[From ws15/11 for Jan. 11-17]
“God is love.” – 1 John 4:8, 16
What a wonderful theme. We should have half a dozen Watchtowers every year on this theme alone. But we must take what we can get.
In paragraph 2, we are reminded Jehovah has appointed Jesus to judge the inhabited earth. (Acts 17:31) It will be interesting to take note of the answers given at your meeting to see if the brothers grasp the point that this is not a judgment at Armageddon, but the 1,000-year judgment day in which Christ will rule.
In paragraph 4, the issue of universal sovereignty is raised. Was this really the issue raised by Satan? It may seem logical to a mind trained by the publications of the Watchtower, but the question is, Why are the words "universal sovereignty" not to be found in Scripture? Why is the explanation given in the paragraph not backed up by supporting scriptures? (For a detailed analysis of this subject, see this article.)
Paragraph 5 issues a common refrain: “Today, world conditions keep getting worse.”
Some of the nastier human leaders of history have found that you can fool all of the people some of the time if you keep repeating the same lie over and over. People just accept it as gospel, because they never stop to think about it.
Are world conditions truly getting worse? Are there more wars now? Are more people dying now then did from 1914 to 1940? Are more people dying of diseases than did 80 or 100 years ago? Why is the average lifespan significantly higher now than it was back then? Is there more ethnic and social tolerance now than there was 50, 70, or 90 years ago? Is economic prosperity greater now than it was in your father’s or grandfather’s lifetime?
Ask yourself this, ‘If conditions are getting worse, would you not prefer to live back then when they weren’t so bad? Perhaps from 1914 to 1920. Just dodge the bullets and don’t inhale too deeply when the Spanish influenza was about. Or perhaps the 1930s during the Great Depression. Not to worry though, that only lasted 10 years. Then the economic boom brought on by the World War II ended that.
There is a sobering warning in paragraph 9 which Jehovah’s Witnesses should heed: “Jehovah detests violent and deceptive people.” Violence can take many forms. It can be psychological, for example. Emotional abuse can be even more difficult to recover from than physical abuse or violence. As for deception, if our words mislead people to take a life course away from God, how much will the God of love hate such an action?
The attendees at the 110,000 congregations worldwide will surely conclude, upon studying paragraph 11, that the 'righteous will find exquisite delight on earth' during the period immediately following Armageddon. But really, with the resurrection of billions of unrighteous, is that a reasonable assumption? The Bible even says there will be war after the Messianic reign ends. Only when Satan and his hordes are finally destroyed will the words of Ps 37:11 and 29 see their fulfillment. (Re 20:7-10)
As you read paragraphs 14 and 15, consider the context of all the Scriptures cited. They do not apply to some earthly class of faithful servants. They are written with the children of God in mind. It is true that Christ died for all mankind. That is why there are two resurrections. The first, to everlasting life, is for the children of God. The second is to the earth for the unrighteous so that they can have a fair and free opportunity to avail themselves of the value of Jesus' sacrifice. The Bible makes no provision for a third resurrection, a third group. Only Jehovah's Witnesses do that.
The third theme question (p. 16) is: “What has the Messianic Kingdom been doing that convinces you that it is God’s loving arrangement for mankind?”
The answer to this is, ‘Nothing.’ The Messianic Kingdom has yet to begin, or are we to believe the 1,000 year rule has begun? If so, then there are only 900 years left. (See When Did God’s Kingdom Begin Ruling?)
In paragraph 17, we are led to believe that Jesus has spent the first 100 years of his Messianic rulership ruling over the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This would make Jesus responsible for all the medical silliness of Woodworth’s editorship (1919-1945), Rutherford’s 1925 prediction of the end of the world, Franz’s 1975 fiasco, the decades-long and looming problem of our mishandling of child abuse, and the horrific way disfellowshipping has been used to oppress the little ones. Truly, if this is evidence of Jesus' Messianic rule, who would want any part of it?
