Rutherford Exposed: The Story of Berta and Bonnie (redux)

by Leolaia 113 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Leolaia,

    These old threads have such gems in them! I'm glad they are resurrected once-in-a-while!

    You posted this delightful verse about that nitwit Samson and the idiotic WTS explanation:

    : The words, "And [he] went in unto her," do not necessarily mean that he had relations with her

    Then what "necessarily" did they mean, WTS morons?!

    The next time I go "IN UNTO HER," with any woman, please be sure and explain that "IN" didn't really mean "IN" and "IN UNTO HER" didn't really mean that either. I wasn't really "IN" as in the word "IN" that most males and females know EXACTLY what "IN" means, and even if I WAS "IN" I wasn't really "IN" UNTO HER. It was the dog. No. It was the chicken. No, It is the evil apostates twisting what "IN HER" really means except that for several million years every male and every female knows what "IN HER" really means.

    "I did not have sexual intercourse with THAT women. I may have been IN her, but I was not IN UNTO HER."

    "What in the hell does THAT mean, "IN UNTO HER?"

    "This is why Elizabethan English is so great. No one knows what in the hell stuff like that means."

    "How do the modern English versions render that verse?"

    "He boinked the heck out of her."

    "That's pretty clear."

    "Yep. That is pretty clear. So, why wasn't that said in the first place?"

    "Because Elizabethan English can blur the shall we say, "fine lines" between guys and gals."

    "You mean, a guy and a girl can boink and get away with it because old English obscures stuff?"

    "Yeah, that's about it."

    "You boinking chickens, dude?"

    "Let me check my Elizabethan Dictionary. I'm sure I can give an answer that will totally obscure the facts...."

    "Take your time, dude."

    Farkel

  • still_in74
    still_in74
    1925 had been more clearly spelled out in Scripture than 1914, according to Rutherford.

    doesnt say much for 1914 now does it? er, well actually I guess it says a lot!

  • BabaYaga
    BabaYaga

    Thank you so much for taking the time to do this, Leolaia! And thanks to Farkel and all the original researchers and participants...

    Love and thanks,
    Baba.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Yay, I'm glad all is set right.

    "What in the hell does THAT mean, "IN UNTO HER?"

    I dost say Rutherford protesteth too much, methinks.

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    methought I heard a voice cry, sleep no more, Macbeth doth murder sleep. Sleep that knits up the raveled sleeve of care

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    I have been keeping my eyes open for clues about how long Rutherford had been unwell when he died. I am reading The Jehovah's Witnesses by Herbert Stroup at the moment and it gives some clue about his deterioration:

    Mr Rutherford's death was surrounded with as much mystery as his life. He died on January 8, 1942, at the age of seventy-two. Few people knew he was ill, but actually it seems his health had been poor for some time. In 1940, Mr A D Schroeder, the Society's leader in England, wrote to Rutherford that he was sorry to learn he was "not so well," but rejoiced that he was "slowly gaining stength." In the spring of 1941 it was widely rumoured among the Witnesses that there would be no international convention that year. The Witnesses felt there must have been some basis for the rumor, but just what it was they themselves did not know. The date for the last international convention at which Mr Rutherford appeared was announced, however, in May, 1941. The announcement was made much later in the year than was usual. I heard some Witnesses say that perhaps the convention had been put off because of the health of Mr Rutherford... The cause of Mr Rutherford's death was not disclosed, but Dr George Roy Stevenson, who signed the death certificate, said Rutherford "had known for eighteen months of the malignant condition that eventually brought his death." The Jehovah's Witnesses (1945) Herbert Stroup, page 19.

    Stroup says that the Schroeder letter to Rutherford was published in the Watchtower in 1940, but unfortunately does not give the date or page number. But it seems that Schroeder knew Rutherford was ill in 1940 at least. Rutherford is said to have known the condition was malignant for a year and a half, but I suspect he would have suffered symptoms before that diagnosis was confirmed.

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    Oh my God - Leolaia and Farkel at their best - just had to bttt

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Thanks, slim. That was a good find. Stroup was sloppy with his references. The letter was published in the 15 October 1940 issue of the Watchtower (p. 319). Here it is:

    I have wondered if perhaps Rutherford's illness (beyond his chronic ankylosis and other issues) started in 1939. He took cruises to international destinations for every year of the 1930s starting in 1931: 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, and he took two major trips in 1938: one to the Pacific and Australia in spring and one to Europe in early fall. And then nothing. No trips in 1939, 1940, and 1941. So maybe he just didn't have travel plans in 1939 (wiped out from all the travel?), or maybe the health issues in force in 1940 began already in 1939.

  • botchtowersociety
  • chichimama_2
    chichimama_2

    Marking for reference.

    Awesome thread!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit