Posts by AlanF

posted

19
Indisputable/physical facts
by Norm in
1. jw
2. friends
in the bizarre world that exist within the watchtower society headquarters in brooklyn you can find all kinds of strange statements.

particularly funny is the use of the expressions indisputable/physical facts.

according to the watchtower from 1922, indisputable facts showed that jesus second presence began in 1874!
AlanF

It's pretty obvious to seasoned observers that Watchtowerites confuse "the physical facts" with "my fertile imagination".
AlanF
25
it just got more interesting.
by Texasbred in
1. jw
2. friends
the woman i am dating has a 4 year old child.

he's a cute kid, and we get along very well.. the father was once a jw and he went to the same kingdom hall as my girlfriend.

but now he's out and celebrates holidays, birthdays, etc.
AlanF

Hi Texasbred,
You're in a dangerous situation, in my experience. Do take to heart what SixOfNine said.
It's not apparent from your post whether Melissa was raised as a JW, but in any case the JW teachings seem to have been ingrained deeply enough that she's still a believer, even though she doesn't follow many of the teachings herself. She's obviously very confused inside, or she's the sort of person who will go against what they believe in order to get some perceived benefit. If she's that confused or that willing to act contrary to her supposed beliefs, your relationship is bound for trouble.
Many people who leave the JWs because they don't want to practice JW behaviors remain believers and wrestle with their consciences for a long time. It creates problems not only for them but for anyone they have a relationship with. The best thing for you would be for Melissa to resolve her own inner problems before you go further in your relationship.
From my own personal experience, living with a 'true believer' who thinks you're going to die at Armageddon is the pits. You can't imagine how painful it is. They don't treat you like a human being, much less a partner. They view you as a dead man and treat you the same. If you can live with the possibility that your girlfriend might turn into such a person, well, that's up to you.
Melissa's actions are fairly common among ex-JWs who haven't really resolved their inner issues. They remain believers and so, when it comes to their children, they want the kids to toe the JW line because they think it's for the kids' benefit, even though they themselves may have resolved themselves to dying at Armageddon. They might think that they're not worthy of 'getting life' or they might just not care. In any case they have enough 'issues' that their emotional lives can become turbulent, and cause serious problems for anyone with whom they have a relationship.
If you really want to continue your relationship, know this: one day, sooner or later, Melissa will resolve her 'issues'. For you it will be a crap shoot as to where she lands. If she lands on one side, you'll be fine; on the other and your life could become hell. So for your own protection, you need to figure out how to get Melissa to resolve her 'issues' sooner, before you make a long term comittment.
A lot of people on this board can help, which you obviously already know or you wouldn't have posted. Do keep taking advantage of this wealth of experience.
AlanF
25
1975 - After 26 years isn't it time to move on?
by digderidoo in
1. jw
2. friends
i'm relatively new on this site...but one subject i've noticed that seems to create alot of interest is that of 1975.. our family became witnesses it 1983 so i wasn't around at the time.

forgive me if i do not understand why many were so angry with the wts at the time.. i understand the point that the society blamed individual witnesses and didn't take any responsibility themselves.

i can see how witnesses got angry over that.. but, what i do not understand is why many still research into what the society said, or didn't say, or insinuated.
AlanF

Hi Didgeridoo,
I'm glad that your interest in the 1975 question was academic rather than defensive. I'm also glad that you understand why many ex-JWs keep exposing the Watchtower -- they have a deep interest in the welfare of others and don't want to see 'sheep' continue to be deceived, or like the many 'silentlambs' out there, abused.
AlanF
25
1975 - After 26 years isn't it time to move on?
by digderidoo in
1. jw
2. friends
i'm relatively new on this site...but one subject i've noticed that seems to create alot of interest is that of 1975.. our family became witnesses it 1983 so i wasn't around at the time.

forgive me if i do not understand why many were so angry with the wts at the time.. i understand the point that the society blamed individual witnesses and didn't take any responsibility themselves.

i can see how witnesses got angry over that.. but, what i do not understand is why many still research into what the society said, or didn't say, or insinuated.
AlanF

Excellent comments so far!
To digderidoo:
Many people were angry about the 1975 fiasco, but a lot of us were simply disappointed at the time. After we systematically looked into just what the Society had said, and many had left the JW organization, some anger set in. The anger and disappointment were a result of several things: disappointment that 'the end' had not come, irritation that those 'speakers for God' had encouraged us to believe a false thing, anger that they ultimately blamed their failure on everyone who they deceived.
Today most JWs deny that the Society did anything wrong. They claim that it was only a few overly enthusiastic people who blew what the Society said out of all proportion to what they meant. These people are either lying to themselves, or have been lied to by other JWs.
Only by researchers' making sure that solid proof from the Society's own publications is freely available will honest JWs be able to see the truth for themseves. JWs and the Society certainly aren't going to do it, and they've already demonstrated that they usually lie about it.
What the 1975 fiasco did was to demonstrate conclusively that Jehovah's Witness leaders -- the Governing Body -- are not what they claim. They do not get any information from God, except perhaps in the same way that every other Christian religion claims to -- by reading the Bible. They do not speak for God, although they claim to speak in God's name and teach that only those who cling to their organization will survive Armageddon. Therefore they are false prophets, because not only are they false teachers, but they falsely claim to speak for God.
Since so many have been completely deceived by these false teachers, it's only right that people be provided with information that shows what the false teachers really are -- people to be ignored.
Many peoples' lives were negatively affected by the 1975 nonsense. Some people were under a lot of pressure to do well in "God's organization" and they hoped strongly that 1975 would bring an end to their striving so strongly for "God". When the false prophecy fell apart, they did too. Others were affected negatively by not doing what they should have in terms of getting an education and becoming much less able to properly support their future families. Others threw away opportunities that left them in difficulty later down the road.
It took me about nine years to get back on track careerwise. I finished high school in 1969 and, following the Society's instructions and thinking that it was extremely likely that Armageddon would come before 1975, I threw away a scholarship and other money available for college. I tried pioneering but found I hated it, then worked at various garbage jobs (the congregation I was in was extremely unhelpful in helping me find a decent job) until I got a job as a bank teller. Of course, bank tellers are extremely poorly paid and the work was extremely uninteresting for me. I got married in 1975. When 1975 passed without incident, I gradually grew restless with the failed expectations, and in 1978 I decided to go to college. I went to a community college for a year, did very well, then went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, from which I graduated in 1982 with a Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. Then I went to work for an electronics company in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S., and in another three years got my Master's degree in EE. I went on to take Ph.D. level courses but never got that degree. Going to college was the best thing that ever happened to me. Today I enjoy my work (I'm designing radio microchips for cell phones) and I keep learning new and interesting things continually and I make pretty good money. I'd have none of that if I had kept following the Society's nonsensical teachings.
People deserve far more than the crap that they get by following the Watchtower's advice. Sure, some people have their lives straightened out in certain ways, but others have their lives greatly damaged. All people deserve to know the truth about "the Truth", and since most JWs and the Society won't tell them, others have decided to do so.
To illustrate how JWs are capable of deceiving people, there is a book out by a JW named Greg Stafford, called Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. Stafford has been a loyal JW and so he dedicated one chapter to defending the Society concerning the 1975 fiasco. Bright as Stafford is, he was completely taken in by other JWs (he became a JW around 1990, I believe) and tried to use a few cautionary statements in some WTS literature to prove that the Society hadn't really predicted anything about 1975. When nonsense like Stafford's defense filters through the JW community, it only reinforces their self-deception. Why should such lies be left unchallenged? Is it ethical to refrain from telling the truth to people who deserve it?
I suggest that you take to heart all the good points posters have made. Don't let the Orwellian thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses convince you that the truth is false and that falsehood is true. If you forget about 1975, you or your loved ones are liable to be burned by the Society's latest round of building false expectations.
I'll leave you with a scriptural thought. Watchtower leaders teach Jehovah's Witnesses to come to people's homes on the basis of Jehovah's and Jesus's names. Several times they have misled people by their false predictions and false suggestions of the date of Armageddon (1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, the early 1940s, the early 1950s, 1975, 1984, 1994, 2000). They have taught people in God's name that the due time for Armageddon is imminent. Note what Luke 21:8 says:
He said:"Look out that you are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, 'I am he,' and, 'The due time has approached.' Do not go after them."
AlanF
28
New one
by Ingrid in
1. jw
2. friends
hello i'm ingrid from sweeden.

i'm new ere.

is this a witnesses of jehowa site or an apostate site?.
AlanF

Heelo Ingrid,
Im Alan from the YooEssAye. This a JW/apostate city. It true not many goink to meetin alway and havink good time and much fun playink mit Internet. Doink feeld service suk.
My eenglis better your but not muck. I study eenlis for the long time. I leern fredhall.
Im 25 cm long. Im brown wit blue eyes. But Im not dum blond. I study make one stone cirkit in university.
Im afraid elders they see everytink wot I do.
Im glad you in or near capital Stockholm. That make it eazy find you. Pleese you geevink me you phon number.
Im glad you post. We leern muck eech oder. Iron shapen iron, rite?
AlanF
30
1975 New Info
by AlanF in
1. jw
2. friends
it means that within relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the "time of the end.".

the lead article "the finest work on earth" in the october 1967 km (p. 1) continued the theme of preaching with a sense of urgency:.

the sense of urgency was effective in getting some students to make a decision.
AlanF

To dmouse:
: I was interested in the comment about how close the end was believed to be and studies were to be TERMINATED (no…they can’t mean…) if the householder showed no promise of becoming a JW after 6 months.
Yes, they meant what they said. I didn’t like it much at the time, since “bible studies” were so hard to come by. I also thought it was a stupid way to deal with people – a “one size fits all” sort of preaching style. Somewhere around 1971 I happened to read a short brochure that criticized JWs (I think it was from Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God). It talked about the six-month program and said that the WTS was producing “assembly line Christians”. That stung my conscience badly because I knew the criticism was dead on.
: How times change! The latest KM (Britain April 2001) insert – Be intensely occupied with your ministry – in paragraph 5 states:
: “If a person is making progress and has studied the require brochure and the knowledge book, the bible study may be continued in a second book…”
: So, no time limit, a brochure and TWO books.
Well, that represents just another change in policy. Around 1975 the six-month program was quietly dropped. In 1995 the Knowledge book was released. They had the stupidity to launch a new, limited program of Bible study, which meant that if after 19 weeks of study (one chapter per week) the student wasn’t properly “coming along to maturity”, the study probably should be dropped. It was 1968 all over again. These people just don’t learn from their mistakes.
: So, does this mean that times are not as urgent as they used to be? Or are they just desperate to get any increase they can, even if it takes years?
Probably both, but I think that the 19-week program just died a natural death, since it just isn’t natural for a Christian to set a time limit on teaching others about his beliefs. I’m sure that a lot of JWs were just as uncomfortable with dropping studies as I was way back when.
AlanF
30
1975 New Info
by AlanF in
1. jw
2. friends
it means that within relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the "time of the end.".

the lead article "the finest work on earth" in the october 1967 km (p. 1) continued the theme of preaching with a sense of urgency:.

the sense of urgency was effective in getting some students to make a decision.
AlanF

Thank you everyone for your comments!
To Gozz:
You're right, most JWs are dishonest about the 1975 fiasco. I believe it was in a 1994 or 1995 WT article, the Society itself encouraged this dishonesty by giving JWs an excuse -- "it was only a few overly enthusiastic ones who got off on 1975 and created all the problems." And to a certain extent this is true. Trouble is, these "enthusiastic ones" were Nathan Knorr, and most especially, Freddie Franz. While some of the lower echelon leaders held back, most Bethelites caught the enthusiasm. Many who were Bethelites back in the early 1970s remember how often and strongly Knorr or Franz would talk about 1975 at the Bethel breakfasts. And remember, Knorr and Franz, in a very real sense were "the Society" just as up until 1916 Russell for all practical purposes was the Society. Nothing happened or failed to happen without their approval, and anyone -- anyone -- who bucked their favorite ideas was quickly booted out of Bethel.
Certain ex-Bethelites have told me that when Freddie published the book that started it all in 1966, Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God, he had no particular intention of generating a '1975 movement'. But when he saw the reaction of some of the rank & file JWs to what the said was more than just a possibility, he began to run with it. He got Knorr enthusiastic and the rest was history.
I remember hearing both of them give public talks at the New York district conventions. Both were extremely convincing that major things were definitely going to happen in 1975. I remember Knorr's last major public talk, at Aquaduct Race Track in New York. It was in August of 1975, just after I got married. He said that it was disappointing that nothing had happened by then, but by golly there were more than four more months left in the year! He alluded to what happened in the earlier part of 1914, when everything seemed quiet and then, bang! World War I started unexpectedly in August. The same thing could happen in the remaining months of 1975, Knorr said. I also remember the talk that Fred Franz gave earlier in 1975, where he went out of his way to say that "anything can happen!" I also remember the talk Franz gave in 1976, where he blamed the JW community for nothing happening -- "You expected it an so nothing happened." Stupid JWs; where do they get off expecting that what the Society says will happen will happen? During that talk Franz shocked the audience by reminding them that this wasn't much different from what happened with Rutherford's failed prediction of Armageddon in 1925. "Rutherford honestly admitted his mistake: `I made an ass of myself', he said." Unfortunately Franz and Knorr and their cohorts never made a public admission of having made asses of themselves. And now the current JW leaders are trying to make the JW community forget all of it.
To Tina:
You ought to write down some of your recollections about 1975. I'm thinking of collecting a bunch of these and putting them into a nice form, along with other material about 1975.
To patio34:
Yes, I well remember the many talks about dealing with persecution and such. Take a look at the "year texts" for the early 1970s:
1974: "Although the fig tree itself may not blossom, ... I will exult in Jehovah himself." -- Hab. 3:17, 18.
1975: "I will say to Jehovah: `You are my refuge and my stronghold' " -- Ps. 91:2
If that ain't "sayin' without sayin'", I don't know what is.
To Tallyman:
Great lapel badge! It brings back memories. "Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970s?" indeed! Not the Witnesses, that's for sure.
I think the location should have been "Chagrin Rises".
Anyone who wants to see a fairly comprehensive collection of Watchtower quotes on 1975 and its other failed dates should look at the articles "Notes on False Prophets" and "The WTS and the End of the World" here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm . I put these articles together around 1993, collecting together ideas and references from Ray Franz's books and many other places. I got a lot of material by reading Russell's books and the old Watchtower Reprints, and later, some of the 1920s Watchtowers.
AlanF
30
1975 New Info
by AlanF in
1. jw
2. friends
it means that within relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the "time of the end.".

the lead article "the finest work on earth" in the october 1967 km (p. 1) continued the theme of preaching with a sense of urgency:.

the sense of urgency was effective in getting some students to make a decision.
AlanF

It's interesting to note how Jehovah's Witnesses today often minimize what the Watchtower Society said about 1975 in the years before that date. The Society published a number of cautionary notes warning JWs about being too specific about the date, but they also published a good deal of material encouraging people to look forward to the date.
Here are set forth some published statements that show how strongly some of the Society's writers promoted the 1975 date. Some statements were definite that 1975 would bring Armageddon.
It all started with the release of the book Life Everlasting--In Freedom of the Sons of God in the summer of 1966. The chronological table it contained, which showed the end of 6,000 years of human history in 1975, along with explanatory comments that the date might very well see the beginning of Christ's millennial rule, created a sense of urgency among Jehovah's Witnesses that was reflected in subsequent Society publications, including and especially in Kingdom Ministry articles. For example, the October 1966 KM (for the U.S.) stated in the "Dear Publishers" letter (p. 1):
All of us who attended one of the "God's Sons of Liberty" District Assemblies this past summer were given much to think about, weren't we? The talks and the dramas made us feel the urgency of the times and the need of walking circumspectly before Jehovah.
This KM encouraged the placing of the special October 8, 1966 issue of Awake!, which considered the topic "Why Does God Permit Wickedness?" This issue contained the article "How Much Longer Will It Be?" in answer to the question "when will God bring an end to wickedness?" Under the subheading "6,000 Years Completed in 1975," it reasoned that the millennium would be the last 1000 years of a 7000-year rest day of God. On pages 19-20 it said:
The Bible shows that when God began to shape the earth for human habitation, he worked for six "days," or time periods. From the indications in God's Word, each was apparently 7,000 years in length. Then Genesis 2:22 states, Jehovah "proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made." This seventh day, God's rest day, has progressed nearly 6,000 years, and there is still the 1,000-year reign of Christ to go before its end. (Rev. 20:3, 7) This seventh 1,000-year period of human existence could well be likened to a great sabbath day, pictured by the sabbath day God commanded ancient Israel to keep after working for six days. (Ex. 20:8-10; 2 Pet. 3:8) After six thousand years of toil and bondage to sin, sickness, death and Satan, mankind is due to enjoy a rest and is in dire need of a rest. (Heb. 4:1-11) Hence, the fact that we are nearing the end of the first 6,000 years of man's existence is of great significance.
Does God's rest day parallel the time man has been on earth since his creation? Apparently so. From the most reliable investigations of Bible chronology, harmonizing with many accepted dates of secular history, we find that Adam was created in the autumn of the year 4026 B.C.E. Sometime in that year Eve could well have been created, directly after which God's rest day commenced. In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of God's rest day come to an end? The year 1975. This is worthy of notice, particularly in view of the fact that the "last days" began in 1914, and that the physical facts of our day in fulfillment of prophecy mark this as the last generation of this wicked world. So we can expect the immediate future to be filled with thrilling events for those who rest their faith in God and his promises. It means that within relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the "time of the end."
Continuing the theme of urgency, the December 1966 KM said (p. 4): "Never have we felt the nearness of Armageddon and the urgency of our work as we do now."
The February 1967 KM contained an insert with the sub-article "Serving Jehovah in the Time Remaining" (pp. 4-5). It commented on the number of "vacation pioneers" and asked, "what motivated them to vacation pioneer?" The answer included these comments:
Many of them had in mind Jesus' electrifying words: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." Our very generation is seeing the sign marking Jesus' second presence. Truly, "the time left is reduced." (Matt. 24:34; 1 Cor. 7:29) For this reason many of your brothers, young and old, appreciated the importance of serving God in the time remaining. Having Scriptural responsibilities that prevented them from sharing in the ministry as regular pioneers, missionaries or members of Bethel families, they demonstrated their appreciation of the shortness of the time remaining by vacation pioneering.
The lead article "All the More So" in the July 1967 KM (p. 1) said:
Are you glad that you have remained faithful until now? Certainly! ... This being true, what should be our attitude toward meeting together in the days ahead as the end of the old system draws near and the outside pressures increase? The apostle Paul provides the answer in the verses that support our theme for the month of July. Read carefully Hebrews 10:23-25 and note Paul's encouragement to meet together and build one another up and to do this all the more so as we "behold the day drawing near." Obviously, then, we will need to give even more attention to supporting God's house in the time ahead.
The lead article "The Finest Work on Earth" in the October 1967 KM (p. 1) continued the theme of preaching with a sense of urgency:
It is a real pleasure to have a part in the finest work done on earth today, the work Jehovah is asking us to do in these "last days," isn't it? All of us appreciate that there is little time left for this present system of things. In the remaining time it is our desire to share in the preaching work as fully as possible so as to help many more honest-hearted persons to escape from Babylon the Great.
The lead article "Help Wanted" in the December 1967 KM (p. 1) said:
"For what?" you may ask. To do the Kingdom preaching work. The remaining time is short, and, as Jesus put it, "the good news has to be preached first," before the old system comes to its end. (Mark 13:10) True, there are more than 300,000 helpers in the field in this country, but we know you will agree that more are needed to get the job done thoroughly.
The March 1968 KM contained an insert titled "An Opportunity to Increase Your Happiness" (pp. 3-6) that encouraged "vacation pioneering" in April. It contained some statements that were electrifying to many of the friends:
Since we have dedicated ourselves to Jehovah, we want to do his will to the fullest extent possible. Making some special effort to do more than the usual helps us live up to our dedication. In view of the short period of time left, we want to do this as often as circumstances permit. Just think, brothers, there are only about ninety months left before 6,000 years of man's existence on earth is completed. Do you remember what we learned at the assemblies last summer? The majority of people living today will probably be alive when Armageddon breaks out, and there are no resurrection hopes for those who are destroyed then. So, now more than ever, it is vital not to ignore that spirit of wanting to do more.
It is obvious that the Society was now strongly encouraging the friends to believe that Christ would begin his millennial rule very soon, likely by about the beginning of October 1975. The "Dear Publishers" letter in the June 1968 KM continued this theme:
Yes, Jehovah has surely filled our mouths with song, and as we move on into June's activities, expressing gratitude in a practical manner, we shall, in effect, be sharing in a victory procession--the joyful march toward mankind's grand millennium of deliverance!
Among the strongest of encouragements about the urgency of 1975 was the article "Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?" in the August 15, 1968 Watchtower. Note that the question was not, "Are You Looking Forward..." but "Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?" This is a clear indication that the Society told JWs that they ought to have been looking forward to 1975. Many JWs fully took this signal to heart.
The Society published many other statements about what 1975 was likely to bring. Some cautioned JWs not to be dogmatic about the date, but some were themselves dogmatic. Following are some statements that more or less threw caution to the wind.
The October 8, 1968 Awake! was a special issue on the topic "Is It Later Than You Think?" It contained the article "What Will the 1970's Bring?", which on page 14, under the subtitle "When Do 6,000 Years End?", said: "According to reliable Bible chronology Adam and Eve were created in 4026 B.C.E." Note how this bolded statement is definite, in contrast to a similar bolded statement in the above-quoted paragraph from the October 8, 1966 Awake!. Nevertheless, the article went on to say some cautionary words: "Does this mean that the above evidence positively points to 1975 as the time for the complete end of this system of things? Since the Bible does not specifically state this, no man can say. However, of this we can be sure: The 1970's will certainly see the most critical times mankind has yet known." What message is the reader expected to get from these contradictory statements? Let the reader use discernment.
The May 1, 1968 Watchtower was quite definite about when Adam and Eve were created. Under the subtitle "The Seventh Day" (p. 271) the study question for paragraph 4 asked, "When were Adam and Eve created?" Paragraphs 4 through 6 answered and said:
... Thus, Adam's naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation. Since it was also Jehovah's purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God's rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed.
Therefore, God's seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God's seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve's creation in 4026 B.C.E.
The seventh day of the Jewish week, the sabbath, would well picture the final 1,000-year reign of God's kingdom under Christ when mankind would be uplifted from 6,000 years of sin and death. (Rev. 20:6) Hence, when Christians note from God's timetable the approaching end of 6,000 years of human history, it fills them with anticipation. Particularly is this true because the great sign of the "last days" has been in the course of fulfillment since the beginning of the "time of the end" in 1914.
The 1969 edition of Aid to Bible Understanding (the equivalent of the Insight volumes) indicated that Adam and Eve were created in the same year. On page 333, under the subject "Chronology," it said that the time from Adam's creation to the birth of Seth was 130 years, and on page 538, under the subject "Eve," it said that at the age of 130 Eve gave birth to Seth.
The 1969 booklet The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years was also definite about 1975. On pages 25-26 it said:
More recently earnest researchers of the Holy Bible have made a recheck of its chronology. According to their calculations the six millenniums of mankind's life on earth would end in the mid-seventies. Thus the seventh millennium from man's creation by Jehovah God would begin within less than ten years...
In order for the Lord Jesus Christ to be "Lord even of the sabbath day," his thousand-year reign would have to be the seventh in a series of thousand-year periods or millenniums.
Note the language: for Jesus to be Lord of the sabbath, his Millennial reign would have to be (not "it might be") the seventh in a series. This is a definite statement.
At the summer district conventions in 1968 the Society instituted a new six-month bible study program that was to be based on the new "Truth" book -- The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life -- a.k.a., "the blue bombshell". This program was a direct result of acting on the belief that the times were particularly urgent. The September 1968 Kingdom Ministry (p. 8) gave details of the new program in the article "A New Outlook on Bible Studies" in the "Presenting the Good News" section:
Free home Bible studies are a hallmark of Jehovah's witnesses the world around. How helpful this work has been in aiding hundreds of thousands of persons to come to an accurate knowledge of the truth and to take their stand on Jehovah's side! But now time is running short for this old system of things and we want to help as many sheeplike ones as we can to learn the truth and act on it while there is still time.
So we have a new approach to use in the Bible-study work. Yes, it is still free of charge. But, as suggested at the "Good News for All Nations" district assemblies this summer, we will seek to help as many people as possible through a six-month Bible-study program.
To accomplish this, endeavor to hold your studies each week. If an unavoidable situation arises and you personally have to miss a study, perhaps another publisher with whom the householder is acquainted can conduct the study that week. Progress is directly related to the regularity of the study. Have in mind helping them learn enough of the truth so that they can act on it within six months...
At all times keep before interested ones the importance of beginning to associate with Jehovah's people at the meetings. If, at the end of six months of intensive study and conscientious efforts to get them to meetings, they are not yet associating with the congregation, then it may be best to use your time to study with someone else who really wants to learn the truth and make progress. Make it your goal to present the good news on Bible studies in such a way that interested ones will act within six months!
Many JWs were not happy about this new arrangement, because it was very hard to get Bible students under the best of circumstances. For those wanting to qualify to pioneer, it was especially difficult because one of the qualifications was holding several regular Bible studies, so pioneer-wannabes needed to hold on to every student they had. Prior to this time it was not unusual for a Bible student to continue for two to five years before making a decision.
During these years the Society constantly stressed the urgency of the times. The lead article "Making Known an Urgent Message" in the October 1968 KM plugged the above-quoted October 8 special Awake! on "Is It Later Than You Think?":
A few weeks ago you heard a letter read to your congregation about the October 8 special issue of Awake! But by now you no doubt have your own copy, and you have seen for yourself what it contains. Isn't it fine? How appropriate this material is for our magazine that bears the title "Awake!" With a powerful array of facts, persuasive argument and visual aids it drives home the point that we really are living in the "last days." Kindly but firmly it emphasizes the fact that the time left is very short and that, if a person wants to serve God and survive into his righteous new system, he must take the necessary steps now.
The November 1968 KM again emphasized the urgency of the new bible study program, and made it clear that publishers were to discontinue studies that were unproductive after six months. This was a two-pronged method that got publishers to be more enthusiastic door-to-door preachers, and forced bible students to really think about what they were learning. The article "In the Short Time Remaining" in the "Presenting the Good News" section (p. 8) gave suggestions on presenting the Truth book:
How often does your congregation cover its territory? Do you reach every home at least three times a year? Is it a thorough coverage each time, getting each not-at-home and speaking to different occupants in the house? In view of the shortness of the remaining time, it makes one stop and think, doesn't it?
Also, after you have found interested persons and started home Bible studies with them, think how long it takes to teach them the truth, bring them along to dedication and baptism, train them in the field ministry and assist them to progress to maturity! Yes, we all do well to think seriously about having a good share now in the door-to-door work, not postponing it until some later time.--Mark 13:10.
There are other reasons for sharing fully in the door-to-door work. With the improved method of conducting home Bible studies, many students will be making a decision much sooner than has been done in the past. Some will show the necessary initiative and will act. They will progress toward maturity much faster and the study can be stopped sooner. Others will not act on the knowledge they take in and we will discontinue the study. Thus it will not be a matter of conducting a study for years as some have done in the past but there will be a concluding of studies and a need to start new studies. It will require regular and effective door-to-door work in order for these new studies to be started. It will be good to be conducting more than one study at a time so that we will be regular in this feature of the work and thus will always be teaching someone the truth if one of our studies is discontinued.
The Society published the pointed article "Have You Been Studying for Six Months?" in the May 15, 1969 Watchtower (pp. 309-12). It was aimed at new bible students and gave publishers information helpful to get their students to make a decision. Again the idea was that a decision was necessary because of the urgency of the times. The article said:
ARE you among the over one million persons who are at present being helped by Jehovah's witnesses to learn what the Holy Bible teaches? If you are, likely you are using the Bible-study aid The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life. Undoubtedly it has helped you to learn many wonderful things about God and his will for mankind.
Those of you who have been studying the Bible for about six months should by now be in position to decide whether you are going to follow through on what you have learned. Do you really want to become a dedicated and baptized worshiper of Jehovah God and do you want to share with others the life-giving truths from God's Word? ...
DECISION NOW IS VITAL
The urgency of the times in which we are living requires that we do all we can to bring our lives into harmony with God's will. From what you have learned you know why this system of things is rapidly deteriorating before our eyes. You know the meaning of the unrest and increased violence in all the earth. All this shows that we have approached the very brink of the earth-cleansing destruction of which Jesus and the Bible writers prophesied!
This is the most serious time in human history, and you are living in this time of change. "The world is passing away," the Bible says, but those who do 'the will of God will remain forever.' (1 John 2:17) Your studying the Bible is to equip you to learn that will of God so you can do it. Yes, there is a purpose behind this study; there is a future attached to it...
In view of the short time left in which to do their work, Jehovah's witnesses do not continue to study the Bible with any who fail to respond to its urgent message within six months. The nearness of this system's end compels them to use their time in the most effective way possible. So they feel obligated to spend their time calling on someone else who might respond by attending meetings at the Kingdom Hall and by speaking to others about the Bible truths learned. Thus it may be that if you have not as yet responded by even becoming a regular attender at some of the congregation meetings, the one who is studying the Bible with you may cancel that study arrangement in order to give his time to someone else. This arrangement is not meant to be harsh, but the urgency of the times in which we live demands it. There are millions of persons who need spiritual help and God's servants want to reach all they possibly can.
We, therefore, urge you to consider very carefully your position. You have embarked on a course of study that has opened up to you the magnificent opportunity of life forever in eternal happiness. (John 17:3) If you love God and appreciate his provision for eternal life, do not turn your back on it. Realize that God has shown great consideration for you by making it possible for someone to come to your home to help you learn His will and purposes. Respond to his divine love by deciding now to do his will, along with the entire association of those who are serving God "with spirit and truth."-John 4:23, 24.
The May 1969 KM followed this up with the article "Have You Studied with Them for Six Months?" (p. 3). It instructed publishers who had been studying the Truth book with new ones for more than six months to evaluate how the student was doing. After considering a few negative specifics, it asked whether the student fit them and said:
If so, the fact that the book has not been completed is not a sound reason for spending more than six months with such a person who lacks appreciation. It might be better to go to chapter fourteen, if this has not yet been studied; study it together and then terminate the study if the householder is not taking any positive action to associate regularly with the congregation... Has the student begun to associate with the local congregation in a meaningful way? ... Has the householder demonstrated that he is taking the truth to heart and has set his mind on serving Jehovah? How? If he formerly had images around the house, have these been removed? ...If positive action is not being taken by the householder, it is likely that the study should not be continued... If you are planning to discontinue a particular study, it might be well to spend one or two sudy periods with the student having a heart-to-heart discussion about the things that have been learned and their significance and the urgency of the times, rather than going ahead with a regular study of additional material... there is an urgency about our work and we have a responsibility before God to use our time to aid persons who truly want to serve him... We appreciate the urgency of the work we are doing. When individuals show by their actions that they want to do Jehovah's will, we will continue to aid them. Where substantial progress is not seen, then, rather than continuing the study, we do well to spend that time each week trying to find and help someone who is sincerely interested in doing something about the truth.
In the March 1969 KM insert (p. 6) the Society urged new ones to begin sharing in field service:
Remember that Jehovah's organization in heaven and on earth backs up those who serve Jehovah by proclaiming the "good news." (Rev. 14:6, 7) We recognize, as you do, that we are deep into the "time of the end." There is little time left for this old system of things.
The sense of urgency was effective in getting some students to make a decision. The June 1, 1969 Watchtower (p. 347) said:
Even folks who studied the Bible with the Witnesses for years without acting on what they learned are now taking a decisive stand to serve Jehovah. One family in the southern United States who had studied with the Witnesses for three years had done very little about what they had learned. But when they were told about the new six-month Bible-study arrangement, they were visibly touched. Now for the first time a real sense of urgency struck them. They could not bear the thought of having all connections with Jehovah's people severed. So they sent a letter of withdrawal to the Baptist church because they knew that they were not being taught the Bible's truth there. They began attending all the Bible meetings of Jehovah's witnesses and sharing with others the things they learned.
The lead article "Time Left Is Reduced" in the October 1969 KM again continued the sense of urgency (p. 1):
Time is passing by quickly, isn't it? Just think, each passing day draws us one day closer to the end of this wicked system of things and one day closer to the time when the peace of a thousand years will begin.
The letter from the Brooklyn Branch Office, "Dear Kingdom Publishers", in the December 1969 KM said (p. 1):
We are very thankful to Jehovah that he is giving such increases and gathering so many sheeplike persons in these "last days." ... We hope there will be a large number of new publishers joining with us in the service during December and on into 1970. Indeed, we have good reasons to hold our heads up high as we see our deliverance drawing near.
Ironically, the lead article "Faith Builders at Work" in the December 1969 KM said:
If ever there was a need for faith building it is now. It makes one sorry to see so many people, young and old, with no faith in God and no hope for the future. Expectations built up by the false promises of secular and religious leaders have been postponed so many times that the hearts of the people in general are sick. But as the apostle Paul explained, "faith is not a possession of all people." It is, though, of Jehovah's Christian witnesses. We have confidence in the sure promises of the Word of God.--2 Thess. 3:2.
The 1970 Yearbook (p. 34) stressed the urgency of the times:
Jehovah's witnesses feel the urgency of getting this work done under Jehovah God's guidance. They feel the time is near at hand for the end of this wicked system of things.
The "Question Box" in the February 1970 KM (p. 4) asked the question, "How should we go about terminating unfruitful Bible studies?" and answered:
This is a question that we ought to consider if any of our present studies have been in progress for approximately six months. Are they coming to the congregation meetings as yet, and are they beginning to make their lives over in harmony with what they have learned from God's Word? If so, we want to continue to help them. But, if not, it may be that we could accomplish more good with our time by using it to witness to others.
If you realize that you should terminate a particular study, discuss it with the householder in a kindly way. Let him know that you have counted it a privilege to share with him what the Bible says, but remind him that it is a six-month free study course that we offer. Now it is up to him to decide what he will do about what he has learned and to take the initiative to follow through.-Josh. 24:14, 15.
Emphasize the urgency of the times and explain that we want to give others the same opportunity to learn the truth and take their stand on Jehovah's side.-Zeph. 2:3.
Explain to the householder that you will be available and that if he wants to get in touch with you you will be glad to help him spiritually. Encourage him to think seriously about the course he should take in order to please Jehovah and to pray about it. Urge him to come to the meetings, and let him know that if he really decides to serve Jehovah and regularly associates with the congregation, you will be glad to resume the study, using more advanced material to help him progress to maturity.
The March 1970 KM reported on how well publishers were doing in dropping unproductive bible students. The article "Become `Intensely Occupied with the Word'" in the "Presenting the Good News" section said (p. 4):
A little over a year ago we were introduced to the six-month home Bible-study program. We immediately grasped that this would be an additional effective method to help get the work done in the short time remaining.
Now reports from the field show that Bible studies are being discontinued as publishers realize that the student is not making progress. This is entirely proper. There is no reason to spend our time with those who obviously are not really interested in doing something about the truths they are learning. Some publishers still ask, "How can I know whether to discontinue the study when they appear to be interested and still are glad to have me come?" The answer is that we discontinue studies when it is apparent that there is not the appreciation for the truth that there should be. There might be interest in continuing to take in knowledge. But is there appreciation for the knowledge already taken in? Appreciation for Jehovah and the truth is demonstrated by deeds...
Apparently the matter is being taken seriously by the brothers, because circuit servant reports show that many publishers unhesitatingly discontinue studies when the time comes to do so.
In view of the above information from various Society publications -- from The Watchtower, Awake!, Kingdom Ministry, Yearbooks and from various books and booklets that have not been quoted here -- it does no good for any of Jehovah's Witnesses to try to say that the Society never encouraged belief that 1975 would bring Armageddon. It is a documented fact that they did.
The Society itself candidly acknowledged some responsibility for the hopes raised by the 1975 expectation. The 1980 Yearbook, on pages 30-31, mentioned a talk given at the 1979 District Conventions, by the title of "Choosing the Best Way of Life." The talk "acknowledged the Society's responsibility for some of the disappointment a number felt regarding 1975." What did this talk say?

