatened with rape was required to scream. What is the position of a Christian woman today if faced with a similar situation? Is she to scream even if an attacker threatens her life with a weapon?-M. U., United States.
....
Such Scriptural precedents are applicable to Christians, who are under command, "Flee from fornication." (1 Cor. 6:18) Thus if a Christian woman does not cry out and does not put forth every effort to flee, she would be viewed as consenting to the violation.

:shocked:
By July of 1980, however, they changed this teaching to be that rape was rape as most civilized people know it:

Awake! 1980 July 8 pp.5-6 The Growing Terror of Rape
And the problem is that such fear can be paralyzing.

The illustration was given by a rape victim: "Did you ever see a rabbit stuck in the glare of your headlights when you were going down a road at night? Transfixed-like it knew it was going to get it-that's what happened."

Often coupled with the fear is confusion and uncertainty. For example, a 19-year-old explained: "I never physically fought him off in any way, partly because I was frightened, mostly because in my naïveté I thought a girl has to do what she's told. . . . I was overwhelmingly confused and defenseless against the whole suddenness."

She reacted as many others have under similar circumstances. She submitted. Few are prepared to resist-to resist for all they are worth. Elizabeth R. Dobell, writing in the magazine Seventeen, made the surprising revelation: "In only one of the 4,057 rape cases reported in New York City in 1974 was there an act of resistance. . . . Profound terror in the face of physical threats simply renders most women helpless."

Much better, right?

Except, a few months later, they decided that if she didn't fight him off...it was consensual fornication, again!

Watchtower 1980 October 15 p.7 Avoiding the Tragedy of Rape
This woman did the Scripturally proper thing, which actually is the best thing to do. A Christian woman is under obligation to resist, for the issue of obedience to God's law to "flee from fornication" is involved. (1 Cor. 6:18) By no means would it be proper for her willingly to submit to being raped.

:shocked: :shocked:

But, hey, can't stay crazy for TOO long, right? They come to their senses again in 1983:

Watchtower 1983 March 15 pp.30-1 Honor Godly Marriage
Defining "Fornication"
What do we understand here by "fornication"? The Greek word in this text is porneia.
[?]
[Footnotes]
[?]
A male or a female who is forcibly raped would not be guilty of porneia.

Except....well, no, it doesn't last.

In 1984, rape can be consensual fornication again:

Awake! 1984 February 22 pp.24-7 They Resisted Rapists
But the rapist is asking a person to break God's law by committing fornication. Under such circumstances a Christian is obligated to resist.-1 Corinthians 6:18.

Fear not, for by June of that same year, they have changed their minds again!

Awake! 1984 June 8 p.28 From Our Readers
For the victim to be considered guilty of fornication there would need to be proof of willing consent.

But....well, that doesn't last, does it? In 1986:

Awake! 1986 May 22 p.23 "Now You Are Going to Die!"
Why you should resist an attacker from the first moment:
....
5. Your conscience will be clear. (Even if you are raped, you will not sacrifice your self-respect or cleanness before God)

And 1989 backs this up:

Awake! 1989 August 22 p.24 Rape?Protected by What She Read
...if a woman does not cry out when attacked, it indicates she is submitting to the man and is committing a sin against Jehovah.

By 1993:

Awake! 1993 March 8 pp.4-5 The Reality of Rape
Myth: A rape victim bears part of the blame unless she actively resists.

Fact: Rape by definition takes place when force or the threat of force is used to gain sexual penetration, of any kind whatsoever, against a person's will. It is the rapist's use of force against an unwilling victim that makes him a rapist. Thus, a rape victim is not guilty of fornication.

Hurray!

Right? RIGHT? Well....no.

1998:

Watchtower 1998 December 15 pp. 23-25 When Armed Robbers Strike
Jehovah's servants do not cooperate in any way that violates God's law. For example, a Christian would not willingly submit to rape.

and 2003:

Watchtower 2003 February 1 pp.30-31 Questions From Readers
the woman did not scream or cry for help. Consequently, it was determined that she was guilty "for the reason that she did not scream in the city."
....
Although Christians today are not under the Mosaic Law, the principles mentioned therein provide them with guidance. The above account underscores the importance of resisting and screaming for help.

FWIW, that appears to be the most current comments on the topics for them.

So...hurray for the JWs! The only religion where a woman can be raped and SHE BE GUILTY OF A SIN!!!

Of course, that's only until they change their minds AGAIN about this.

Read Michener's "The Source"...They talk about this...Judaism (long, long ago...~1500 BC, if I remember correctly) states that Jewish law said that if the woman didn't scream, she was guilty...What does rape have to do with ending of the world/Jehovah/ect?

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Read Michener's "The Source"...They talk about this...Judaism (long, long ago...~1500 BC, if I remember correctly) states that Jewish law said that if the woman didn't scream, she was guilty...What does rape have to do with ending of the world/Jehovah/ect?

The JWs use Old Testament laws from time to time to 'establish precent', basically, about how their laws work.

Essentially, the series of articles shows the JWs changing thinking. First, they agreed with that (if she didn't fight, she was also guilty). Then, they changed their minds (rape is rape if she fights or not). Then, they changed their minds BACK (if she didn't fight, she was also guilty). Then, they changed their minds BACK AGAIN (rape is rape if she fights or not). Then, they changed their minds AGAIN, etc, et al.

