PROOF from the WT (page 3)

Scorpion

Friend,

I also wondered, being you are so good at pointing out that two different ideas can basically mean the same thing or as you put it, (help us resolve the sum of what is actually being taught), can you help me with this.

RESURRECTION OF THE SODOMITES

The men of Sodom will be resurrected. INSIGHT, VOL. 2 PAGE 985 (1988)

The men of Sodom will not be resurrected. REVELATION, PAGE 273 (1988)

Hear we have two different opinions on the same subject released the same year at the summer Convention of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Is it time to start flipping a coin for our answers?

Friend

SC

My response to Apostolic succession in this thread was not meant to be a counter argument as you put it. It was meant to be the truth as far as the WT teaches us. Is not this what we are supposed to be teaching, the truth.

Yes, truth is what we should be teaching and it is also the distinguishing feature that I prefer. I only wish more people would let the truth speak—both inside and outside the WTS, including forums such as this one. Too often we let our present conclusions, opinions or mindsets get in the way of expanding our base of knowledge of what is true. Such a disposition produces self-limitation; it is intrinsic to the nature. I hate to see that happen to anyone, but real life teaches us that it is unavoidable.

As far as the arguments in the apostolic succession thread, the points to each of your questions was met. You just did not like the answers or did not want to understand the answers presented. You have tried to not only skew the subject on this thread, but have done the same on the thread about the Society evading taxes and the apostolic succession topic. I left a response to RedhorseWoman on that thread, (Swaggart).

No, “points” to each of my questions were not met. If they were please repeat those questions with concise answers following them. Please do not reword my questions. I will look for your answers on this thread.

I am not sure what you mean by asserting that I have attempted to skew the subject. Is representing facts skewing? Perhaps you mean my presentation of the four (4) possible relationships between differing ideas. Well, I’ve got news for you; “different” does not always connote “oppose”, which is what you apparently believe. Such a belief is a bifurcation of the worst magnitude; it is self-deception.

I also wondered, being you are so good at pointing out that two different ideas can basically mean the same thing or as you put it, (help us resolve the sum of what is actually being taught), can you help me with this.
The men of Sodom will be resurrected. INSIGHT, VOL. 2 PAGE 985 (1988)
The men of Sodom will not be resurrected. REVELATION, PAGE 273 (1988)
Hear we have two different opinions on the same subject released the same year at the summer Convention of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Is it time to start flipping a coin for our answers?

Your presentation above you demonstrates serious miscomprehension of what I said previously about the four (4) possible relationships between differing ideas. In that case you are hardly in position to declare that my corollary questions are answered or not—as you have done.

Those two statements above represent two different ideas that oppose one another, which is one of four (4) possibilities. Remember my illustration, “Johnny can read. Johnny cannot read.”? Do you? Do you recall that little part where I said that those two differing views represented differing views that oppose one another? Do you remember that? Well, guess what? Those two views above fit that description, to a tee.

Your notion that we should somehow flip a coin between those two views above is an argument to the crowd.

The paradox you represent in that the two ideas were released at the same convention is your own construction because there is a simple and reasonable explanation for what happened in that instance, an explanation that you are either unaware of or do not want to believe. Here it is:

The expression in the Insight volume had been printed months before the convention and prior to the change in teaching. The one in the Revelation book had been printed not so long before the convention and after the change in teaching.

Is it so hard for people to realize that publications like Insight on the Scriptures take a long time getting through the publishing process?

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 9 June 2000 9:31:51

RedhorseWoman

Friend,

Oh, my, I'm sorry, but this is really funny.

A scriptural teaching can change to a totally opposite view before one of the books has even been released, and you just accept it without question?

You don't see a problem with this?

Friend

RedhorseWoman

A scriptural teaching can change to a totally opposite view before one of the books has even been released, and you just accept it without question?
You don't see a problem with this?

I do not just accept it without question. I think about it, which is what everyone should do.

No publishing company is going to rip apart a work like the Insight volume over such a triviality as this is. The answer is one of practicality. Those books had already been printed and bound before the change in teaching occurred. Do you know anything at all about publishing?