The March 15, 1980 Watchtower article "Choosing the Best Way of Life" contains, on pages 17-18, a partial text of the talk. It said:
In modern times such eagerness, commendable in itself, has led to attempts at setting dates for the desired liberation from the suffering and troubles that are the lot of persons throughout the earth. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting-in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man's existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.
In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: "If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises." In saying "anyone," The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah's Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.
In this case the "wrong premises" were entirely given to the community of Jehovah's Witnesses by the Society itself, in particular by "persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date."
Jehovah's Witnesses are encouraged by the Watchtower Society not to be bothered by the various false predictions it has made. Over the years a number of excuses and minimizations have been published. Note what the above-mentioned 1980 Watchtower went on to say:
Nevertheless, there is no reason for us to be shaken in faith in God's promises. Rather, as a consequence, we are all moved to make a closer examination of the Scriptures regarding this matter of a day of judgment. In doing so, we find that the important thing is not the date. What is important is our keeping ever in mind that there is such a day -- and it is getting closer and it will require an accounting on the part of all of us. Peter said that Christians should rightly be "awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah." (2 Pet. 3:12) It is not a certain date ahead; it is day-to-day living on the part of the Christian that is important. He must not live a single day without having in mind that he is under Jehovah's loving care and direction and must submit himself thereto, keeping also in mind that he must account for his acts.
In conclusion I will again point out the irony in what the above-quoted December 1969 KM said:
Expectations built up by the false promises of secular and religious leaders have been postponed so many times that the hearts of the people in general are sick.
The October 8, 1968 Awake! (p. 23) also ironically spoke about the Society's contention that the Bible indicates we are living in the last days. It emphasized that those who falsely predicted the end of the world were false prophets:
Still some persons may say: "How can you be sure? Maybe it is later than many people think. But maybe it is not as late as some persons claim. People have been mistaken about these prophecies before.".... True, there have been those in times past who predicted an "end to the world," even announcing a specific date.... Yet, nothing happened. The "end" did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them.
With regard to misrepresentations, and particularly those of the Bible, the 1974 book Is This Life All There Is? said (p. 46), without regard for the motives of the misrepresenter:
Knowing these things, what will you do? It is obvious that the true God, who is himself "the God of truth" and who hates lies, will not look with favor on persons who cling to organizations that teach falsehood. (Psalm 31:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Revelation 21:8) And, really, would you want to be even associated with a religion that had not been honest with you?
So, all you JW defenders, what will you do?
AlanF
93
What did you do?
by StiLLinTruth in
1. jw
2. friends
to all those who have in some way left the organization (be it disfellowshipping, disassociating, dis-whatever):.

