to YOYO re: watchtower as a prophet

by dubla 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • logical
    The brothers were not predicting, but trying to understand Bible chronology and prophesy. They were not telling the reader what to believe, but to come to their own conclusions on the scriptures.

    OK, if they were inspired... or directed (however you want to see it), then they would not NEED to speculate. They would have been granted understanding.... and if they werent they wouldnt have speculated LIKE THEY DID and wrote what they did.

    Anyway, isnt the GOOD NEWS about preaching God's kingdom, and not preaching destruction which sure isnt good news.

  • TheOldHippie

    There clearly were different opinions as to 1975, I just read the 2000 Yearbook, and in the article about the Czech Republic, you will find regarding 1975 that there was a whole lot of speculation among the Witnesses, but that the Branch office sent out a letter as a circular, telling them to stop speculating and that there was no basis for claiming that the end of the world would occur at any specific year, so in effect they said "no" to the articles stating that it "would be appropriate for God" to follow the 7,000-years rules made by the Adventists for Him to have to adhere to.
    In general, YoYoMama writes according to what the situation ideally should have been, and perhaps is at some places, whereas the majority writes according to how the situation regretfully is at most places. there is a vast difference between words and reality, and that is a problem.

  • toribabe

    Are you guy's happy?

  • unclebruce

    It's all very simple,

    With the delusion "we are living in the last Days" proved a bare faced lie, the Watchtowers reason to exist has evaporated, exposing the fascile, bastardized, pre-packaged Brooklyn enlightenment as the fraud it's always been.



    toribabe - Happy New Year


  • tfs

    Hi all,

    The WTS cleverly and insiduously "pushed" the date of 1975 on the congregation of JWs. This is especially true since the year of 1968 and the release of the "blue bomb" or "Truth" book, which finally totalled in circulation over 100 million copies in some 115 languages worldwide.

    This book, "The Truth that leads to Eternal Life", overtly shows the WTS actually pointed to and "pushed" the date of 1975 upon the JWs worldwide.

    As many recall, with the release of this book JWs were urged to resort to a limited time frame of up to a maximum of 6 months of Bible study with persons of interest. Why? Because "time was so short". We were too close to Armageddon to waste time anymore with "unproductive" Bible studies.

    Those who were JWs before 1968 know that, PRIOR to this, persons of interest could study with JWs for years on end, year in and year out, without really making any progress toward baptism. And this was acceptable. But, after the release of this book in 1968, this all changed.

    Bible studies could now be stopped or "dropped" after less than 2 months or so of study, if no genuine "interest" in the message was detected by the teacher, and no real progress toward baptism as a disciple was being made. The WTS said, "drop the study", if no progress was being made, at least within a "6-month" period of time.

    With the release of this information, a new urgency and vitality was infused into JWs, pointing forward to the date of 1975. Baptismal figures from 1969-1974 show this to be the case, with an unheard of, unprecedented total of close to 3 hundred thousand new recruits being baptized in 1974 alone (297,872 baptized).

    This large increase in numbers can be directly accredited and attributed to the WTS' new 6-month "drop'em-or-baptism'em-'fore-75" policy since 1968 and the release of the "Truth" book.

    The following quote is proof of that. First the original quote made back in 1968, 7 years before 1975.

    "The Truth that leads to Eternal Life" page 9, par. 9 -- 1968 edition

    "...Also, as reported back in 1960, a former United States Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, declared that our time is "a period of unequaled instability, unequaled violence." And he warned: "I know enough of what's going on to assure you, IN FIFTEEN YEARS FROM TODAY [or in 1975], this world is going to be too dangerous to live in."

    Now, the newer, revised version of the same "The Truth that leads to Eternal Life" book, revised since the year of 1975, [1981 edition]

    "...Also, as reported back in 1960, a former United States Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, declared that our time is "a period of unequaled instability, unequaled violence." Based on what he knew was then going on in the world, it was his conclusion that SOON "this world is going to be too dangerous to live in."

    Why the change in the quote? What's the difference in the two different quotes?

    If the WTS was not pushing the date of 1975, why revise the original quotation of the politician, which definitely points to the date of 1975 as being significant and worthy of note?

    This quote-change is actual proof and evidence of the WTS' clever behind-the-scenes pushing of the date of 1975 on the JWs before 1975. Then, after nothing occurs in 1975, they systematically act to remove their "paper trail" of guilt. They remove any strand and/or trace of incriminating evidence "left-behind" in the original publication which could possibly be used at a future date, as proof that they "pushed" a date, and of their being the false prophets they actually are.


    *Dean Acheson's quote taken from U.S. News & World Report, June 13, 1960, pp. 116, 119

  • Will Power
    Will Power

    Why the change in the quote?
    The fact that there is a change (even in someone else's quote) is the deception that most overlook.

    ALWAYS look up ANY quote they print, & read the whole paragraph/context especially if ........ are in the middle (& specially scripture)

  • dubla


    you have once again, predictably, walked away from this discussion. you asked me to start a new thread, i did, posed the same thoughts over for you....when you didnt get the point, i restated it, posed more thoughts/questions, and then you dissapeared again. is this subject too hard to argue against, or do you just have a short attention span? if the latter is the case, just let me know, and i wont bother wasting my time with you the next time i feel compelled to refute your statements on a topic.


  • dubla


  • toribabe

    and happy new year to you too:)

  • toribabe

    Doe's it really matter if they've trailed off, what they are saying is the truth. You may accuse them of avoiding your issue, but maybe your issue is irrelivent.
    All they want is the truth. You either want to learn and know, or you don't.

Share this