Upcoming Study with a Bethel Brother

by PSacramento 42 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  diamondiiz

  PS:

  You should start with WT history not with God's name. Jehovah is an English translation and in other countries they don't use Jehovah but whatever the translation of the name in that country. Ask if WT was used by God from the start and was God's spirit operative upon it from the start? Then start with 1914. Why did Russell preach 1799 as last days and 1874 as Christ's return? Why did he preach 1878 as Christ taking power. If Russell was wrong about 1874 because KJ bible translation put them off by 100 years why then wasn't Christ's return in 1974 but in 1914? Why 607BC not 587BC? There is no proof of 607BC anywheres other than WT publication. Why did the pyramid point to all the dates that Russell taught and was believed to be God's witness in stone only to be labeled evil by Rutherford? Why did Russell change lengths of passageways in the pyramid in later reprints of Thy Kingdom Come and still came to the same dates as published in the earlier publications? If Russell was wrong about the dates he wasn't directed by God's Spirit.

  I would start with that. Most don't have a clue about their own history and will have to research it. Thy Kingdom Come book is all you need. If you want ask more questions, move on in the history and go to Rutherford and ask how he was directed by God's Spirit?

  Rutherford pointed to 1925, was he directed by Holy Spirit as he claimed? Why did Rutherford encourage reading Angels and Women when it was supposed to be inspired by a demon? Beth Sarim and Beth Sham. Where was God's direction there?

  BTW you cannot be labeled an apostate since you were never a JW so all they can say is you're an opposer. 1914 is the key. That falls so does the entire WT deception.
• 

  PSacramento

  SO, the study came and went :)

  We discussed the issue of Jehovah neing inserted in Romans 10:13 to which we agree to disagree, LOL !

  This elder and ex-bethel brother is a nice guy, and I can see why my family thought he woudl eb a good choice to answer my questions, he is a moderate.

  In discussion of the name Jehovah he agreed that Jehovah is NOT the name of God, but the name the JW's choose to designate themselves by, the name theu choose to relate to the God of the Hebrews, to make them distinct from the rest of christianity that views Jesus as God.

  That went into the trinity for a bit, to which I made clear that the Trinity does NOT say Jesus is God The Father, but since I am not a trinitarian we didn't stay on that subject long but went back to the issue of Jehovah.

  In his view, and he was clear that he was voicing HIS view, using the term jehovah makes it clear that they pray to specific represntation of God and not "everyone elses" God, I reminded him there is only One God, but that I understood what he was saying.

  He admited, which shocked me quite a bit, that IF God wanted his name know, without any doubt or issue, it would be in the Bible plainly stated.

  This of course led us to the random insertions of Jehovah in the NT ( By random I mean those outside the OT quotes) and how I disagreed with that, he said that, since the NWT was a bible for JW's made by Jw's, it makes sense to have it that way.

  I can't argue with that, no one can, LOL !

  We discussed some futher things such as the issure of salvation based on faith and not works to which he agreed about my view that good works, WHATEVER they may be, must stem from faith, from a faith that is based on knowing that our salvation a gift give to us by God, through his son Jesus and that any works we do will not change that and as such, these works are done out of love and NOT for any recompense.

  He made it clear that he didn't read or view apostate material, I made it clear that I decide what I view and what is "apostate" and no one else does that for me.

  He was very open and while we agreed to disagree on some issues, on the whole it was a nice experience.

  He asked if I had any question about the more controversial stuff like 1914 and I said that I had researched and that the secualr evident that the WT uses actually counters they date of 607 BC, BUT, that doesn't matter as much as where in the bible the WT says that there IS a DATE, that Jesus is to come back invisible and where in the bible does it say to get to that date that the calcualtions used are correct to begin with.

  He said he would get back to me.
• 

  bohm

  ps: I am for reasons much like yours having a study with an elder. The two topics i have desided to hit on is blood and the selection in 1919. Blood is by far the easiest topic to discuss. the way i have chosen is to say: "okay, you are the bible expert. if you say the bible says no to blood im going to assume that is so. But i still want to know that the blood ban is logically consistent. The number one question that boils my noodle is this: What is the watchtower definition of blood? At some point, the watchtower desided that certain substances was 'fractions', and certain substances was equal to 'whole blood'. What criteria led to that descision?". Then you KEEP ON TOPIC. Whenever they try to buy you off with some vague explanation, ask: "Okay.. look, im just trying to understand this. Should i understand it this way that the watchtower does not have a functional definition of what blood is yes or no?". They will allways say yes, follow up by asking what it is. Read the "Jensen blood letters" to see why this is a huge problem to the wt.