As a matter of record the Society has always utilized The Watchtower as its means of publishing changes in some biblical view. That means everything else published centers on that journal. The Watchtower of June 1, 1988 introduced the new view in question. The Insight volumes had been produced long before that specific journal was conceived.

From the foregoing, if you cannot figure why I am not too concerned about your perceived anomaly then words, facts and common sense are not enough. That is what I believe, it is my view—for those who insist upon having it.

Friend

Carmel

At the risk of continuing a brush fire Friend, common sence would indicate that if the FDS is the only channel or even "a" channel from God, it would not flip flop on the issue of Sodomites being resurrected. That you see no antinomies of reason in such anomolies idicates a mental recalcitrance of the first order.

carmel

Friend

Carmel

You tried to say:

At the risk of continuing a brush fire Friend, common sen[s]e would indicate that if the FDS is the only channel or even "a" channel from God, it would not flip flop on the issue of Sodomites being resurrected. That you see no antinomies of reason in such anom[a]lies I[n]dicates a mental recalcitrance of the first order.

Peter: John is not going to die.
John:[/b] I am going to die.

To our knowledge, in writing John corrected that inaccuracy only after about 60+ years[/b]. (See John 21:20-22)

Do you get the picture?

As for the integrity of my assessment, since you so easily discount or fail to consider that Jesus’ followers often made mistakes—worse yet you may not realize it—I trust my own considered view above yours. If you have some information you wish to share beyond your underdeveloped conjecture then by all means supply it. I always like to consider the facts.

Friend

Xandit

Just to throw an extraneous comment in here on the basic subject. I've made it a point to ask a considerable number of Witnesses if they thought only Witnesses would survive Armageddon, so far not one has said yes. It's certainly not a scientific survey but I've asked old, young, male, female, zealot, hangers on, pioneers, publishers, elders, etc. and gotten essentially the same answer from all of them. If that's what's being taught I don't think it's taking.

Seven

SC, This has nothing to do with the topic but I just wanted (again) to wish you and the wife and children all the best. Your family is undoubtedly thrilled to be spending so much time with you. I wish you all happiness and many great memories of good times to come.

7

Scorpion

SeveofNine,

Thank you. :-)

Scorpion

Friend,

That's a good one, please give concise answers to your questions. I did. You are the one who has been vague in your responses. I am not the one using terms or hypothetical situations such as Tom can read and Sue cannot but Tom taught Sue to read so now she can. Talk about throwing mud into a conversation. I was clear with my responses, you were not.

I am still interested in why the change in teaching about the Sodomites. You gave what you believe to be an explanation for the error. If the Society is Gods chosen channel, did the Governing Body accept this change from God, or are they just making things up as they go along and forget what they have said one month to another.

Just to prove my point further that this explanation you gave is bogus as far as I am concerned please read this:

The men of Sodom will be resurrected. WT 7/1879, p.8

The men of Sodom will not be resurrected. WT 6/1/1952, p.338

Will be. WT 8/1/1965, p. 479

Will not. WT 6/1/1988, p.31

Will be. LIVE FOREVER, EARLY EDITIONS (1982) P. 179

Will not. LIVE FOREVER, LATER EDITIONS, (1989) P. 179

And of course the errors mentioned in the previous post of mine.

Now tell me Friend, how do you rationalize such flip flops in God channel of communication?

You also did not address the fact that we, the ones supposedly teaching the good news of Gods Kingdom will be held more responsible before Jehovah than those outside the organization, for teaching things that are of men and claiming them to be of God or Gods sole channel, especially when the things taught are later labeled teachings from Satan.

As far as the original topic in this thread, SALVATION being found in the WT Society, you have not refered once to the Bible as far as what Gods word has to say about this. All I see you doing is trying to justify the actions of the WT organization. I see from a few of your posts that you do have a few problems with the WT. Do you yourself think that we need the Watchtower organization to be lead by Jehovah and understand things God wishes to reveal to us?

PROOF from the WT

Share this