by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
AlanF said: I should note that much of the above statistical information on war, famine and pestilence is taken from Carl Jonsson's book The Sign of the Last Days: When?
I notice that he quotes a lot from Carl Jonnson and his book. Who is this god Carl Jonnson that I should recognize his voice? If you are allowed to quote Carl Jonnson as if he only speaks truth, Can I likewise quote the WT as support for what I say and everyone accept it?
Steve, Paul Hoeffels letter is covered in the NGO article if you want to read it. If not, then you can remain in the misled state that you are currently in, tossed hither and thither by apostate propaganda.
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/
Paul Hoeffel letter examined:
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/hailtothechief.html
thirdwitness,
Why are you so afraid of the answers to these questions regarding the Watchtower Society's Association to the UN/DPI?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118775/2102634/post.ashx#2102634
As if I didn't know.
AuldSoul
Thirdwitness, just a couple of questions on the NGO/Watchtower thing...
Why did Watchtower pull out of the UN-NGO the very next day after it was revealed by the Guardian they belonged to the UN?
After reading your webpage on the subject, why doesn't this info come directly from Watchtower? Instead they stop short by saying it was all about access to the library.
Doesn't it seem silly to associate in any way with an orginization condemned by the very God Watchtower claims to represent... even if it is just for access to their library? Seems they needed to take a closer look at 1 Cor 15:33.
Blondie, sounds like you just volunteered to do it.
No thanks, jayhawk1, I'm just wondering if any of this will serve one of the stated purposes of this thread to edify the lurkers reading this.
Blondie (no scholar)
True or False
About as many people have died in earthquakes since 1914 as all the years previous to 1914.
More people have died in wars since 1914 than all the years from the 1st century until 1914.
And no one ever really answered:
Do you agree with this list from USGS?
Listed in order of greatest number of deaths
| Date UTC | Location | Deaths | Magnitude | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1556 01 23 | China, Shansi | 830000 | ~8 | |
| 2004 12 26 | Sumatra | 283106 | 9.1 | Deaths from earthquake and tsunami. |
| 1976 07 27 | China, Tangshan | 255000 (official) | 7.5 | Estimated death toll as high as 655,000. |
| 1138 08 09 | Syria, Aleppo | 230000 | ||
| 856 12 22 | Iran, Damghan | 200000 | ||
| 1927 05 22 | China, Tsinghai | 200000 | 7.9 | Large fractures. |
| 1920 12 16 | China, Gansu | 200000 | 7.8 | Major fractures, landslides. |
| 893 03 23 | Iran, Ardabil | 150000 | ||
| 1923 09 01 | Japan, Kanto (Kwanto) | 143000 | 7.9 | Great Tokyo fire. |
| 1948 10 05 | USSR (Turkmenistan, Ashgabat) | 110000 | 7.3 | |
| 1908 12 28 | Italy, Messina | 70000 to 100000 (estimated) | 7.2 | Deaths from earthquake and tsunami. |
| 1290 09 | China, Chihli | 100000 | ||
| 2005 10 08 | Pakistan | 80361 | 7.6 | |
| 1667 11 | Caucasia, Shemakha | 80000 | ||
| 1727 11 18 | Iran, Tabriz | 77000 | ||
| 1932 12 25 | China, Gansu | 70000 | 7.6 | |
| 1755 11 01 | Portugal, Lisbon | 70000 | 8.7 | Great tsunami. |
| 1970 05 31 | Peru | 66000 | 7.9 | $530,000,000 damage, great rock slide, floods. |
| 1935 05 30 | Pakistan, Quetta | 30000 to 60000 | 7.5 | Quetta almost completely destroyed. |
| 1693 01 11 | Italy, Sicily | 60000 | ||
| 1268 | Asia Minor, Silicia | 60000 | ||
| 1990 06 20 | Western Iran | 40000 to 50000 | 7.7 | Landslides. |
| 1783 02 04 | Italy, Calabria | 50000 |
AS
It seems to me that you ar convinced in what you believe. It also seems to me that you mean well when you say that I am confused and that I should study and so on. I think that is funny, but for the reasons I stated above, I will remain silent. Lets move on.
I also respect your views on what you have posted about how one should read and study the Bible. I want to make that clear to you. Thank you for your suggestions. I never want you to misunderstand any of my posts and take offense. It is with the the utmost humility and as I have previously said that I admit that I don't know what the Bible means for certain and I do not pretend to know. I do know wts thinking and I also know various perspectives and thoughts on the Bible, however nothing is of my own originality or of my own personal conclusions. I do analyze and compare diverse views on a subject and compare such views after reviewing the Bible with each perspective, sometimes using many translations and finally if I am able to do so making a determination of what makes sense to me. The basis for my views is wts commentary and or other commentators.
Regarding when Jesus began to rule as king. I dont know. I think that 1914 is possible using wts logic. I admit that I cannot let go of the date. The fact the generation definition changed and previous other dates did not realize suggests that the wts can also be wrong on 1914.
But I also admit the "apostates" views are also possible on 1st century rule. The strong point that I need more info on is on the 2 kingdoms. The wts teaches that in the 1st century "The kingdom of ..love" began wherein Christ rules as king over.... ,according to the wts as COJ highlights. 2 Kingdoms? Thats too much I think. COJ explains more on this. But I have a problem with 2 kingdoms. I have to reflect on this more and I need examine more presents on these views.
ANN:
The verse that you posted does not prove that the Messianic kingdom began in the 1st, that is what the wts shows.
I can cut and paste scriptures like crazy if I wanted to. But I dont. Kindly quote the verses ift you want me to read them if you want.
