Now I'm green (and not with envy)...

Mar 16, 2012 -- 3:38PM, Newtonian wrote:

Wow, dude, that is such a blatant twisting of what Ephphatha said it's downright ludicrous.  I guess anything goes when you're defending "God's organization".

How so?   Ephphatha said she will not consider the Scriptural evidence - and my main point is not what she said - it is the fact that she has thus far refused to consdier the Scriptural evidence.  And yes, I will insist on applying Acts 17:11 when determining if any teachings are so or not.

Because it wasn't pertinent to the point he/she was making.  What the Bible has to say about this or that doesn't make one iota of a difference as to whether the WTS has ever been dishonest about their history.  Gee whiz! 

Those that have followed that counsel honestly and openly have all left the organization...

Oh really?  I have always followed that counsel - you think I have left the organization?

Well, I guess that means you haven't been willing, at least to this point, to be honest and open with yourself about the results of such searching...

And how is that any different than any other religion?  I thought this was the one true religion.  The only one that has God and his spirit backing what they teach.

Totally different from Christendom, for example.   Faced with hundreds of Scriptures which say the soul dies - they continue to teach the soul is immortal - for one of many examples.   See Ezekiel 18:4 - the soul that sins, it itself will die. 

(sorry, I had a response in here and it went missing when I posted and I don't have the time to remember or retype it)

That sounds all well and good but the Bible hasn't changed.  The only logical conclusion is that what is taught was, is and always will be, man's interpretation and is subject to error. 

Thankfully, false.   Man's interpretation is subject to error - however, in contrast, the Bible is infallible.

I don't know about the infallible part but didn't I say the Bible hasn't changed?  Therefore, any errors have to be the result of interpretation and since it's interpretation it's subject to error.  Then, now and always...

 There is no "unfolding of scriptural truths".  You are no closer now to "Bible truth" than you were then. 

False - as I posted to Denis, we once believed as he still does concerning the natural Jews and earthly Jerusalem - but now we realize the Bible is talking about heavenly Jerusalem   Galatians 3 & 4  contrast Hager which is earthly Jerusalem with Sarah which the Jerusalem above - read it for yourself!   Hebrews 12:22  clearly refers to heavenly Jerusalem:

(Hebrews 12:22) But YOU have approached a Mount Zion and a city of [the] living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels,

So what?  That's your interpretation of scripture about spiritual vs. natural Israel is an interpretation of the relevent texts and therefore subject error.

 Just stabbing in the dark and hoping to get it right.  It's not brighter it's just different.  The idea that your closer now is nothing more than an illusion.

Sorry, truthwillset - the changes are real - we used to believe as Denis still does about the natural Jews and earthly Jerusalem - now we believe differently because we took note of Galatians 3 & 4 and Hebrews 12:22 and many other Scriptures on that subject.

Again, so what?  You don't think others have considered those verses as well?  They apparently don't see what you see in them.  Who the heck knows which is right!

Truthwillset - I suggest you reference specific changes rather than talking in generalities - then we can discuss in depth whether those changes were due to increased light from the Scriptures, or not.

I have found that the changes like rejecting the use of the cross (among many others) were due to increased light from the Scriptures - granted additional outside research also helped - but the clincher is the Bible itself which uses 3 words to describe the death instrument Jesus died on - Greek stauros & xylon and by quote of Deuteronomy 21:23 in Galatians 3:13 the Hebrew word Ets.   These words overlap in definition as "stake" and thus we changed our belief due to this Biblical research.

Newt, once again you fail to get the point.  It's not the individual changes that matter.  The fact is, the WTS and JWs have taught error in the name of God and claimed they arrived at such errors through the direction of the Holy Spirit.  This in and of itself proves beyond any doubt that they do not have the "truth" and they are not "God's organization".

Now I'm black - if I posted in white I'm afraid it would be hard for you to see my points!

Mar 16, 2012 -- 4:26PM, Truthwillset wrote:

Now I'm green (and not with envy)...

Mar 16, 2012 -- 3:38PM, Newtonian wrote:

Wow, dude, that is such a blatant twisting of what Ephphatha said it's downright ludicrous.  I guess anything goes when you're defending "God's organization".

How so?   Ephphatha said she will not consider the Scriptural evidence - and my main point is not what she said - it is the fact that she has thus far refused to consdier the Scriptural evidence.  And yes, I will insist on applying Acts 17:11 when determining if any teachings are so or not.

Because it wasn't pertinent to the point he/she was making.  What the Bible has to say about this or that doesn't make one iota of a difference as to whether the WTS has ever been dishonest about their history.  Gee whiz! 

That would make sense if the reasons for our changes in belief were due to deciding not to lie but to tell the truth.  But, of course, that was never the reason because we never lied - we simply made errors - and the reason for our errors was a lack of knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures involved in said beliefs.  So, sure, to her it is irrelevant.   However, to Jehovah's Witnesses what the Bible says about this or that is paramount, while what humans say about this or that is not important by comparison.   I am not her - I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

hose that have followed that counsel honestly and openly have all left the organization...