This is just one more way that the false doctrine of 1914 has brought reproach on the name of Jesus and Jehovah.
The article closes by espousing our two biggest false teachings:
"Bible prophecy shows that God’s heavenly Kingdom was established when Christ’s presence began in 1914. Since then, there has been a gathering of the remaining ones who will rule with Jesus in heaven as well as of “a great crowd” of people who will survive this system’s end and be ushered into the new world. (Rev. 7:9, 13, 14)"
If a Bible prophecy did truly show that Christ’s presence began in 1914, why does the writer not cite the Scriptural references to support it? If you want to see how truly fragile the entire interpretive structure is, check out 1914—A Litany of Assumptions. As for the false teaching that stems from the misapplication of John 10:16 (the “other sheep” doctrine), let’s leave that to consider next week.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Roger Kirkpatrick on 2016-01-10 08:53:46
Excellent discussion! Clearly, according to God's Word, ALL Christians are spirit anointed. That is why Revelation 7:15 depicts the "great crowd" worshipping God in the sanctuary [Greek na'os = divine habitation] of the spiritual temple, not in the outer courtyard, as we were taught as JWs. Religious cults realize that you CAN fool SOME of the people ALL of the time. And, that's enough!
Reply by BN on 2016-01-10 19:45:25
I beg to differ, although i agree the great crowd is part of the bride! 1John 2:2 'the many AND the world'; Rom 8:19; some are eagerly awaiting somebody else ... v21 those waiting ALSO becoming children ..
Reply by Chris on 2016-01-10 20:17:00
I don't. I believe the bride is the 144,000 who sit with Christ on his throne as he promised and the great crowd is before the throne not on it. However I believe that the great crowd is in heaven.
Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-15 11:36:18
I agree; the adjoining of the "Father" - Isa 9:6 - with his bride, New Jerusalem, reach the earth - Rev 21:2,3 - bringing life to all mankind. Rev 22:7
Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-15 12:30:42
Although Rev 22:7 is a good one, meant to say, Rev 22:17.
Comment by Father jack on 2016-01-10 13:21:03
Thanks for the review meleti . I didnt have a massive problem with the article myself . Just a few points though para 5 sites the verses in 2 timothy 3 as a prophecy instead of a description of events in pauls day and 2 tim 3 v13 seems to be applied to men in general perhaps on the world scene ,but i have the feeling that paul may have been speaking of traits of men who claim to be religious perhaps even christian . Chapter 2 speaks of false teachers verse 5 of chapter 3 speaks of those who have a form of godly devotion . The thought continues in the next few verses on how and why they mislead . Paul then speaks of his persecutions and then says that wicked men and imposters shall advance from bad to worse misleading and being misled . Would it not be reasonable to assume that these wicked ones are imposters of (christ ) and are and continue to mislead people people away from the real truth of the scriptures . As the context shows from verse 14 to 16 . So i personally think that the chapter missapplies the verse . Just a point FJ
Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-10 13:51:24
By the way that final paragraph about we know that christs presence beginning in 1914 . It reminded me of jesus words about building a house on the sand . The difference is here this doctrine is not even on a foundation of sand its on nothing at all . As you said no scriptural support is cited . No wonder because there isnt any . They seem to have the attitude that its right because we said its right . If i was to build houses with no foundation i would soon be in big trouble .
Comment by Vincent Gomez on 2016-01-10 14:02:35
Great review. I don't know what it is, but the Watchtower cannot even come close to capturing the love of God by means of Christ Jesus. Since leaving, I have read many articles and commentaries about Christ's love that brings tears to the eyes. But the Watchtower is "sterile", non-emotional.
Maybe it is because they always talk about paradise and the messianic kingdom. As you said, they talk about "proof" of that love since 1914. Look at the review questions. That is what they want you to take home. The emptiness! Even when scriptures are quoted, no depth is given. As an example, “Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you,” said Jesus. “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for yourselves. For my yoke is kindly, and my load is light.” (Matt. 11:28.29) What do they have to say about this? Notice the depth:
"What loving assurance that is!" Wow!
This seems to be the pattern. Thanks again for reminding us why we are here!
Comment by Kamil Levi Pyka on 2016-01-10 14:06:41
Great article bro.I don't have problem with this article but one thing I have to say it is that WATCHTOWER same as Bible Students do not read properly Bible because if they would thy will never ever,EVER teach doctrine which does not fit that what Bible really teach.For example 1914 has no significance with any biblical bases of scriptures.The Bible is very clear about Jesus presence EVERY EYE WILL SEE HIM.
So if I am not very knowledgable of the Scriptures I better shut up instead misleading,manipulating and harming people physically,spiritually and emotionally.
Shalom.Reply by Chris on 2016-01-10 20:15:11
Kami. I'm a Bible Student. And I assure you that we use the bible.
As for your scripture. I have attached two link that will show you that the word for "eye" and "see" mean with an inward perception and metaphorical sense. Not literal see or eyes.
It's strings concordance. And we also know this is symbolic because those who pierced him aren't alive. Hope this helps.
http://biblehub.com/greek/3788.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htmReply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 01:13:25
Hi Chris,
You need to be careful here.
According to the second link you provided, Rev 1:7 clearly falls into the category of the first more natural and literal meaning of the word "to see with the eyes".
The second meaning refers "to see with the mind, perceive or know". Strong does not ascribe this secondary meaning to Rev 1:7.
It's one thing to quote or cite sources, but we need to make sure we read and apply them correctly.
If anything Stong's supports Kamil's conclusion.
The MCT which is an amplified and complementary work, designed to work hand in hand with Strong's is also in agreement. The text of the MCT which is a literal word for word, concept for concept, context for context translation, words it this way, "and every eye shall gaze upon him". This is precisely how it would have been understood by a first century Greek.
"Eye" in the context of Rev 1:7 is given a literal meaning in both Strong's and the Mickelson Clarified Translation.
I don't know if you are familiar with the MCT. It is one of the finest scholarly works available.
All the best.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-11 07:15:42
ANTONINVS, is there an online link to the MCT? I'd love to peruse it.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 07:49:19
Hi Meleti,
Google "Plowshare Mission" you'll find it.
I own all the hard copies. They are available through Amazon etc. they are not super expensive.
The set includes, Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, interlinear, with word morphology, concordance, the scribe, scholar and professor editions all separate volumes to address different study needs, and much more. Strong's numbers with Mickelson's own numbering system are included for quick reference.
It works like this: let's take a hypothetical example, the Strong's number may be 1005. Mickelson then adds 1005.2. Now the word 1005 may have multiple meanings. The beauty of Mickelson numbers is that it tells you specifically which one applies. You simply look up the dictionary to number 1005 and the reference meaning .2 , it's brilliant. The same word in another verse may be 1005.5 for example, so the meaning will change in that context.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-11 08:00:47
Thanks ANTONINVS. I'll check those out. Sounds like a great resource. Much obliged.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 08:15:45
Hi Meleti,
It is superb! His bible translation is incredible!
Reply by Chris on 2016-01-11 19:00:31
Um with all do respect those Greek words directly say with spiritual perception. And the fact we know this to be true becasue those who have pierced Jesus aren't alive. Look again. Both of those words say with a metaphysical meaning. I think you've only ascribed to the one that fits your view when the word for "see" and "eye" BOTH say not literal. :). Happy studies.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 20:02:46
Hi Chris,
I was very careful not to express a view. I simply drew attention to the fact that you misapplied the information you cited. Please don't take my comments personally. They are not intended to offend. I am simply stating the facts. Strong's while giving a multitude of meanings gives one clear application to Rev. 1:7.
With regard to your second point that it can't be literal because those who pierced him are no longer, this can quite easily be accounted for without doing any violence to the text.
