it appears that the WT is moonwalking when it comes to a wife's ability to insure her own safety. She's told to put up and shut up. This won't go over well with wifey. Her stepfather went to prison for beating the crap out of her Mom to near death, in front of his 12 yr old step child, and his own 4 yr old daughter
Tomorrow's Watchtower Study: Steve hits Selma in North America... not South America
by Alfred 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
JRK
Well, that shit is okay in North America. My mom and sisters got beat, and that is okay because they are right with God now. Because I bitch about receiving the bulk of the abuse, I am a whiney little malcontent. I should just get with the program, and FEEL Jehovah's love. Amen, fucking come Lord Jesus.
BS BS BS!
JK
-
processor
The German version says something like "he got furious" too. No mention of any beating, hitting etc.
-
wha happened?
well I brought it up. Although wifey agreed that the WT likely changed it for the latino community since spousal abuse is such an issue in that culture, (she also agreed that it would like result in a green light to smack your wife), the wall went up and she saw nothing significant about having different truth for different cultures
-
outsmartthesystem
wha - did you ask her what the meaning of the paragraph was to her? That when looked at realistically, the english version is telling those in America that they may need to endure physical violence in order to "win over" their husbands.....while those in Mexico may only need to endure verbal thrashings.
On another note.....it has been about a month since my wife and i have argued about "the truth". I am contemplating printing out both the english and spanish versions and asking her why it is ok to insinuate to the english speaking populace that wives may need to accept physical violence from their husbands......while insinuating to the spanish speaking populace that they may need to endure only verbal violence. Think I should?
-
cedars
outsmartthesystem - please don't think I'm minimizing anything, but from her perspective you will be splitting hairs. There are far more powerful arguments you can make to her to prove this cannot be the truth. I had a conversation with Mrs Cedars recently concerning the points raised in this thread below, and it had a profound impact on her - especially when compared with the way The Finished Mystery is portrayed in the Revelation Climax book...
It may be that she won't react as positively, but I'm merely pointing out that there MUST be other things you can show your wife that are more compelling.
Cedars
-
blondie
I found in my case it was not one point that opened my eyes but a cumulative one. It started with my trying to prove that Jesus was Michael the archangel only to discover that there was no scriptural basis just a WT string of unrelated scriptures.
Next was reading that the WTS was always consistent in teaching that Jesus' prescence began in 1914, but taught 1874 for many years. It continued on and my research increased with the WT-CD and the internet. Eight years later, husband and I attended our last meeting, wedding, funeral, convention or assembly thoroughly convinced. So it is different for each person, some it is the first thing that shines light on the dark and for others it takes a little brighter light.
*** it-1 p. 156 Archangel ***
The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. First Thessalonians 4:16, in speaking of the preeminence of the archangel and the authority of his office, does so in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.” It is, therefore, not without significance that the only name directly associated with the word “archangel” is Michael.—Jude 9; see MICHAEL No. 1.
*** it-2 p. 1161 Voice ***
The apostle Paul said, when writing to the Thessalonian congregation about the gathering of God’s anointed holy ones: “The Lord [Jesus Christ] himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” (1Th 4:16) The term “archangel” means “chief angel” or “principal angel.” Paul’s expression “archangel’s voice” evidently focuses attention on the authoritativeness of Jesus’ voice of command. Jesus, when on earth, revealed the authority that God invested in him, when he said: “For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. . . . The hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out.”—Joh 5:26-29.
*** it-2 pp. 393-394 Michael ***
Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be “the archangel,” meaning “chief angel,” or “principal angel.” The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
-
wha happened?
I see, So they are implying through the foriegn langauge mags that Americans don't need to put up with spousal abuse. Evidently, most JW's also receive the foriegn language magazines so there is in implicant message through reading a magazine that u normally wouldn't understand.
Can I pioneer now?
-
outsmartthesystem
I understand what you're saying Cedars. I sometimes have trouble taming my combattive side. The problem is that I've tried your approach. I actually have a full copy of The Finished Mystery at home......and I'm about 1/3 of the way through it. (wow...it is a PAINFUL read) I am hi-liting all the gems. The problem is that my wife has been properly indoctrinated to not care about old light. Even when you bring out that Jesus would have supposedly made his "selection" based on the "truths" that were being taught at that time. She'll say "yes....all that stuff was wrong.....but everyone has to make their own decisions....and I think that Jesus still picked them".
I only thought about bringin up the whole Selma issue because certain acts of sexism will get her going. I figured I might strike a nerve
-
cedars
outsmartthesystem -
I only thought about bringin up the whole Selma issue because certain acts of sexism will get her going. I figured I might strike a nerve
If that's the case (and you will know her better than anyone) then by all means go for it. You need to use what you think might "strike a nerve" as you put it. However, in the grand scheme of things, the altered translation might be seen as not that big a deal. When I was still "inside", I knew that there were differences in translations, but it didn't really bother me that much. She may be the same. If you do choose to go down this route, try to frame the argument in a way that highlights the sexism issue rather than the disparity of two different translations.
If she is explaining everything away with the "new light" argument, have you tried my "makeweight scenario" with her? It's simply this...
"Please show me one scripture in the bible that describes a scenario in which God's holy spirit has or would knowingly convey false information to his servants as a 'makeweight' until true information is revealed at a later stage."
That is, in essence, what the doctrine of increasing light asks us to believe. None of the scriptures used by the Society to support the doctrine describe anything remotely close to the above.
Cedars