My understanding of progressive is that you build on what went before and keep moving forward. In watchtower world progressive means flip flop, change our mind , twist facts and then deny deny deny.
1874, 1914 and 1943
by TD 96 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
still thinking
djeggnogg
How about Jehovah, shouldn't he be at least consulted?
What need is there to "consult" Jehovah when he, the author of the Bible, gave it to us so that we might get to know things about him, even form a relationship with him, get to know him, become his friend
HE is not the author of the bible, any more than HE is the author of Awake! or Watchtower magazines.....PEOPLE are the authors.
You might say that the bible is inspired BY him....but even that is a stretch when hardly any of the bible writers claim that what they have written IS inspired.
-
The Quiet One
Djeggnogg- It was post 138. (The chicken leg example I came up with was based on the blood fraction issue, by the way, in case you didn't get it). You seem to have missed the point I was making about obeying men who change their minds and even their 'scriptural' stance on things that are right and wrong, so I think I'll take my leave at this point.
-
WontLeave
I think Eggie's problem here is that he doesn't realize the Parusia and the end of the Gentile times weren't always the same. Currently, JWs have lumped several things together - the war in Heaven, the end of the Gentile times, the Parusia, and the beginning of the "last days" - as all happening in 1914. Russell told his followers the "last days" began in 1799, Christ's advent began in 1874, there would be a 40-year (corresponding to "this generation") presence before the end of the Gentile times in 1914 (which would lead into Armageddon), and that would be over by 1918. All those events have been moved to 1914, with the exception of Armageddon, which is perpetually imminent.
At least Russell realized events would transpire before Armageddon, but JWs now hold that as the next thing to happen. The time prophecies of the current administration are a jumbled mess (see my reference to Matthew 24 in Do Christians Have Human Leaders? for a prime example) and they shuffle events to whatever extracts the most free labor out of the cult members.
-
DNCall
jwfacts: "You will make a great assistant to some unscrupulous lawyer that wants to provide copious amounts of text, so as to charge by the minute."
Now, I have the highest regard for jwfacts. However, I, as a legal assistant (not by choice), take umbrage at his statement above. To suggest that djeggnog is better suited as a legal assistant (to an unscrupulous, overbilling lawyer, or not) is an insult to legal assistants everywhere.
Cheers, mate!
P.S. Bravo TD, jwfacts, Leo, Cameron_Don, 00Dad, just n from bethel, diamondiiz, et al.
-
thetrueone
The WTS. as a publishing house, a religious one at that, is bound to change their set doctrines from time to time out
commercial necessity to satisfy the publics appeal.
For all these types second Adventist based religions like the JWS has there been any concrete evidence that anything they said was indeed securely
factual. NO , not in the last hundred years or more but did that dieter the expansion or growth of religions like this, hardly if any.
The carrot at the end of the stick is a useful tool for these religions, its just a matter of moving the stick just a little bit further from time to time,
to maintain the publics interest. The changing and creating new doctrines is the chief WT editorial writers responsibility as their position with in the
organization itself.
-
djeggnog
@jwfacts:
This Watchtower quote claims otherwise.
"The Scriptural proof is that the period of his presence and the day of God's preparation is a period from 1874 A.D. forward. The second coming of the Lord, therefore, began in 1874; and that date and the years 1914 and 1918 are specially marked dates with reference to his coming. Prophecy can not be understood until it has been fulfilled or is in the course of fulfillment. From 1874 to 1914 the prophecy concerning the Lord's coming was being fulfilled and could be understood, and was understood, by those who were faithful to the Lord and who were watching the development of events, but not by others."? Creation 1927
The first point I would make is that this is not Russell; this quote is from the Rutherford era, since Russell wasn't alive when Creation was released in 1927, so you have quoted Rutherford, whose words cannot be used to prove what Russell believed. Please let this ruminate a bit before you decide what to do next, for what would have been obvious to most people of normal intelligence may not be as obvious to you, so wait a moment and let this point sink in. I don't want to spend time explaining to you a point that would be quite obvious to most people: Russell wasn't alive when the Creation book was released, so these could not be Russell's words.