  About the selection - "Captives of a concept" provides good ammunition, if you want something for free, download rogersons book "millions now living will never die", its a great historical study on jehovahs witnesses. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/180377/1/A-Couple-of-Interesting-Analyses-of-Jehovahs-Witnesses . Alternatively, lend "Apocapolypse delayed" from a library for a deeper historical study.
• 

  PSacramento

  Bohm,

  The blood thing is a non-issue for me, I don't really debate it with any JW because it will not chane my mind, most JW respect that and leave it at that.

  1919 is something that I will naturally led into from the 1914 issue.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  nice work PSacramento

  This of course led us to the random insertions of Jehovah in the NT ( By random I mean those outside the OT quotes) and how I disagreed with that, he said that, since the NWT was a bible for JW's made by Jw's, it makes sense to have it that way. I can't argue with that, no one can, LOL !

  remind him of this when he comes to tell you that JWs have the one truth of the bible because this is an obvious admission that JWs have adapted the bible to suit themselves. the romans 10 verses for example which you both agreed to disagree on is a good one to come back to.

  I'm glad you have some non-negotiable views but keep reminding him. Its great that you enjoyed your study - JWs are very nice people to study with and they sincerely put a lot of effort into the art of persuasion. Please remain skeptical.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  sorry double post
• 

  PSacramento

  There are certain issues and disagreement with the JW's doctrine that will make it impossible for me to be a JW:

  Jesus is NOT and never was the archangel Michael.

  The prohibition against Blood was a dietary restiction and anythign BEOYOND that should be based on personal concience.

  The 144K is not a literal number.

  Jesus is NOT the mediator for only the annointed.

  Jehovah is not THE name of God, just one of amny versions of his name.

  There are NOT 2 groups of Christians.

  I am sure there is more but I am thristy and wanna go get a drink of water :)
• 

  Borgia

  Nah... I would start by asking him if a human can strike a deal with God about salvation. That bethelite will probably say: No you can't. Ask him why. and he will tell you. Then read Genesis 18 and 19. Here you have Abraham striking a deal about salvation with God. he gets 1 80% discount and God settles for 10 righteous people in 2 cities.If Abraham could strike a deal with God that perhaps 1% or less righteous were sufficient to have God abandon his devinely conceived plan ....How the more so now the greater pleader is here: Jesus (compare Hebr 10 about sinningon purpose and crucifying Jesus again)

  Discuss the proposed rape of the Lot's daughters. They must have some ugly mo*th*rf*ck*rs because they'd rather have a go on them angels than those nice dames. Now would this bethelite offer up his wife for a nice gang bang? (same story is in judges where the wife of a priest is gang banged)

  So finally, Lot is alone with his daughters. Ah yes, his wife became a pillar of salt for looking over her shoulder.(Sounds like God hates witnesses to such "Endlösung"-en. In the grotto, they drowse him with wine and f*ck the shit out of him untill both are pregnant .... What kind of a story is that in the wake of the total annihilation of every man, woman and above all child irrespective of age because FOR reasons of promiscuity. And here we have GOd allowing his faithful servant LOT to be raped by his daughters?(quite ironic is it not. no good deed goes unpunished)

  With thanks to Dave Hittman.

  Cheers

  Borgia
• 

  PSacramento

  Borgia,

  I don't even know how to reply to your post ! LOL !
• 

  TD

  This of course led us to the random insertions of Jehovah in the NT ( By random I mean those outside the OT quotes) and how I disagreed with that, he said that, since the NWT was a bible for JW's made by Jw's, it makes sense to have it that way.

  I can't argue with that, no one can, LOL !

  LOL...You're right. No one can argue with that.

  But while that may be his view of the NWT, that is not how the JW parent organization(s) views and represents it.

  The NWT is not a paraphrased translation. It's not a dynamic equivalent translation. It's a literal translation where interpolations are kept to the absolute bare minimum required for smooth grammar in the target language.

  Not only is it billed as a literal translation, the JW organization views it as one of the most, if not THE most accurate translation out there bar none.

  It's against that backdrop that the willy-nilly insertion of the name, "Jehovah" in the NT must be judged.