Mar 3/03 Book Study - Intellectual dishonesty, or outright lie?

by artful 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • minimus

    I vote for outright lie. Your disection of this paragraph leaves any "thinking person" aware that this 1914 business is pure bulls--t. Keep exposing the Watchtower with their own words of dishonesty, Art. Watchtower sympathizers can't blame this on "old light", can they?

  • johnny cip
    johnny cip

    See Artful; when you start to do a little research on all the trash the wt prints today , about their history, it don't take long to expose the WACK TOWER as straight out lairs. using the name of god to glorify themselves. now check jn 7:18 and zep3 :13 ecc 12:12again . see how they fit. the wt is in it all for them selves. don't forget the wt started the golden age mag in that great year 1919 with all their quack cures etc. look into the finished mystery wt book 1917. jesus must have read this beauty during his inspection from 1914-18. how all the churches were to be destroyed in 1918 and all church goers bodies would be rotten in the streets and the birds eating them in 1920. and all wt members were to be raptured in 1921. jesus must have loves this book. the rest of it is even wackier. the wt also makes it sound like rutherford and friends were the only ones put in prison for talking out against ww1. a little time in the public library . on the sedition act . proves quite different. over a 1000 people were put in prison for this. and they were not jw's . and it was the u.s. gov't who let them all out of jail in 1919 when the war was over . and the gov't changed the law. not jehovah. funny once the cat is out of the bag, you can find 100's of lies in every new wt mag. funny if you are still studing with the jw's now, all these lies are called bible truth in the studies. etc. you know. till someone does some research and opens his mouth, this is were the fun begins, and watch them swairm and try to talk their way out of it. at thispoint they truely turn into wt zombies and will say anything to protect their false christ the wt. keep up the great work and keep us all posted in your teasure hunt. try looking into the king s of the north and south history. at jw research site. armageddon by ww2 thread. some good reading. best to you john

  • GermanXJW

    Well, I think back then they made a distinction between the 'presence' and 'becoming king'.

    They first believed Jesus was present from 1874 and would set up his kingdom on earth in 1914, after 40 years. When nothing happened in 1914 they explained it to be invisible to. Because both now was invisible it was convenient to put the two events together to 1914.

    Even the "Last Days" had another beginning: 1799. Even this was put to 1914.

    So, the Isaiah-book is technically correct, but it is manipulative rubbish.

  • DanTheMan
    Well, I think back then they made a distinction between the 'presence' and 'becoming king'.

    Funny how the WT always told us not to get into "fights over words" when engaging in the ministry, but when pressed a die-hard JW will resort to the most ridiculous semantical arguments to rationalize away WT false prophecies. This is why I have no desire to debate with JW's about their religion, they have to figure it out for themselves what a load of dung it is.

  • refiners fire
    refiners fire


    Dont mistake me for a WT sympathizer in any way. I was being sarcastic. I really should learn to use smileys in my posts shouldnt I. ?

    J Cip. Good post. The German JW raised a point that I thought was correct, the difference between being "Present", and being "King", but it is only word juggling when all said and done. The lie is in the dishonest intent of the totality of WT writings. It cant be conclusively demonstrated from a single quote.

  • artful

    GermanJW: thanks for the comment, I understand what you are saying about the separation between being present and becoming King. Just to clarify what you are saying though: are you suggesting that the WT publications from 1919 until 1943 were claiming that 1874 marked the beginning of Christ's presence but not his becoming King? And that during this time they were teaching that he had become King in 1914? If that is correct, I was wondering if you (or anyone else) could provide any references from their publications circa 1919 that state Christ had been present since 1874 but actually became King in 1914?
    I may have missed something, but according to the quotes I listed above, it would seem that in 1919 they were teaching Christ was already King and present since 1874: "the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874"
    "Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874, A. D."
    "since 1874, the time of the Lord's return in power"

    Sorry RF: Having enjoyed many of your posts in the past I do realize that you are not a WT sympathizer, I just thought you may have misunderstood what I was saying....which you hadn't! Yes smileys are pretty useful ;-)

    Dan: Good point about fighting over words! What they are really saying is if you actually encounter someone in the ministry who has read the Bible and presents you with plain scriptures that contradict our teachings, then you should RUN FOR THE HILLS! (like Jesus words of "unless you eat of my body and drink of my flesh you have no life in yourselves").

    Thanks John for the great information. Great scripture in John 7:18! That was very interesting about the sedition act and the 1000+ others who were also imprisoned and released in 1919. Re the king of north and south: I stumbled across a WT from 1984 the other day which clearly stated that USSR (king of the north) and the US (king of the south), were now (in 1984) engaged in their FINAL conflict - thereby fulfilling the prophecy in Daniel). I guess when wall fell in 1989 this "fulfillment" didn't really work out the way Daniel (read: WTS) had planned! Pathetic!Minimus: you're right about the "old light"!

    Cheers Artful

  • refiners fire
    refiners fire

    WT. July 1880. Article "The Closing Work". All quotes from the one article.