The second point is this: Rutherford -- and again, not Russell -- makes reference to "the period of his presence and the day of God's preparation and is saying that God's preparation "began in 1874", so he refers to this 'preparation period' as part of the second coming of the Lord. Go back to my Post 479, where I quote the following from the Creation book: "The Scriptural proof is that the period of his presence and the day of God’s preparation is a period from 1874 A.D. forward. The second coming of the Lord, therefore, began in 1874; and that date and the years 1914 to 1918 are specially marked dates with reference to his coming." Got it?
If not, then read the context of Rutherford's words in the Creation book that I previously posted in Post 479, in which Rutherford again refers to another period during Jesus' invisible presence, which presence had been reckoned to be, both in Russell's era and in Rutherford's era, a 40-year period of harvest, calling it "the Lord’s presence and of the end of the world," and in this reference is referring to "the second coming of the Lord" as "beginning in 1914."
Perhaps you've forgotten, I don't know, but you actually did quote something, in addition to the Creation book quote, in your Post 6006 that had come from the book, Thy Kingdom Come -- a publication released during the Russell era (originally released in 1891) -- and in the same Post 479, I quoted from this book and pointed out that Russell had indicated his view at the time that the close of 1874 marked the beginning, as the close of 1914 will mark the end, of this 40 years of harvest.... The year 1914 was when Russell had calculated that the Gentile Times would come to an end. The year 1914 was not only considered by Russell to have been a part of the 40-year span of Jesus' presence that began in 1874, but he believed that his second coming -- 1914 -- would mark "the end of the world." Russell didn't teach that the "end of the world" had begun in 1874, but that Christ's second coming in 1914 would mark the end of the world.
@The Quiet One:
Djeggnogg- It was post 138.. (The chicken leg example I came up with was based on the blood fraction issue, by the way, in case you didn't get it).
I had intentionally skipped this portion of your post since it didn't make any sense. The OP (@TD) indicated that "[t]he purpose of this thread is to demonstrate with actual scans from the period literature when the adjustment was made" from 1874 to 1914 as to Christ's second coming. There is no relevance between my chicken leg example and your blood fraction issue that you have here raised in this thread.
There are many here on JWN that use anyone's thread to voice their personal gripes with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, just as you have done here in this thread in your mention of "blood fractions," which is way off-topic. There are many people here on JWN that have been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's organization because they were idolaters that worshipped the god of sex, people that had no problem with the Bible doctrines in which they had claimed to believe until they were overcome by sin, and now they are here voicing their sentiments about what they believe to be "flop-flops" that Jehovah's Witnesses have made over the years as if these perceived flip-flops were largely the reason for their having several their relationship with Jehovah's Witnesses when no one can teach anyone anything in the Scriptures that hasn't first been "vetted" by many more people than just the governing body as being consistent therewith.
These accusations of hypocrisy are like when you learn that your son or daughter is gay and/or has taken a gay lover to his or her bed: You cannot be responsible for knowing something that you did not know until convincing evidence had been brought to your attention that one or your children was gay, which I know would make it a bit difficult for you to continue in that threatening posture of yours, where you have told too many people to count what you would do were you to learn that one of your children was gay in the context of gossiping about someone else's gay son or lesbian daughter.
You would then be telling folks how you cannot be judged as hypocritical for saying such things when you had no idea, no clue, no knowledge that your son or your daughter was gay, just like Jehovah's Witnesses would say in their own defense that they cannot be rightly accused of flip-flopping on any doctrinal matter when they themselves did not know at a particular time in their history what we know today. In 2011, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Christ's invisible presence, his parousia, as well as his second coming, occurred in 1914, which we concluded back in 1943, and therefore could not have taught before 1943, since this adjustment to our understanding of this doctrine wasn't made until 1943. Likewise, you cannot be judged as hypocritical for not knowing that your son or daughter was living a gay lifestyle until you first came to know the facts about their gayness, and deciding that you won't ever see your gay child again until and unless he or she "stops" being gay is a ridiculous position to take since nothing you do after learning about your child being gay is going to change the fact that he or she is gay. And your children -- whether gay or straight -- are still your children.
@WontLeave:
I think Eggie's problem here is that he doesn't realize the [Parousia] and the end of the Gentile times weren't always the same.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the exchange between @Cameron_Don and I or between @jwfacts and I, nor given any consideration to the reason in my Post 479 I posted the context of what Russell wrote in the Thy Kingdom Come book and the context of what Rutherford wrote in the Creation book, which books were referenced by @jwfacts in his Post 6006. I understand what the understanding of the Bible Students was from 1876 until the release of the book, The Truth Shall Make You Free, in 1943 under Knorr, which book served to correct the misunderstanding as to Jesus' invisible presence that had previously existed in Russell's day and in Rutherford's day with respect to Bible chronology.
@WontLeave:
I think Eggie's problem here is that he doesn't realize the [Parousia] and the end of the Gentile times weren't always the same.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the exchange between @Cameron_Don and I or between @jwfacts and I, nor given any consideration to the reason in my Post 479 I posted the context of what Russell wrote in the Thy Kingdom Come book and the context of what Rutherford wrote in the Creation book, which books were referenced by @jwfacts in his Post 6006. I understand what the understanding of the Bible Students was from 1876 until the release of the book, The Truth Shall Make You Free, in 1943 under Knorr, which book served to correct the misunderstanding as to Jesus' invisible presence that had previously existed in Russell's day and in Rutherford's day with respect to Bible chronology.
@djeggnog
-
thetrueone
Funny how these religious charlatans who make up dates like this never have shown any factual truth to what they announced.
Their books still get sold and money which was cultivated have made some extremely rich, living a life of luxury from these obtained proceeds.
Too bad Jesus didn't say for anyone to sell or exploit my coming of my earthly kingdom, that they would be no part of it and shall certainly
be put to death. Perhaps charlatans like the WTS/JWS might never existed.
-
The Quiet One
Djeggnogg said: "There are many here on JWN that use anyone's thread to voice their personal gripes with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, just as you have done here in this thread in your mention of "blood fractions," which is way off-topic." - You brought an illustration which wasn't directly related to the threads title in the first place, and I felt as though I had to point out the inconsistencies between reality (jw's have been disciplined for things they shouldn't have been, just because they lived in a period of time before something was allowed, FOR EXAMPLE: blood fractions, not that I have any problem with them, were not allowed in the past and now are) and your illustration, which gives the impression that the 'children' have a fair and consistent set of rules that don't change, such as stealing food and lying which have always been 'wrong' and always will be. May I suggest that, if you want everyone to stay 'on topic' in future, you try not to bring into a discussion illustrations that don't apply to real life and are seemingly irrelevant to the main theme of the thread? As for the (yet again) sex obsessed part of your post, which makes it quite clear that you believe that anyone who is df'd from the organisation for a 'sexually based' reason, simply makes up excuses afterward in order to run off and have sex with anyone they want to, is more revealing as to your way of thinking than it is to the motives of many people that you insist on tarring with the same brush. Have you ever considered that some have been df'd for doing nothing except being seen with someone or merely being targeted by a rumour etc., and have then decided to go off with that person, when they've been cast off from their families for at least a year in most cases? You make it sound as though people just leave the org to fulfill their desires, and any doctrinal issues (which may later turn out to be 'correct' based on a future view of a scripture) are just an excuse made up later. I've had enough of replying to you, it clearly isn't getting either of us anywhere and your judgemental, condascending tone is really starting to make my blood boil. If people as arrogant as you (come across) are the nearest that imperfect mankind can get to being truly Christian, then the world really does need to end.. Good night all.
-
nugget
oops page 5 won;t load