apostate inaccuracies

by candidlynuts 17 Replies latest jw friends

  • iiz2cool

    they NEVER mention specifically what it is that "apostates" actually say

    I always wondered about that too. I always thought that they should have nothing to fear from a close examination of their teachings. Unless, of course, that they were lying and knew it. To my knowledge, the only attempt they ever made to refute "apostate" claims was in the appendix of the "Let Your kingdom Come" book. Here's an excerpt from it that I thought was quite funny. It's on page 187 paragraph 2. It's part of their attempt to support their 607 B.C.E. date. My attention was drawn to this by Karl Olof Jonsson's book, "The Gentile Times Reconsidered".
    However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

    Hmmm, so we're supposed to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E., just because it supports their 1914 and 1919 dates. All on the basis of yet undiscovered material that could alter the chronology in their favor.

    If I would have paid a little more attention to what I was reading when I first came in contact with Jehovah's Witnesses, I might have picked up on this and avoided 20 years of crap.


  • Leolaia

    iiz2cool....The interesting thing is that the Society actually plagiarized Jonsson's MS in this publication and embedded the "apostate voice" within its own text, but obscured the fact it was a dissenter (i.e. apostate) voice by conflating it with the secularists quoted and referred to in the text. See my post on this:


  • Undaunted Danny
    Undaunted Danny

    Half-truths vs. whole-lies: In the serpent's twisted conniving confabulation with Eve he spoke 54 words,only 5 were lies. It's about the same ratio with the Watchtower and it's 122 years of accomplished "whole lies". Regarding apostate "half-truths".
    Does this mean that one half of apostate Internet postings ARE true?

    Moreover,does it mean that only one half of Jesus Christ returned to power in 1914?

    [Watchtower's central dogma]

    Perplexing indeed.....

    "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts".Cheers,Danny Haszard Bangor Maine the Watchtower Whistleblower

  • Markfromcali
    are ya'll lyin to me? trying to take god away from me? you plottin on me?(all said tongue in cheek lol)

    This is why I don't deal with WT doctrine specifically. Not only is it boring complicated and convoluted, and I don't have a reason to remember the stuff I did learn, but as far as I'm concerned everybody is responsible to make up their own mind anyway. So while I might say some things that may in effect be challenging to that belief system, I'm also not interested in directing it at anyone in particular unless they choose to engage me in a one on one dialogue. I say take the info for what it's worth, not interested in getting you to do one thing or another - just telling it like I see it.

    edited to add: And I'm also not that interested in directing it toward JWs as a group, this is strictly a matter of convenience since I was one.

  • iiz2cool

    Leolaia, thanks, that's one I'll keep!


  • Mary
    Does this mean that one half of apostate Internet postings ARE true?

    I think what they are trying to convey is that 'postates "twist the scriptures" to try and "draw unsuspecting ones away"; this is the "half-truths" they refer to.........but naturally they can't actually come out and print what is being said, because then all the Dubs that are left could see for themselves that the GB are the ones twisting the scriptures, not us.

    Moreover,does it mean that only one half of Jesus Christ returned to power in 1914?

    Ya, the "invisible" part we can't see!!

  • Corvin

    It would not bode well for the WTBTS to give specific examples of the so-called lies and half-truths. Too many members would read it and really start thinking about it. Too dangerous. Better for them to do what they have always done, and that is simply tell their members to reject anything and everything not published by the WTBTS.


  • DaCheech

    For goodness sake: when they give experiences in their publications they say "joann* was a faithful ......"

    at the footnote is says: names have been changed.....

    They can't even use people names for things they say are correct?

Share this