    We speak of His coming or manifestation as Bridegroom and Reaper between the Autumn of 1874 and the Spring of 1878, in the same sense as He was so spoken of during the three years and a half between His baptism and His entry into Jerusalem as King. ......

    We believe that as in the pattern dispensation, Christ took upon Him the official dignity of King, and left Israel desolate, so at the parallel point in the Spring of 1878 He was manifested in the Kingly office, and Israel began to rise. When Israel rises Babylon must fall, for "the watchmen shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion.".......

    Whoever will read carefully the first few verses of Isaiah 63 and the description of the harvest as given in Revelation 14 can hardly fail to see that the scenes are identical. That harvest is under the supervision of the Son of man, with a golden crown upon His head. Then the idea we advance that Christ entered upon the official work of King in 1878 is in harmony with the application of the harvest here given. ......

    So Art, they were certainly saying "King 1878" during Russells time


    Having a quick look through the WTs I have from the 1920s its clear that there was a very speedy deemphasis of the dates 1878, and 1881. By 1922 the Watchtower articles were focused upon the date sequence 1874/ 1914/ 1918/ . Of course the 1918 date was postulated as the date Christ came to "His Temple". The WT was more interested in pushing that line of reasoning than the "1878 / King" notion. So Id be inclined to say that it appears the WT during Rutherfords reign wasnt pushing the "1878 King" line, rather they pushed the "1918 Temple Inspection" Line of thinking.

  • rocketman

    Good post and the research is greatly appreciated.

    And the jws sitting at that bookstudy? They'll all accept it as fact, just as they always do, without any questions. Most of them are too young to remember anyway, and too tired to follow through, and too fearful to question anything in print anyway. So, it just gets accpeted without question, and the WTS can continue to make subtle changes and revise the past.

  • artful

    Thanks Rocketman: You summed this up well about being either too young or too tired. I have had some scriptural conversations lately with my aging parents (which they instigated - I have no desire to take away something from them that gives them peace), by the end of the conversation they will concede various scriptural points but still say they are not going to stop being Witnesses, they are too old, they are on cruise mode, etc, etc. The fact is they know the Society prints a lot of wrong things, but they are just too tired to change, it's too much work, the whole family are Witnesses, etc. I reminded them that their expressions were similar to the comments they will get from the 'worldly' people at the doors, the ones who say that they are 'not going to change their religion' no matter what they are shown from the Bible!

    Thanks so much for that research RF!
    From the quote you supplied (and the ones I had listed), they were definitely teaching that Christ presence began in 1874, and he became King in 1878. It would also appear that in 1919 they had nothing 'in print' that stated Jesus had 'become King' in 1914. And in 1919 they had not yet revised their earlier teaching that his presence began in 1874, and his Kingship started in 1878. The point (in the 1922 WT) about pushing the 1918 date for his temple inspection is interesting, but in no way could be construed as announcing that 'Jesus had become King' in 1914.

    Therefore, the WTS deception in the Isaiah book is really emphasized by this additional research from RF - that is: The WTS claims that since 1919 they have been announcing that Christ became King in 1914 - when in fact the information in print in 1919 (and for several years after) was that Christ's presence had begun in 1874, he became King in 1878, the Gentile times ended in 1914, and Christ inspected his temple in 1918. During this time there appears to be nothing announcing his becoming King in 1914! Therefore I believe it could be rightly said the the paragraph and answer quoted from last weeks study in the Isaiah book is an outright lie!
    Thanks to everyone for all of your input!
    Cheers Artful

  • johnny cip
    johnny cip

    hi artful: most impressed with your research. you are right about the king of the north and south. but! there is more the wt also said this about hitler and the korean war. etc. they also mixed the generation thing with all this. please tell me if you looked into the JW RESEARCH SITE . what do you think? are you aware that the wt told people not to have children and wait for armageddon even married people not to have sex it is from the devil. face the facts 1938, and i have the orignal copy. also the children book 1941 wt 3-1 37 pg 77 .. nov 1 1938 pg 323-4 etc. and yes 1978 was one of the year s of christs kingdom power. if you look harder you will find that it was 1872-73 -4 when nothing happenned it was 1878 or even 1881 . but you know my documentation is BAD. I still can't get refiners fire to see were the wt said that jw's were to be raptured in 1932. but something like this is out there i know that a lot of the things i say sound far out. but i have run into them at some point. a few more for you , look into the wt book angels and women sold in the 20's written from a demonic spritaul channel. the whole book is on the web somewhere. try free also known as selioa maybe sold by the wt in the 1890's . look for 1905-7 and 1910-12 it is on some of the long false prophecies sites. . one more ! get the book KINGDOM OF THE KULTS. has some good stuff most here never talk about. like the russell court trials and the 1881 . russell on the bridge at easter sunday to go to heaven. and has a lot of bible thoughts. you can get a lot of old wt books at ebay .com sometimes cheap. best wishes , i'm always open to learn new info .. thank you . john

Share this