I'm late to the party on this Gog of Magog change...

by sd-7 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • sd-7

    So this May 2015 Study Edition...I know you guys have talked about it already, but wow. This is classic. Mostly I like to revel in the presentation of these changes. The wording is so classic WT.

    "For many years, our publications have explained that the name Gog of Magog refers to Satan after he was thrown out of heaven." So if anything went wrong, it was the publications' fault, not ours. Those books just got up and wrote themselves.

    Blah blah, "So we understood that Gog must be another name for Satan. However, there were some problems with this explanation."

    Let's read that again. "However, there were some problems with this explanation." Imagine saying that to someone in the congregation. That's the quickest way to end up in front of three elders. Also, THE PROBLEM IS IT'S WRONG! Just say it! It was wrong. I think it's just, the way they go about explaining the problems, it really makes it sound like the earlier understanding was written by complete idiots. I won't comment on that, nor do I need to. I'll let the Watchtower do so:

    "But how could Satan, who is an invisible spirit creature, be eaten by birds and wild beasts? How could he be buried on earth? The Bible clearly shows that Satan will be thrown into the abyss for 1,000 years. He will not be eaten or buried."

    "But if Satan is Gog, this means that Satan would have to mislead himself."

    Only the Watchtower writers could be guilty of such horrible use of logic and actually throw people out of the congregation who see "problems with this explanation."

    It further underscores the fact that they have no idea how to understand the Bible. You can pick just one of any number of Bible verses and, searching their publications, you could find three or more different "explanations" for the same verse, all contradictory, all written by the same divinely chosen 'faithful slave'. Matthew 24:34, Matthew 24:45-47, Romans 13--multiple explanations for just a handful of verses. If they don't understand these--as is abundantly evident by their constantly finding "problems" with their own prior explanations--then we have little reason to believe there are no problems with their explanations of the thousands of other Bible verses they claim to know the truth about.

    I also just have to marvel at just how many changes have been made in the past 10-15 years. Thanks for the timely reminder to avoid the girl-on-girl porn, by the way. I've had to turn off or skip so many episodes of 'Game of Thrones', you know? Anyway, I hope you've got better things to do on a Saturday than read this. If you did, though, thanks for reading.


  • LostGeneration
    However, there were some problems with this explanation.

    Pretty much sums up WT writings for the last 140 years!

  • The Searcher
    The Searcher

    What parts of the article are really saying!

    Who is Gog of Magog mentioned in the book of Ezekiel?

    For a number of years, [decades!] our publications [the Org's inspired writing committee!] have explained [speculated!] that Gog of Magog is the name given to Satan the Devil after his ouster from heaven. This explanation [stab in the dark!] was based on the fact that the book of Revelation identifies Satan the Devil as the leader of the worldwide attack on God’s people. (Rev. 12:1-17) So it was thought [by people who hadn't a clue!] that Gog must be another prophetic name for Satan.

    However, that explanation [spirit-inspired doctrine!] raised some important questions. [which none of you were allowed to raise!] But how can Satan mislead Gog if he himself is Gog? [because "mother" said so - for decades!] Therefore, "Gog" does not refer to Satan in either Ezekiel’s prophecy or the book of Revelation. [or in the minds of our new G.B.!]

    Who, then, is Gog of Magog? To answer that question, we need to search the Scriptures [instead of error-filled literature!] to find out who attacks God’s people. Do these represent separate attacks? Not likely. The Bible is no doubt referring to the same attack under different names. Why can we draw that conclusion? [because we now say so & because we can't think of anything better at the moment!]

    When we compare all these Scriptural references about the final attack on God’s people, [you gullible ones reading this latest reversal!] it becomes evident that the name Gog of Magog refers, not to Satan, but to a coalition of nations. [at least until a new light changes this new light!] Will this coalition be led by the figurative "king of the north"? We cannot say with any certainty. [we can't say anything with certainty!] But this thought [pure guesswork!] does seem to be in harmony with what Jehovah says about Gog.

    But who is referred to as "Gog and Magog" at Revelation 20:8? It seems fitting, then, that all those rebels at the end of the Millennium be called "Gog and Magog." [it's fitting for the G.B. at least, so just accept it as truth!]

    As keen students of God’s Word, [the Org's literature!] we wait with eager anticipation [overwhelming apathy!] to see who in the near future [not in our lifetime!] will assume the role of "the king of the north."

  • Oubliette

    "However, there were some problems with this explanation."

    sd-7, I just did a word search in the May 15th, 2015 WT and could not find this sentence.

    Where did you find it?

  • sd-7

    Oubliette, I think I must have been reading the Simplified Edition. I hadn't meant to click on that one, but apparently I must have. Sorry about that.


  • sd-7

    Actual phrasing in the regular Study Edition was, "However, that explanation raised some important questions." That's an amazing translation they did for the Simplified Edition, then. Interesting, ha ha ha! The Simpified Edition must make it harder to use tricky wording like they normally do.


  • Oubliette

    sd-7: Oubliette, I think I must have been reading the Simplified Edition. I hadn't meant to click on that one, but apparently I must have. Sorry about that.

    That make sense.

  • Barrold Bonds
    Barrold Bonds
    So, are ANY of Fred Franz teachings still current doctrine?
  • fulltimestudent


    Someone is reading good academic research at last!

    But individual Jehovah's witnesses are NOT ALLOWED to read that same research, and if they do break that taboo, they cannot discuss it with fellow believers. If they do break the cernsorship rules they face disciplining action, or worse.

    What bullsh*t !!!!!!!

    Thnx for posting this thread.

  • stuckinarut2

    Yes!... Great thread!

    "The Truth" is "True" until the "governing body / F&DS" no longer says it is "true".

    Then it is "untrue", but if you came to that conclusion BEFORE them, you were "wrong"...

    As one of our loved posters says: "lets review, It's a CULT"

Share this