The point was that these are not the actions of an organization inspired by God, progressively having his will revealed to them so that "the light gets brighter".

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: apoppin

well, IF the "1914 thing" changed SO MANY TIMES, why is it important that their "start date" be right?

they DO have their own chronology and they discuss it in depth in their books . . . . since they are DEAD WRONG about the Adam and Eve's creation at 4026 BCe . . .. does it really make ANY difference about the rest of their "dates"?

The bible doesn't allow for it's prophets to make even ONE mistake. From what i see, they PICK & CHOOSE among "bible scholars" - grabbing dates that SUIT them. They pick 539 BCe as a "pivotal date" [the overthrow of the Babylonian kingdom by the Persians] using verious historical sources they CONDEMN elsewhere.

If they can't READ material that questions their religion, how do they answer questions when they "witness'?

1) It's important because it's the current teaching. That "new light" thing allows JWs to treat their entire history up to the present teachings as meaningless (indeed, they even re-write their history. VERY few modern JWs realize their religion actually supported Hitler until Hitler turned on them.)

that's the 1st i heard of this . . .they were pretty p'o'd at him by 1935 which was pretty early

2) I don't believe they hold to the 4026 BCE date any longer. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it - I certainly never heard that date at any time.[/quote] Yes they do; it is STILL given as the date for the "creation of Adam"

3) Yes, they do tend to 'pick and choose' dates that suit them, numbers that suit them, when to convert days or weeks to years, etc. I don't know how to answer that, it's just what they do.

4) Easy, they don't. You can ask questions like "How are you guys so wonderful!?" or "How did you get so amazingly close to the truth of god?!" - those kinds of questions are good and encouraged. If you really start asking questions about details of their teachings, they will give you canned responses (see his above post for the canned 'blood transfusion' and 'women as the weaker vessel' responses - likely copied verbatim out of their Reasoning book). If you can retort to the canned responses - well, as you saw, they don't have anything to fall back on since they aren't allowed to do the research for them.

A key facet of being a JW is that you are NOT ALLOWED TO THINK FOR YOURSELF. It's called "independent thought" and is considered a sin.

that's pretty much the case with all organized religion - some allow more 'freedom of thought' than others.

i DID get into a discussion - from this forum - with a pretty knowledgeable JW on the topic of why 144,000 is/isn't a literal number of the heavenly 'little flock' and he seemed to get his research from other sources. i think 'it depends'


As to the fall of bablyon in 539 BCe they quote 'various sources' . . . perhaps one of the witness here could care to explain it

 

[Amdiggidy]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Vic
It reminds me that there is no "J" in the Hebrew language.

But in the Latin alphabet, "Jehovah" begins with an "I

 

[Amdiggidy]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Vic
It reminds me that there is no "J" in the Hebrew language.

But in the Latin alphabet, "Jehovah" begins with an "I

lol, exactly what i thought when reading the thread

Same

indiana Jones > *

D'oh! Beat me to it!
That is, Anubis, ShadowBlade, Nik, Brian23, and thehstrybean all beat me to it. Yep, I'm a little slow on the uptake this evening.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: dderidex
1) It's important because it's the current teaching. That "new light" thing allows JWs to treat their entire history up to the present teachings as meaningless (indeed, they even re-write their history. VERY few modern JWs realize their religion actually supported Hitler until Hitler turned on them.)

that's the 1st i heard of this . . .they were pretty p'o'd at him by 1935 which was pretty early

Prepare to be amazed!

Yearbook 1934 p.134
It is falsely charged by our enemies that we have received financial support for our work from the Jews. Nothing is farther from the truth. Up to this hour there never has been the slightest bit of money contributed to our work by Jews. We are the faithful followers of Christ Jesus and believe upon Him as the Savior of the world, whereas the Jews entirely reject Jesus Christ and emphatically deny that he is the Savior of the world sent of God for man's good. This of itself should be sufficient proof to show that we receive no support from Jews and that therefore the charges against us are maliciously false and could proceed only from Satan, our great enemy.

The greatest and the most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire. By that is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations. This fact particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold of Big Business. This fact is so manifest in America that there is a proverb concerning the city of New York which says: The Jews own it, the Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills.

Yearbook 1934 p.135
The present government of Germany [me- that'd be the Nazis under Hitler] has declared emphatically against Big Business oppressors and in opposition to the wrongful religious influence in the political affairs of the nations. Such is exactly our position.

Yearbook 1934 Page 136
Instead of being against the principles advocated by the government of Germany [me- that'd be the Nazis under Hitler again], we stand squarely for such principles, and point out that Jehovah God through Christ Jesus will bring about the full realization of these principles and will give to the people peace and prosperity and the greatest desire of every honest heart.

Yearbook 1934 p.137
A careful examination of our books and literature will disclose the fact that the very high ideals [me- 'high ideals'?! Of NAZI GERMANY!?!] held and promulgated by the present national government are set forth in and endorsed and strongly emphasized in our publications[:shocked:] and show that Jehovah God will see to it that these high ideals in due time will be attained by all persons who love righteousness