come now, i know the amount of people who "realized that wt doctrine was in serious error" and politely handed in their letter of resignation has to be very small.

the level of bitterness and hostility towards the closest-to-what's-biblical organization has to develop some other way.. what did you do?
AlanF

Well there, StiLLinTruth, I thought I'd seen it all but you really take the cake.
You've read a number of "apostate" websites and yet still came into "the truth"? I think you're lying. More precisely, I think you're deceiving yourself, so it's not quite lying.
Maybe you glanced at a few such websites, but you can't possibly have carefully read and understood what you read. If you're up to it, I'll give you a few challenges and we can let readers see what you do with the information. I predict that if you accept a challenge, your response will be along the lines of, "It doesn't matter if the Watchtower Society lies. The leaders are still God's chosen." That will prove that you've got the cult mentality.
You've already proved you have the cult mentality. Concerning Raymond Franz's Crisis of Conscience you told Francoise: "... it's a testimony of a disappointed old dude who thought he should run ahead instead of waiting for the holy spirit to fix things he THOUGHT was wrong. Strange how others have waited, and are now old and happy and still with us." That's among the most asinine things I've ever read.
First, Franz was not an "old dude" -- he was 59 years old when he was booted out of the Watchtower organization. For you to say that shows that you're callow and infantile, having to stoop to deriding someone merely because of age. What, then, should you say about the current Governing Body members who are pushing 90 and have demonstrated themselves to have time and again "run ahead" of God's Word?
Second, Franz's disappointment came not simply because he couldn't get things done his own way, as you imply he wanted. The disappointment came from gradually realizing that some of his fellows were just plain liars, and were no more Christians than they were rocket scientists.
Third, you're assuming that holy spirit has anything at all to do with running the Watchtower organization, which if true means that God is braindead. Since God is not braindead, it follows that JW leaders are deceiving themselves and those who, like you, blindly follow them.
Fourth, Franz never tried to "run ahead" in any sense that JW leaders can point out. He worked entirely within the system, doing exactly what other GB members did all the time. If you disagree, then tell us, please, in what way did Franz "run ahead", and who did he "run ahead" of?
Fifth, it's true that a lot of others have "waited" and are more or less happy. But for a large percentage, all that "waiting" means is that they were in Bethel or the JW organization so long that they couldn't afford to leave, since if they did they'd essentially be out on the street. So it's no great thing to have "waited". Furthermore, a large fraction of older Bethelites are extremely unhappy with their lot in life, and many wish that they never had gone there. That's why there's such a high incidence of heavy drinking, and even out and out alcoholism among long time Bethelites. If you don't know that, then that simply proves your extreme naivete. Try to talk to some of the Bethel housekeeping women and you'll get quite an earful. A related point is how so many women who go to Bethel end up with "chronic fatigue syndrome" or some such ailment, which clears up nicely after they leave Bethel and start a normal life. These type of syndromes are common among JWs. If you don't know that, then you're naive.
In sum, your statements about Franz's experience prove that you did not read his book with understanding.
As for why many left, like me they simply got tired of being lied to and being told things that were untrue, or being told things that were almost but not quite true. A real representative of God does not lie. The Watchtower Society, both corporately and through many of its individual representatives, does lie. Therefore JW leaders cannot be speaking for God, which is their fundamental claim to fame. Why you would want to associate with people who lie to you is beyond me. Most likely you've fallen for the pretty picture they paint of the future, and that has overridden your common sense. Likely you want to have a pet lion in the New World.
You'll likely claim that JW leaders don't lie. Are you up to the challenge of dealing with some specific and undeniable examples?
As for my status, I'm not DF'd, DA'd or dis-whatever. I simply left. I still communicate regularly with many JWs, including family members. They know me to be a reasonably moral, honest person. Some even agree with my reasons for leaving, even though they themselves stay in the silly religion for any number of reasons. So you can't use your favored ad hominem against me, nor against many others who left for the same reason. That's frustrating for you, I know, but that's life.
AlanF
103
The "Ransom Sacrifice" short version.
by Norm in
1. jw
2. friends
in the christian part of the world not many of us have escaped the much hyped and published sacrifice christ supposedly made when the romans executed him.. i myself was going around for years parroting this strange concept without giving it much thought.