Oh really?  I have always followed that counsel - you think I have left the organization?

Well, I guess that means you haven't been willing, at least to this point, to be honest and open with yourself about the results of such searching...

I have been totally honest and open - why do you think otherwise?

And how is that any different than any other religion?  I thought this was the one true religion.  The only one that has God and his spirit backing what they teach.

Totally different from Christendom, for example.   Faced with hundreds of Scriptures which say the soul dies - they continue to teach the soul is immortal - for one of many examples.   See Ezekiel 18:4 - the soul that sins, it itself will die. 

That sounds all well and good but the Bible hasn't changed.  The only logical conclusion is that what is taught was, is and always will be, man's interpretation and is subject to error. 

Thankfully, false.   Man's interpretation is subject to error - however, in contrast, the Bible is infallible.

I don't know about the infallible part but didn't I say the Bible hasn't changed?  Therefore, any errors have to be the result of interpretation and since it's interpretation it's subject to error.  Then, now and always...

Yes, the Bible hasn't changed - on that we agree.   And the truth hasn't changed either.   It is rather our understandings of various Scritpures, as well as taking note of additional Scriptures, that has changed.   BTW - there are still Scriptures we are not clear on - like when the marriage of the Lamb takes place.   We are still undergoing Proverbs 4:18 increasing light on the Scriptures as Russell said in my above quote - that will continue until the perfect day.  I might add that science also undergoes the same increasing of light and changes in teachings while truth actually is not changing - see OP.

 

There is no "unfolding of scriptural truths".  You are no closer now to "Bible truth" than you were then. 

False - as I posted to Denis, we once believed as he still does concerning the natural Jews and earthly Jerusalem - but now we realize the Bible is talking about heavenly Jerusalem   Galatians 3 & 4  contrast Hager which is earthly Jerusalem with Sarah which the Jerusalem above - read it for yourself!   Hebrews 12:22  clearly refers to heavenly Jerusalem:

(Hebrews 12:22) But YOU have approached a Mount Zion and a city of [the] living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels,

So what?  That's your interpretation of scripture about spiritual vs. natural Israel is an interpretation of the relevent texts and therefore subject error.

Caught you!   Heavenly Jerusalem is NOT an interpretation - it is the actual wording translated from the original Greek!

Just stabbing in the dark and hoping to get it right.  It's not brighter it's just different.  The idea that your closer now is nothing more than an illusion.

Sorry, truthwillset - the changes are real - we used to believe as Denis still does about the natural Jews and earthly Jerusalem - now we believe differently because we took note of Galatians 3 & 4 and Hebrews 12:22 and many other Scriptures on that subject.

Again, so what?  You don't think others have considered those verses as well?  They apparently don't see what you see in them.  Who the heck knows which is right!

It is determined by Bible study - it is that simple!

Truthwillset - I suggest you reference specific changes rather than talking in generalities - then we can discuss in depth whether those changes were due to increased light from the Scriptures, or not.

I have found that the changes like rejecting the use of the cross (among many others) were due to increased light from the Scriptures - granted additional outside research also helped - but the clincher is the Bible itself which uses 3 words to describe the death instrument Jesus died on - Greek stauros & xylon and by quote of Deuteronomy 21:23 in Galatians 3:13 the Hebrew word Ets.   These words overlap in definition as "stake" and thus we changed our belief due to this Biblical research.

Newt, once again you fail to get the point.  It's not the individual changes that matter.  The fact is, the WTS and JWs have taught error in the name of God and claimed they arrived at such errors through the direction of the Holy Spirit.  This in and of itself proves beyond any doubt that they do not have the "truth" and they are not "God's organization".

Truthwillset - We have not taught error in the name of God - we have never claimed inspiration.   And the organization that teaches what the Bible really teaches is Jehovah's organization - you have. missed the point!

It is by examining in detail each Bible subject that one arrives at the truth - as long as you choose to ignore the fine counsel in Acts 17:11 you will fail to understand.

For me personally, btw, the clincher is Isaiah 2:2-4 - as one of Jehovah's Witnesses I have enjoyed the miraculous fulfillment of that prophecy - while most religions in Christendom continue to learn war, we are obeying that law out of Zion - not earthly Jerusalem, but heavenly Jerusalem - and thus we learn war no more!

Earthly Jerusalem, by contrast, also continues to learn war.

Hey, you can choose to believe as you wish.  As for me, I will continue to apply Acts 17:11.

Mar 15, 2012 -- 6:25PM, Oeste wrote:

Mar 14, 2012 -- 9:41PM, Newtonian wrote:

Mar 14, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Oeste wrote:

Mar 14, 2012 -- 9:09PM, Newtonian wrote:

is about changes in my religion - Progressive enlightenment - which includes closer and closer alignment with the Bible.

