Contradiction in last week's study article

by leaving_quietly 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • leaving_quietly

    6/15/12 p.15 par 5 footnote: "Although the components of the dual world power have existed since the 18th century, John describes it as it would appear at the start of the Lord's day. In fact, the fulfillment of the visions recorded in Revelation takes place during "the Lord's day." (Rev. 1:10)"

    Oh, really? Same issue, but previous article: 6/15/12 p. 8 par. 6: "At the time of John's writing, five of those had fallen, one was currently in power, and one had "not yet arrived."

    So, which is it? If, indeed, "the fulfillment of the visions recorded in Revelation" is in the Lord's day, then the entire interpretation about the prophecy about the wild beast needs a complete overhaul.

  • elderelite

    Lol thats a fabulous catch :-)

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    Very good point.

  • blondie
  • Bobcat


    First point of interest is "the Lord's Day."

    The NWT mistranslates Rev 1:10. The NWT has, "By inspiration I came to be in the Lord's day." The literal reading of the Greek text says, "I became in Spirit in (or "on") the Lord's day." "By inspiration" is fine for "in spirit." But the NWT moves the verb, "I became" or "I came to be," so that it applies to "in the Lord's day" rather than to "in spirit" (or "by inspiration").

    Next, what is "the Lord's day"? Is it the same as "the day of the Lord"? Here is what the Baker Exegetical Commentary says about it: The phrase is "found only here in the NT. ...Three options have been suggested for its meaning: (1) It may be a reference to the eschatological day of the Lord, so that John is transported to the time of the eschaton [what the Society would call "the last days"] (so Bullinger 1909:12; Walvoord 1966:42); but neither the language here nor the contents of [Rev] 1:12-20 make that likely, for the NT commonly uses the genitive kuriou (Lord's) to designate the "day of the Lord," while John here has the adjective. (2) It may refer to Easter Sunday as the day of the parousia within the confines of Easter liturgy (so M. Shepherd 1960; Strand 1966-67); but this is highly speculative, and this view did not arise until at least a century later. (3) Most likely this phrase refers to Sunday, chosen by the early church on the basis of the resurrection as the day of worship (Stott 1965-66; Baukham 1982:221-50). Stott (73-74) argues that Kuriake was originally associated with the resurrection and then with the eschatological triumph of the Lord of lords and thereby came to be used of the "Lord's Day." It is likely that the Jewish-Christian church worshiped in the synagogues on the Jewish Sabbath and in their own assemblies from the earliest times on Sunday, celebrating the Eucharist [what the WT calls "the Memorial"] and worshiping Christ together (cf. Acts 2:42). While this is the first appearance of "the Lord's Day" as a technical term for Sunday worship, it became a common term for such in the second century. John was worshiping on that day and received this vision."

    (Brackets in the quote above are from me. Parenthesis are from the quoted material)

    You should note also the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:12-16. If John was transported to the last days, then, the description of Jesus has something noticably missing from his head, that should be there.

    The point I am making is that their whole argument concerning "the Lord's day" is bogus. It does not mean what they want it to mean. (Incidentally, one of [email protected] videos concerns this very topic of Revelation 1:10.) here.)

    Now, concerning the Anglo-American world power:

    The idea that Britain only became a world power in the 20th century is historically false. Generally, 1763, the date of the treaty of Paris, is recognized as the beginning of Britain's world rulership. And it ruled the world to an extent far greater than any other previous power.

    The idea that it became a dual world power with the US in the early 20th century is correct. The wild beast pictured in Rev. 13:11-18 has two horns. But note that what the Society refers to as Britain in Daniel chapter 7 is just a single horn. There would be nothing to prevent it from starting out as one horn and then proceeding to two later. For example, compare the description of Medo-Persia in Daniel 8:3.

    The Society's explanation also contradicts their own explanation of Revelation 13:3, wherein John sees one of the heads of the 7 headed wild beast having a sword stroke that healed. You can find the Society's explanation of this in the Rev Climax book page 190, pars.13-15. It would have to have already been a "head," or world power first in order to receive a "sword stroke," which they are saying it received in WWI.

    Another Society induced contradiction is with Daniel 2:44. It says, "In the days of those kings [refering to the feet and toes] the God of heaven would set up a kingdom ..." The Society says that "the feet and toes" picture this 7th world power. If God sets up his kingdom in 1914, and it is only then that the feet and toes come into being, then, how can it be said that God sets up his kingdom "in the days of" that 7th world power. (Compare the same phrase used in Daniel 5:11)

    Hope this helps some

    Take Care

  • Bobcat

    I thought I might add:

    Applying "the day of the Lord" to "the last days" is highly questionable in itself. "The great day of their (God's and the Lamb's) wrath" occurs in Rev 6:17. And "the great day of God the Almighty" occurs in Rev 16:14. Both terms apply to the destructive end of the last days, not to the last days themselves.

    2Peter 3:3, 4, 10 is a good comparison also. Verse 3 refers to "the last days" in contrast to the destructive "day of [the] Lord" in verse 10. (NWT has "Jehovah's Day")

    Take Care

  • bruh2012

    Good point but the "Organization" teaches that we are in the "Lord's Day" since 1914..So based on that we are still waiting for more stuff to happen.

  • Bobcat

    While we are on the subject.

    Revelation 13:11-18 describes the "two-horned lamb." But the Society applies verses 16-18 to the 7 headed beast out of the sea. This is why the NWT adds a paragraph break between verse 15 and 16. See other translations for comparison. Rev Climax page 196 par.32 contains the flakey explanation of this: "He [John] returns to describing "the wild beast" itself." Nothing but an unsupported assertion.

    At the time the NWT was made, Fred Franz was doing all of their Revelation interpretation. This paragraph break is as good as any evidence that Fred Franz was the major translator of the NWT.

  • Bobcat

    And another thing ... :)

    [email protected] makes a good point of the fact that the Society bases alot of their interpretation of Revelation on their questionable translation of Revelation 1:10. They ignore the possibility that the footnote may actually be the better translation, which would wreck their explanation.

    Which brings to light something else about the NWT. Some of the footnotes are not there to expand one's understanding. Rather, they are there to cover their butts in case anyone questions what they have in the main text. They can say, "Oh yeah, we have that possibility in the footnote. See! There it is." All the while, they have no intention of considering that the footnote reading might be correct.

Share this