thinking and faith some times do not mix very well.. anyway, apparently god made a royal blunder when he created the first humans and they plunged mankind into death and despair first crack out of the box, while god stood by and watched helplessly.

then we are told that god for this reason, in his infinite wisdom took mankind for ransom for thousands of years.
AlanF

Hi Mike,
: OK, I will try again to answer your questions. This time I hope my answers are acceptable to you because I doubt I will have the time to answer them again. I do have to work for a living. And I have an awful lot to do in the next few days.
You can only do so much. However, my feeling is that in your post here you got so far into mysticism that it's really not worth anyone's time to pursue this topic further.
: You wrote; I'll present why the Bible itself seems to invalidate your reasoning. First, Romans 5:12 is quite clear about the origin of sin: quote: Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. (NASB) This "sin" is obviously what we're talking about -- the inherent inability of humans to fully obey God, whether they want to or not. If through the "one man" Adam this sin "entered," then until he committed his first act of sin, this inherited sin was not in the world, i.e., "inherited sin" did not exist. Furthermore, if upon Adam's sinning, "death through sin" entered into the world, then human death did not exist prior to Adam's sin, i.e., humans did not die until Adam sinned. Indeed, Romans 5:14 emphasizes this idea: "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam." But because we know that humans have existed in one form or another for hundreds of thousands of years, and depending on how we define "human," for millions of years, and they certainly died, and unlike the JWs and various young-earth creationists you admit that humans existed long before any "Adam" of a few thousand years ago, then you must admit that your ideas conflict with the Bible's direct statements.
: No, I do not admit this. "The Fall" of mankind doctrine, which you refer to, is based on what I believe is a misunderstanding of the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1Corinthians 15:21,22.
We shall see.
: Romans 5:12 tells us that "sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin." But as we read further we find that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam, the "sin", which was responsible for bringing about his "death", was the "sin" of "breaking a command".(verse 14) And we are told that the kind of sin committed by Adam "is not taken into account (or imputed KJV, NAS) when there is no law."(verse 13)
: Nevertheless, verses 13 and 14 clearly tell us that "before the (Mosaic) Law was given," "from the time of Adam to the time of Moses," "sin was in the world." So, since the kind of sin committed by Adam "is not taken into account (or imputed) when there is no law," the "sin" that "was in the world" "before the (Mosaic) law was given" must have been a different kind of sin than Adam's sin. It must have been unimputed sin.
By "unimputed sin" I assume you mean "sin that God did not charge against anyone". This seems to me to be a rather meaningless concept. I mean, sin does not exist in some disembodied state, as if it were something divorced from the physical world. Bottom line, "sin" is the commission of an act that God doesn't like.
What you appear to be saying here is that God allowed pre-Adamic mankind to do all sorts of things he didn't like, but didn't hold them accountable. Then when Adam showed up, for some reason God decided to change his way of dealing with humans and use Adam as a vehicle for doing it. He then held Adam accountable for one act of sin, and used that to condemn the rest of mankind. Have I got that right?
: And since Romans chapter 5 makes it clear that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam was "imputed" sin, it leaves open the possibility that unimputed "sin" may have been "in the world," not just "before the (Mosaic) law was given," but also before Adam disobeyed God in Eden.
I don't think you can make a distinction between different kinds of "sin". Sin is "missing the mark" before God, period. What God decides to do about it -- including charge someone with sin by making them accountable and punishing them -- is a different thing altogether.
The verses in Romans 5 do not say anything about different kinds of sin entering the world -- they say that sin, period, entered. After that, death entered. They say nothing about different kinds of death existing. It seems quite clear: after Adam committed an act of sin, death spread to all men. There is only one kind of death -- cessation of the life processes. If as you seem to be saying, human death existed long before Adam, then after Adam sinned, nothing changed. Humans died before, and they died after Adam sinned. Yet the scriptures say that death entered. Frankly, Mike, I think that you're doing a fair amount of twisting of rather clear scriptures because you see that they don't make sense unless you fool with their meaning. This is no different from what you do with Genesis with respect to creation and the flood.
: Because these verses tell us that Adam was the first man to sin by "breaking a command" from God,
They don't say that. You're reading into the verses what you wish to be there, because they don't make sense as written. They're very clear: Adam committed a sin; Adam was charged with that sin (sin was "imputed" to him); Adam became subject to death ("death reigned"); all mankind became subject to death because they "all sinned". In other words, the scriptures are saying that because Adam committed a single act of sin, God "imputed" sin to everyone else. No matter how you cut it, that's not fair, and that's why you want to change the obvious meaning of the verses.
: it follows that the "death" that "entered into the world" as a result of Adam's new kind of sin would have been Adam's new kind of death, death as a penalty imposed by God for "breaking a command" from God.
What's the difference between someone dying of old age by processes that have gone on for millions of years, and dying of old age as the result of some kind of "penalty"?
: However, Romans 5:15,17 and 18 do tell us that "many died by the trespass of one man," "death reigned through that one man" and "as a result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." 1Corinthians 15:21,22 repeats this same thought by saying that "death came through a man" and "in Adam all die."
Precisely what I'm describing. These ideas are simple and clear. Completely crazy, in my opinion, but still clear.
: With these verses in mind, many feel that Adam must have been the first man and we must all be his descendants because, they say, these verses clearly indicate that all people inherit a "fallen" nature from Adam. And they say that it is this "fallen" nature inherited by us because of Adam's disobedience that brings upon us God's condemnation. They maintain that these verses prove that human beings were not "sinful" creatures until after Adam's spiritual, physical and genetic natures were somehow radically changed at the time he disobeyed God in Eden. Then, they say, when Adam fathered children after his nature had been corrupted, his children and all their descendants inherited Adam's "corrupted," "fallen," "sinful" nature.
Right. That's the JW view and I don't know who else's. It's all completely crazy.
: Advocates of "The Fall" doctrine also insist that Adam must have literally been the first man. Because if he was not, then we are not all Adam's descendants. And if we are not, then we could not all have inherited Adam's "fallen," "sinful" nature. And if we did not, then they say, we do not all need God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ, as the Bible tells us we all do.(Romans 3:23,24; 1John 2:2)
Agreed.
: However, I contend this doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind must be an incorrect understanding of Scripture because it contradicts several clear teachings of the Bible.
: For instance, though the Bible tells us God does not hold children responsible for the sins of their parents (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2Kings 14:6; Ezekiel 18:20),
Sure it does: "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." (Exodus 20:5) This certainly appears to be a very general statement of how God operates. The scriptures you cited obviously have only to do with a provision of the Mosaic Law, "according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses". (2 Kings 14:6)
: the doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind says that all who have not accepted Christ as their Lord will be eternally condemned by God because of something Adam did.
Which is why it's a stupid doctrine.
: Some may argue this point, reminding us that God has taken the lives of "innocent" children along with their "guilty" parents when executing a judgment in the past. However, those Divine judgments were not eternal judgments. For Jesus Himself told us that everyone who lost their lives in such past judgments by God will receive a resurrection from the dead. And He told us that they will then all be judged as individuals, and not by their parents past behavior.(Matthew 11:20-24; John 5:28,29)
Fair enough.
The Bible also clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2Corinthians 5:10)
Those scriptures say nothing about Adam nor do they imply anything. You're reading into them what is not there. Indeed, a straight reading combined with scriptures that do talk about Adam indicate that humans are condemned both for specific misdeeds and for general "sinfulness".
: And the Scriptures say that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God."(Romans 3:23)
: The doctrine of "The Fall" must also be an incorrect understanding of Scripture because it is in conflict with proven science. The science of genetics has determined that information coded within the nucleotide sequences of human RNA and DNA is fully responsible for determining what characteristics will be inherited by a couple's children. And this branch of science has proven conclusively that a human being's genetic code cannot be altered by actions as ordinary as those performed by Adam in the garden of Eden.
Precisely why the JW notion of "the ransom" is out to lunch. I pointed this out to the Watchtower Society ten years ago. I shouldn't have wasted my time.
: I do not believe the Bible teaches that mankind "fell." Rather, I believe it tells us that God originally created the human race as free people. Free to do both right and wrong. In the exact same way we are free to do so today. Unfortunately we often choose to do what is wrong rather than what is right. God, however, cannot do wrong. For God is "incorruptable".(Romans 1:23) So, because we can and often do behave unrighteously, and because God cannot and never does behave unrighteously, we are less righteous than God. And, because "all unrighteousness is sin" we are all born "sinful." (1John 5:17, New American Standard Bible; Psalms 51:5)
You have a major error of logic here. Being "less righteous than God" does not automatically make someone unrighteous. Angels are supposed to be less righteous than God, but you wouldn't call them "sinful", I suspect. For if you did, then they would need more or less the same kind of fixing up that you're arguing humans need.
: Being able to do wrong, Adam was, from his very beginning, also less righteous than God. And he later proved his "sinful" condition by his behavior. Because Adam in paradise could not manage to obey one simple command from God, he clearly demonstrated that he and the entire human race, including those who had lived before him and those who would live after him, were far less righteous than God.
Major error of logic here. The fact that one man and one woman committed an act of sin does not automatically prove anything about anyone else. It would be like observing someone commit a murder and then saying, "See! All humans are murderers!" You might try arguing that Adam's act simply illustrated what all other humans would do under similar circumstances, but then you'd have to prove that somehow. And if you claim that Adam's genetic makeup is similar to that of every other human, so that genetics proves that what Adam did is common to all humans, then there would have been no need of a test in the first place, because the fact that humans are "unrighteous" is written down in the Creator's design specifications. All God has to do to prove your point is refer to his design manual and show it around. I think that this is a major flaw in your overall theological view here, as you repeat it below (I've bolded it).
: So, with these things in mind, Paul accurately referred to Adam when he wrote, "by one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners."(Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) This is true because Adam's disobedience demonstrated that the entire human race was not only capable of doing wrong but incapable of not doing wrong. So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to retroactively condemn the entire human race as being deserving of the deaths they had been suffering, and undeserving of eternal life, a gift God had not yet given to any human being.
So you have a problem: either God condemned the entire human race for something that they didn't do -- for God created them exactly as they were, due to no fault of their own -- or God performed a useless experiment on Adam that could easily have been settled by looking up human specs in the design manual.
: So, if mankind did not "fall," what did happen in Eden? I believe those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" also basically misunderstand the events which transpired in Eden.
I don't know that they misunderstand the Bible account, but in any case their idea is bogus.
: The Genesis account clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created mortal with a dying nature just like us.
I don't think that it clearly indicates anything of the sort. If it were clear, it wouldn't need to be discussed to death for several thousand years. Something that is clear is not disputable.
: The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature.
That's a lot more sensible than the JW view. They like to say, "Look at the human body. Scientists don't know why people die." They like to argue that because the human body repairs itself, it ought to live forever. Well duh. Exactly the same can be said of all plants and animals.
: Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life."(Genesis 2:9)
How do you know that? How do you know that Adam and Eve ever ate fruit from that tree? The Bible doesn't say so, so you're again reading into the text what is simply not there. Again you're fitting your own ideas to the text because the text as written is not sensible.
: Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to continue to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life."
Again, how do you know what Adam and Eve ate?
: Genesis indicates that had Adam and Eve been allowed to continue eating from "the tree of life" their lives would have been prolonged indefinitely. (Genesis 3:22-24)
The text says nothing about continuing to eat from that tree. Indeed, the obvious meaning of the text is that a single act of eating from the tree would have let the pair "live forever" (NASB).
: But when God prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life" they died what were apparently natural deaths. A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.
Actually it's more like "a careful reading into the account of what is not there" shows that.
: Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life."
I agree that the text indicates these things.