Progressive enlightenment???

Newt, we've been telling the Watchtower for decades that 1914 was virutal nonsense...it didn't mark anything. Yet it takes the Watchtower a 100 years to see the light?

And what of putting words in God's mouth?

"the Creator’s promise
of a peaceful and secure new world
before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."

—Awake! magazine, page 4, thru October 22, 1995

Have they apologized for this yet? Have they repented?

thanks for highlighting another change in our understandings - remember, this is normal for us - we are not tradition bound - we progress in understanding.

This is, btw, one of the more recent changes - our understanding of the definition of generation.

I don't understand what this has to do with the meaning of "generation" when the quote is quite clear.

It is the generation that SAW the events of 1914.

They put words in God's mouth Newt. This was not the Watchtower's promise, but the Creator's!!!

Has the Watchtower now changed the meaning of "SAW"???

Or have they decided to follow up one lie with another? Last I looked, I did not see a "peaceful and secure new world".

Look, you tell me the Watchtower's meaning of SAW, because I really don't want to go over this nonsense of generation (singular) suddenly meaning generation(s) plural.

This organization of yours claims to be God's sole channel of communication and spiritual truth today, and it's high time we determined if the Watchtower says what God means, or doesn't mean what God says.

Honestly Newt, if they couldn't tell the difference for the last 150 years, they had absolutely no business opening their mouths at all, let alone  dragging God into it.

Ok, I see you didn't see what I saw about who sees what they saw.

I simply gave you the example of Isaiah 51:8 singular generation - NW translates this "unnumbered generations" but the Hebrew is singular generation of plural generations, as the commentary put it - containing endless ages.   So, applying Isaiah 51:8 to generation in Mt. 24, the generation that sees (saw) all these things is a generation containing multiple generations.

Now do you see what I see (saw) about who saw what?

Sorry, I couldn't resist the see-saw!

Definition of "saw" from dictionary.com

1. a tool or device for cutting, typically a thin blade of metal with a series of sharp teeth.

2. any similar tool or device, as a rotating disk, in which a sharp continuous edge replaces the teeth.

   verb (used with object) 3. to cut or divide with a saw.

4. to form by cutting with a saw.

5. to make cutting motions as if using a saw: to saw the air with one's hands.

6. to work (something) from side to side like a saw.

to chew (food) slowly and thoroughly.

verb (used without object) 7. to use a saw.

8. to cut with or as if with a saw.

9. to cut as a saw  does. Idiom 10. saw wood, Informal . to snore loudly while sleeping.

I hope you have a sense of humor! 

So little to go on, really, with the understanding of 'generation.' 

As far as the 'see saw,' we all tend to see what we are looking for.

Those who saw conflict in the 'lead of the Governing Body' and Jesus being our leader early in this thread failed to understand the paragraph at all, because they wanted to see conflict between the two ideas.

If Jesus is guiding the governing body, following their 'lead' is following the Leader, Christ.  No conflict.

Oeste - Sorry for my lapse into a sense of humor.   I was going offline, but I thought about it and realize that you, like me, may have hoped to not die but to live through Armageddon - basing that hope on our understanding of the meaning of generation, or more specifically that those alive to see 1914 would, al least in part, be alive to see Armageddon - as in the incorrect proclamation many years ago - millions now living will never die.

Death is a serious subject - sorry for my sense of humor.

However, please note - these incorrect statements in our literature are not lies - they are errors in understanding.

For example, young earth creationists think the creative days are 24 hours each.  This is a wrong understanding - but they are not lying - they beleive what they are teaching to be an accurate understanding of Scripture.   The same is true with our errors, such as what is meant by generation in Mt. 24.

Now, I have put forth my own personal discovery which is likely also not the specific defintion of generation in Mt. 24.  However, in your response you seem to think this does not change who saw all these things.  But it does!

Let me illustrate.   The definition of the singular generation in Isaiah 51:8 actually contains numberless generations.   So, for example - singular Generation 1 contains plural generations a, b, c, d and e (to pick a number).

Generation 1 does indeed see all these things.   However, generation a sees WWI, generation b sees WWII, generation c sees the cold war, generation d sees the recent Tsumamis and generation e sees Klatu warning earth is at the tipping point and they must now do something to save earth.

OK, to clarify, generation e sees the move "the earth stood still" - i.e. the more recent remake.

So, generation 1 saw all those things.

See what I mean?

Now, I must go offline - tomorrow starts our special campaign to invite all to join us in observing our only Holy Day - the Memorial of Christ's death on 4/5/12 after sundown.

I will not be posting much in the interim because this date, not 1914, is very important to Jehovah's Witnesses becsause the ransom is the most important gift of God to mankind!

I hope you all fare well - and perhaps I can post again in the interim!