"New Book" God's Kingdom Rules

by booker-t 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • booker-t

    I heard that on Sat the JWs released a new book at the convention God's Kingdom Rules. Is it a verse by verse of Ezekiel or Daniel? Does it mention the "overlapping generation"? Does it talk about the clay statue and the UN being the 8th world power? I was just wondering because JWs are so facinated with these topics to prove we are near the end.

  • Ocean1111

    What it does NOT have is King North being the obvious 8th King parallel, or Daniel 11:31 being the UN 1990 presentation that Bethel conveniently ignores as UN NGO instead. (Dan8:13)

  • eyeuse2badub

    "Those in power get to write the history"!

    Such is life----as we know it! Move on and enjoy!

    just saying!


  • wannabefree
  • AnnOMaly

    Thank you, wanna.

    The 'overlapping generation' explanation with helpful diagram is a hoot! Not a single scripture is cited as support for this newer definition of 'generation.' Just a series of nonsensical assertions. The GB must be laughing their behinds off at the r&f's gullibility.

  • new hope and happiness
    new hope and happiness

    I attend a book study which has some very sexy girls. I think i will reccomend this book.

    Why you ask?

    Well i think reading it would send the entire group too sleep, and that would really improve my sex life as i could sleep with the entire book study group.

    On a seriouse note there once was a time i would be exited about a new book release. uggggg.

  • blondie

    Very few quotes from any past history recorded about the WTS; many "assertions"

  • AnnOMaly

    The WHOPPERS about the Bible Students' perceptions of 1914 and its significance - again! Tsk, tsk, tsk!

    P. 15 - Russell "championed Bible truths" (caption) and "Although our brothers of that era did not yet grasp the full significance of that marked year [1914], they proclaimed what they knew far and wide, with long-lasting effects."

    P. 23 - "Though the Watch Tower had rightly pointed to 1914 as the year when the Gentile Times would end, the brothers did not yet understand what would take place in that year."

    Scans showing that they did grasp the full significance of 1914, and did understand what would take place that year, are found HERE. They were wrong; they were championing doctrinal falsehoods.

    P. 16 - "Consider this: Would people have been prepared for the beginning of Christ's presence if they were not able to distinguish Jesus from his Father Jehovah? Surely not!"

    The BSs' Arian-esque view of God and Jesus had nothing to do with preparing for the beginning of Christ's presence. Anybody who is acquianted with BS/JW history knows full well that they taught Christ's presence began in 1874, that they only started to believe his presence began in 1874 after the 'fact' in 1876, and that the first hint of Christ's presence having begun in 1914 only popped up in 1930! How can anybody be prepared for something that they missed and were clueless about for 16 more years?

    P. 20 - (Caption) "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence."

    P. 22 - "Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year. But even they could not have imagined how accurate that prediction would turn out to be."

    FALSE and FALSE! See above. See scans where it says the 'time of trouble' would END that year.

    Then the writers have the gall to condemn the churches of Christendom for teaching "doctrinal lies" (p. 17)!

    Absolutely shameful (again!) for an organization that has boasted it 'traces all things with accuracy' and claims to represent the God of Truth.

  • blondie

    Thanks for those examples, Ann. There are many more. The first time I read the Studies in the Scriptures and the WTS from 1879 to 1916, opened my eyes to the thinking of those times, not the "edited" versions in today's publications.

  • disposable hero of hypocrisy
    disposable hero of hypocrisy

    What dya reckon would happen if one were to call out the society on the above points, using the society's own literature to prove it?

    If it's incontrovertible, what could they say? How could they deny it?

Share this