: Of course, that "tree of life" was meant to picture Jesus Christ. For, as we have seen, God was going to give Adam and Eve eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life," only if they passed a very simple test. And the Bible tells us that we will be given eternal life from an outside source, Jesus Christ, only if we pass a very simple test. That test is to simply believe in our hearts that Christ's death was sufficient payment to buy every human being God's full forgiveness, forgiveness for both our sinful nature and our sinful acts.
Well, that's not exactly a simple test. With the large amount of information that indicates that much of Genesis is fairytale, and that some of the supposedly historical accounts simply did not happen as written, and a host of other problems, a person has to either be born into the proper Christian religion, or put aside a great deal of factual information to pass this "test". If the test on Adam was clear and simple, the test on humanity today is quite the opposite.
: I see no other way to understand the Bible's story of Adam and Eve.
I do. It's an allegory based on ancient creation myths, whose origins are so old that they've been lost.
: And the traditional concept of "The Fall," I am convinced, is in conflict with several clear teachings of Scripture, proven science and a natural reading of the events which took place in the garden of Eden.
No disagreement here.
: You wrote: Second, according to everything I've read in the New Testament, Jesus himself certainly never had to experience an inability to obey God in order to understand "why God's ways are best."
: Of course not. Because, as nearly all Christians believe, Jesus was God. Thus he has always known "why God's ways are best."
But that's not what the Bible says. Indeed, it says outright that Jesus had to learn God's ways: "Although he was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect [or complete]..." (Hebrews 5:8, 9) If Jesus had to learn obedience, and had to be made perfect, then he could not be God, since as you say, God has always known why God's ways are best (this is obvious but I'm stating it for the record), and of course, God is already "perfect". This is also a proof that the earliest Christians didn't think of Jesus as God, which idea came later, early indications of which are in the Gospel of John.
: You wrote: But if Jesus was that different from other humans, then he could not have been an exact substitute for Adam.
: The JW version of the Ransom doctrine is quite different from the Christian version of the Ransom doctrine.
It's nonsensical alright, but here is where you start to get mystical:
: The Christian version of the ransom doctrine is this: God allowed his only begotten Son to pay for the unrighteousness of billions of human beings with his own life. But how could God consider only one death, a death which only lasted from Friday afternoon until the following Sunday morning, to have equal or greater value than many billions of human deaths, deaths which would last forever? He could do so because he considered the three days of life which his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, gave up to be more valuable than many billions of eternal human lives. Why? Because God knew that Jesus Christ was far more than a human being. God also knew that Jesus Christ was far more than "a perfect human being," or "Adam's equal" as some of the cults like to call him. God knew that Jesus Christ, as his only begotten Son, was also God. And because Jesus Christ was God, his father considered his death, and his three lost days of life which followed his death, to be a far greater loss than many billions of eternal human deaths.
All well and good, but I see no particular justification for all this in the Bible. Again it seems like a reading into the texts what isn't there, in order to avoid the obvious logical pitfalls of a straight reading.
: Some say that God requiring the life of his own Son to pay for our sins was an example of "primitive thinking." Christians say it was an example of God's great mercy and his amazing love. For the Bible tells us that God loves us all so much that he was willing to buy us all eternal life, even though to do so he had to pay for it "with his own blood." (Acts 20:28 NIV, NASB, KJV)
People can anything they like. You have not provided a single bit of justification for this thing that "Christians say".
: The JW NWT has rearranged the word structure here and added the word son in brackets to this verse, to make it say that God purchased us, "with the blood of his own [son]" rather than "with his own blood."
I have no interest in what the JW NWT says. Nevertheless, some scholars support their rendering on various textual and theological grounds. In any case you can't use texts that are disputed by scholars to prove anything. To illustrate, both the RSV and NRSV read, "... he obtained with the blood of his own Son." The New Jerusalem Bible (produced by Catholic scholars) reads similarly and contains a footnote that states: "lit. 'which he acquired for himself by his own blood'. Since this cannot be said of God, either it must mean 'by the blood of his own (i.e. own Son)' or Paul's thought slips from the action of the Father to that of the Son." In Jesus as God the trinitarian author Murray J. Harris concludes a section on Acts 20:28 with this:
I have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read [Greek snipped] and that the most appropriate translation of these words is "the church of God which he acquired through the blood of his own one" or "the Church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son" (NJB), with ho idios construed as a christological title. According to this view, ho theos refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ. If, however, one follows many English versions in construing idios adjectivally ("through his own blood"), ho theos could refer to Jesus and the verse could therefore allude to "the blood of God," although on this construction of idios it is more probable that theos is God the Father and the unexpressed subject of periepoiesato is Jesus. So it remains unlikely, although not impossible, that in Acts 20:28 ho theos denotes Jesus.
In any case, the scriptures are clear that the "blood" used for purchase was of great value.
: You wrote: [So according to you] God deliberately created humans so that only a small, random fraction of them would end up gaining the prize of eternal life. ... Why not just create ALL of them with the desire to choose to live a perfectly righteous life?
: I guess you know the standard answer to this question. God wanted to give us free will. If he created us all with a built in desire to live a perfectly righteous life we would not really have "free will."
But you're claiming the converse: that God created the majority of humans with the desire not to live a perfectly righteous life. That's not creating them with free will. To create a sentient being with true free will requires that there be no tendencies, either to obey or to disobey God or to do anything else in some moral direction.
And of course, you've steadfastly ignored a problem I keep alluding to: just where did that tendency for the majority of humans to disobey God come from?
: You wrote: My point is that the practically complete randomness of genetic tendencies plus the virtually complete randomness of environmental factors, which factors are incorporated into the final human product solely via genetic programming -- all of which effects would be known to an omnipotent Creator God -- result in whatever choices each person makes.
: From what you just wrote it seems that you believe there is no such thing as free will.
I don't know where you got that idea. It is certainly not implied by anything I wrote.
: Our every move and every decision is fully determined by a combination of our genetic programming and our environment.
Not likely. These things produce tendencies, but actual actions have a truly random component. Some brain researchers think that quantum mechanical effects on a molecular level ensure a truly random -- and completely indeterminable in advance -- influence on our minds that is a major component of free will. If what you wrote is true, then a fully omnipotent God could in principle calculate or somehow know every move that every particle in the universe would make from the instant of creation. If all moves can be known, then the universe is deterministic and free will is a mere illusion.
: You wrote: Since God created humans with all their abilities and tendencies, including being affected by environmental factors, the final result must be according to God's will. And if you claim that the final result is that only a small fraction of humans will want to obey God, then that is according to God's will.
: Again, your questions seem to based on a certainty that true free will does not exist, that our genetics and environment fully determine all of the choices we make in life. I do not believe this is true.
Nor do I.
: I think your belief
These are not my beliefs -- they are logical and inevitable consequences of your own statements and certain ideas that, for purposes of this discussion, we have agreed upon. I don't believe that you disagree with the above two statements. If you do, then which parts and why?
: is influenced by the JW teaching that we are purely physical beings. The Bible teaches differently. The Bible teaches that we all have spirits within us which return to God upon our death. (Eccl. 3:21; Acts 7:59) I believe these spirits within us are not affected by things such as "bad genetics" and allow us all to exercise a truly free will in spiritual matters.
Here you've fully dived into mysticism and I'm not going to follow. However, I'll say this: if these "spirits within us" are unaffected by physical things and are what actually determine our actions, then all you've done is to shift the argument from purely physical humans over to these "spirits", whatever they are.
: You wrote: [All things] are entirely according to the will of the Creator. You can't possibly disagree with this, because to do so would be to say that humans were created to act opposite to the will of the Creator -- a logical absurdity.
: I believe that humans were not created TO act opposite to the will of the Creator. I believe we were created with FREEDOM TO ACT opposite to the will of the Creator.
But you're ignoring an important part of your own claim: that God created humans with a strong tendency to act opposite to God's will. A created tendency is by definition according to God's will.
: You wrote: infant snakes know instinctively how to hunt and what to hunt for. ... the basics are the same: creatures act entirely according to the way they were created.
: As I stated earlier, I think your belief is influenced by the JW teaching that we are purely physical beings. The Bible teaches differently.
You haven't answered my question. So be it.
: You wrote: you're saying that the observation that few people today, who don't have the ability to live perfectly righteous lives, actually choose to try to obey God is proof that if they had the ability, they wouldn't choose to. Don't you see how silly this is?
: No, I don't. I believe that any person who would choose to live a perfectly righteous life, if they had that ability, would now, lacking that ability, choose to live their life as best they could.
Ok, you've ignored another serious problem and given another non-answer.
: You wrote: What do you think the "nature" is that God pre-programmed into humans throughout human history, going back as far as you care to go, down through Adam and Eve, through Jesus' day, and up through today?
: Our nature is and always has been one which craves and enjoys things such as affection, security and physical pleasure. Protecting and defending ourselves and our loved ones has always been a very important part of our nature. Curiosity has also always been a big part of our nature. If we are told something is bad for us by someone else, our nature is such that we usually insist on finding out for ourselves if it really is bad for us.
And who put that tendency into us?
: If we are told something is bad for us and we think that doing that something may bring us affection, security or physical pleasure our nature is such that we will probably do it anyway until we find out for ourselves that it really is bad for us.
Again, who made us with that tendency?
: Or if we believe doing something we have been told is bad for us may result in helping ourselves or our loved ones we will probably do it anyway until we find out for ourselves that it really is bad for us. I believe God gave us all this nature because he wants all who decide to do things his way to know why his way is the best way.
: You wrote: You're postulating that most humans, even if created "incorruptible," would still choose to disobey God.
: No, I am not. To be incorruptible means to not have the ability to do wrong.
I think I've been misunderstanding what you mean by "incorruptible". You're talking about someone who has no choice -- a robot. In fact, you're saying that God has no choice, that God is, in effect, a robot.
: I have said that I believe that if most people had the opportunity to become incorruptible they would pass on that opportunity. I said, "Once we are given incorruptibility we will no longer have the ability to do wrong." You sort of proved my contention when you replied, "I don't think I'd ever want to give that up."
By which I meant that I would never want to give up my free choice, which would be giving up my free will and would make me into a robot.
: I wrote: I believe that when Christ said most of us would end up on the road to destruction he was only predicting the future. Knowing the future and purposefully creating the future may be very different things, even for God.
: You replied: What you're saying is that God created a world without purpose, since he has no control over what the future will bring. If he has no control, then he is not omnipotent. If he has no desire to control it, but wants to let it roll on randomly, then he is responsible for whatever nasty things happen due to "time and unforeseen circumstance."
: I do not see how God giving people freedom to make choices and encouraging us to make good choices by offering us eternal life if we will constitutes God creating "a world without purpose" and letting things "roll on randomly."
You're ignoring the point of my statement again. So be it.
: I wrote: But now we get into questions of man's "free will" and "predestination," subjects which I told Jan I prefer to let professional theologians argue about.
: You replied: Well, I think that to be a complete human being you have no choice but to consider these things.
Here comes the biggest dive into mysticism of all:
: Actually, I have. As I think I told Jan, I believe that for God it is possible to have both predetermined all of our futures and at the same time given us all total free will to determine our own futures. To us this sounds like an impossible contradiction.
That's because it is an impossible contradiction. It's no different from saying that God can make three equal six. He can't.
: But I believe doing both of these things at the same time was and is entirely possible for the God who created our universe. Just as Christians believe that when Jesus Christ walked this earth he was both fully God and fully man. Christians do not consider such things to be contradictions.
Most every religion believes in certain impossible things. That's why they're religions, not systems of rational thought.
: Rather we consider them to be "divine paradoxes." For as Jesus said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27)
You can apply nice sounding labels all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that in order to justify your religious belief, you must believe the impossible.
I'm weary of this discussion and will not pursue it further. It's not worth anyone's time to try to deal with mystics who believe the impossible.
AlanF