by garyneal 96 Replies latest members private
@garyneal:
Show me where in the Bible does it say that.
I recall reading at least one of these 607 BC v. 587 BC threads (maybe even this one, I'm not sure though!), but discussing it here would obviously be off-topic, so I'll follow the link and maybe show you how it is that the Bible does indicate that Jerusalem would lay desolate for 70 years from 607 BC until a remnant of Jewish exiles from Babylon returned there in 537 BC (and did!).
"Scholar" and "Alice In Wonderland" (a friend of mine who helped me write this)
What did you mean by this? For some reason it makes me think you contrived this whole scanario?
-Sab
What did you mean by this? For some reason it makes me think you contrived this whole scanario?
No, I did not. I changed the names to protect the innocent (or the guilty depending on your point of view).
djeggnog
Post 35
By all means, follow that link and give scholar some assistance.
djeggnogged:
What I quoted to you was quoted directly from the Bible, from Exodus 1:6, and nothing that you might read in the Watchtower trumps what the Bible says, so what "quote" do you need?
You apparently have some serious reading comprehension problems. Let me refresh your memory:
Elder's Reply to Gary Neal:
In addition all that generation would include children of Joseph (born in Egypt) and the children of his brothers.
Tom in response:
None of the convention speakers (So far...) or The Watchtower have said that...
djeggnog in response:
You said that "[n]one of the convention speakers (So far...) or The Watchtower have said that...," but I know (a) that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and you aren't, and (b) what the latest Watchtower stated with respect to what Jesus may have meant by his use of the words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 and you do not.
Tom in response:
Where and when did The Watchtower state that the children of Joseph were included in "that generation" of Exodus 1:6? If I am mistaken, then I would be genuinely interested in seeing a reference. Cut and paste if you like.
If The Watchtower never stated that the children of Joseph were included in "that generation" of Exodus 1:6, then my original response was correct and your replies do not speak to the accuracy of that statement.
So which is it? Did The Watchtower actually state this or not? I'm not interested in another blustering, rambling reply expounding your private interpretations of scripture and perceived authority within the JW community and doubt that anybody else here is either. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.
Hmmm, I am considering my response but I am not sure which direction to take this.
jwfacts had the exact same point that I came up with when the elder defaulted to saying:
Certainly the generations issue is not the central article of our Christian faith. Rather, our primary doctrine concerns love of God, Jesus and neighbor, as well as understanding God’s purpose in creating humans to live according to his will.
That floored me as I recall an article in a Watchtower (QFR) where they insisted that being a JW required acceptance of all doctrines including those unique to witnesses. In fact, my wife was wondering this exact same thing prior to her baptism because she wanted to be able to be a witness while maintaining her conscious decision to do things that the slave does not condone. Like those pesky birthday parties for example.
I can only assume that "Alice In Wonderland" gave him all of the stuff concerning generations and why the understanding changed and how it is still good for us even though it does not make any sense and that the whole teaching could change again. Makes me wonder if he has been in the 'truth' for at least the 39 years of his marriage. I do know that he has two boys in it as one was on the stage with him reading last Sunday's study and the other was in the back with his wife and family. If so, then I know he is not going to wake up without a fight as he has a lot of sunk costs in this organization and I guess in the end, waking him up is not really my intention anyway. If he's happy in the bOrg, I guess just leave him be.
I was initially crafting a response that pointed out his primary doctrines while referencing the WT article that this would seem to contradict.
I just read the elder's response and I too am suprised that he stated that Joseph's children were also part of his "generation". That is not what the April WT study article said, nor the CO's talk nor the last talk at the DC (a member of the GB actually presented it at the DC I went to and he made no mention of Joseph's children only his siblings). Maybe they should have said that because even if the age difference between Ruben and Benjamin was 40 years (I highly doubt that was the case but for the sake of discussion) then that still would mean that the youngest person in Franz's "generation" of annointed would be 40 years younger than he was when he died at the age of 99 (I think?) or 59 years old in 1992. That would disqualify some members of the current GB who are younger than their late 70s now.
Didn't Joseph live long enough to see his great-grandchildren? Under the explaination djeggnog provided, then they too would be part of his generation since their lives overlapped with his.
Since the scripture said Joseph and his brothers and all his generation, wouldn't it be more plausible that it was refering to his sister?(Dinah). And maybe cousins?
Who considers their children to be part of their generation?
Gary - I chuckled when I read the portion that the generation issue was not a central doctrine. The primary doctrine that is preached by JWs is that Jesus began ruling in 1914 and that soon he will destroy the wicked and usher in a new system.
What was your response?
What was your response?
I haven't given one yet and he is eagerly awaiting one. I told him I'd read that article when I get a chance (I read it yesterday) and respond.