In a previous rebuttal to AS I gave an example of God as the universal sovereign sitting on his throne, yet Jesus taught his disciples to pray "Let your kingdom come". The Bible also says"YHWH has become king" What are your views?
The wts explains that in connection with the annointed in the 1st century Jesus ruled as king. The wts explains that there are 2 kingdoms.
After searching thru the irrelevant parts of AlanF's last charade I think I may have found the 'meat' of his argument if you want to call it that. AlanF's words in italics.
So here we have three parallels: the days of the Son of man, the days of Noah and the days of Lot.
Correct.
In the days of Lot, there was no preaching, no message of a coming destruction, and everyone who was about to be destroyed had no inkling of what was about to come.
Not totally correct. If 5 good people could be found, the city would not be destroyed. Lot tried to find them but couldn't. If there had been other righteous ones in the city God would have gotten them out just as he did Lot.
At the end of these days, destruction came suddenly, without warning. The same with the days of Noah. Although Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness", there is no indication that in the days before the Flood he covered the entire world with a warning message. The passage is clear that this did not happen, because people were just going about their everyday lives. When the Flood came, it was suddenly and without warning.
No one has ever said that Noah covered the entire world with his preaching. The Bible does call him a 'preacher of righteousness' and I do believe that and I do believe that he told all that he could and did not try to keep it hush hush. I also believe that what he was doing spread abroad to many people during the many years he was carrying out his assignment, even ones he might not have known. I also believe that anyone who was righteous like Noah, Jehovah would have seen to it that he knew of what Noah was doing. But there apparently were no other righteous ones who cared enough for God to do his will. They were all too busy with their daily lives to take note of God.
So it was to be in the days before the Son of man arrived. When he arrived, it would be suddenly and without warning.
Incorrect. The days of Noah are compared to the days of the Son of man. You twist the scripture. The days of the Son of man are not compared just to the time that the flood came. You add the word 'before' in there to try to make what you are saying seem correct. The scripture does not say the days of Noah are like the days before the Son of man. Luke 17:26 says, "just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man:" Sorry there is no before in there.
Maybe you are getting this mixed up with Matt 24: 38 : For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence (days) of the Son of man will be. Ah there is that word 'before'. It is used in connection with the flood not with the days of the Son of man. What does that mean? It means just the opposite of what you are saying. It means that the days before the flood are the same as the days or presence or parousis of the Son of man. It does not mean the days before the Son of man is like when the flood suddenly came.
but you've ignored that 'the days of Lot' = 'the days of the Son of man'.
I am not ignoring that at all. It was just not relevant to the fact. But if you want to use that, that is fine. The days of Lot did not just include the day that fire and sulfur came out of heaven. The days of Lot included all the days before the destruction when men were carrying on degradation and taking no note of God. So yes, thanks for bringing that up. The days of lot do indeed equal the days or presence of the Son of man. And just as they were in the days of Lot or before the destruction of Sodom eating and drinking and taking no note so it will be also in the days of the Son of man.
You've also neglected the obvious fact that the whole point of these passages is not to equate these periods, but to show the unexpectedness and suddenness of the events that came at the end of these periods.
There is no doubt that it shows the unexpected suddeness of Armageddon coming upon mankind. I did not neglect that fact. The whole point of these passages is to equate these periods. That is exactly what Jesus is teaching. That during the days of Lot and Noah, before the flood and fire, people took no note until their destruction so likewise during the days of the Son of man (which is now) people will be taking no note and suddenly unexpectedly sudden destruction at Armageddon. Case in point: AlanF and friends taking no note and saying, 'Where is this promised presence of his. Why all things are continuing as before.'
All of these passages are completely understandable in the normal Christian way when the complete passages and context are considered, as I've shown above.
You like rhetoric rather than truth, don't you? You tried to twist the context by adding the word 'before' where it is not and taking it away from where it really is. By normal Christian way do you mean Christendom's way?
: The 'days of the Son of man' = the 'presence of the Son of man'.Not quite. Your claim is incomplete.
My claim is nothing more than what Jesus said. He is the one that used presence of the Son of man in Matthew 24 and days of the Son of man in Luke 17. So what you really must be saying is Jesus' claim is incomplete.
Which is why the translation "presence" buggers one's understanding of Matthew, Mark, Luke and a host of other passages.
Translating parousia as 'coming' makes the reader think that Jesus used the same words throughout Matthew translated 'coming' by some Bibles and he didn't. He used the noun parousia for a reason and that was to distinguish it from the verb used for coming. Which is why the translation "coming" buggers one's understanding of Matthew, Mark, Luke and a host of other passages.
Readers who might not have tackled your seemingly "definitive and undeniable scriptural evidence" can now see why such a declaration on your part is insane. If they couldn't disprove your silly claims before, they can now.
You like rhetoric don't you? I think it will mean more when I say it: Readers who might not have tackled your seemingly "definitive and undeniable scriptural evidence" can now see why such a declaration on your part is insane. If they couldn't see thru your silly claims before, they can now.
By the way, your teeth are laying on the floor.
ALL:
I have posted this on another thread and it seems apropos here too:
Threads of late, especially on doctrinal matters, have become far too heated and posts are frequently breaking Posting Guidelines. We have allowed this to continue in the belief that the JW apologists and trolls may be challenged and their arguments shown up for what they are.
However, JWD is not a place for personal insults - there are other places much more welcoming of that.
In future, Posting Guidelines will be strictly enforced - without fear or favor - no matter what the reputation or esteem.
Please take this on board.
Thanks.