I can assure you I don't take any comments personally. I learned a long time ago to make a distinction between the person and the issue. Feel free to say anything you like to me, I won't take it the wrong way. At the end of the day if I'm wrong I want to know so I can rectify my view. I believe it is the same for you, yes?
Reply by Chris on 2016-01-11 19:06:58
See:
"3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception)."
Eye: Definition: I see, look upon, experience, perceive, discern, beware.
Strongs. Eye:
ophthalmos: the eye
Original Word: ὀφθαλμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: ophthalmos
Phonetic Spelling: (of-thal-mos')
Short Definition: the eye
Definition: the eye; fig: the mind's eye
Um with all do respect those Greek words directly say with spiritual perception. And the fact we know this to be true becasue those who have pierced Jesus aren’t alive. Look again. Both of those words say with a metaphysical meaning. I think you’ve only ascribed to the one that fits your view when the word for “see” and “eye” BOTH say not literal. :). Happy studies
:)Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 19:49:25
Hi Chris
You may have missed my point. I apologise if I was unclear.
All of the meanings you provide are fine depending on context "eye" and "see" can mean any of those things. But it doesn't change the fact that Strong's attributes a literal meaning with regard to Rev 1:7.
You will have noticed that under each heading of possible meanings Strong lists the verses that carry the corresponding thought. When it comes to the verse in question he squarely attributes to it the first meaning that of seeing with the literal eye. His second heading regarding perception, discernment etc makes no reference to Rev 1:7.
It is important that we understand what we read. It is written and compiled in that fashion for a reason.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 07:34:02
Few JW's are aware that 1914 as the end of the gentile times was first proposed by N H Barbour, editor of the Herald of the Morning. "The 1914 date is directly mentioned for the first time in the September, 1875 issue, page 52".
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-11 07:39:14
Thanks for the reference. I know he believed Christ's invisible presence began in 1874, a date and interpretation we held on to until 1931, I believe. I thought he predicted the end of the world was to be 1878. What did he believe would happen in 1914?
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 08:02:00
"In the book the time is it hand, published in 1889 later referred to as volume two of studies in the Scriptures, Russell stated that there was bible evidence proving that the 1914 date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. What would be the consequences of this? Russell enumerated his expectations for 1914 in seven points."
I'll send you the seven points Rusell predicted for 1914. All of which failed miserably and had nothing to do with what is currently taught.
I'll send these to you tomorrow, if that's okay. It's late here and I need to get my young daughter to bed. Thanks for understanding.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-11 08:06:35
Of course. No rush. Thanks.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 16:41:00
Hi Meleti,
Russell's published and publicised expectation regarding 1914, as follows:
1) "Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God ... will have obtained full, universal control, and that it will then be 'set up,' or firmly established, in the earth."
2) "Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take dominion will then be present as earth's new ruler ..."
3) "Thirdly, It will prove that some time before the end of A.D. 1914 the last member of the divinely recognised Church of Christ, the 'royal priesthood,' 'the body of Christ,' will be glorified with the head ..."
4) "Fourthly, It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down by the Gentiles, but shall rise from the dust of divine disfavour, to honour; because the 'Times of the Gentiles' will be fulfilled or completed."
5) "Fifthly, It will prove that by that date, or sooner, Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away; because their 'blindness in part' was to continue only 'until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in' (Rom. 11:25) ..."
6) "Sixthly, It will prove that the great 'time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation,' will reach its culmination in a worldwide reign of anarchy ... And the 'new heavens and new earth' with their peaceful blessings will begin to be recognised by trouble-tossed humanity."
7) "Seventhly, It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organised in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34) - and finally consume the power of these kings."
"In 1894 he wrote of the 1914 date:
"We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but the end of the time of trouble.""
I am not given to emotional outbursts or to speaking in absolutes, but in light of the above quotation I'm sure one and all will forgive my self indulgence on this occasion as I state without the slightest hesitation, what absolute trash! I believe I'm being very restrained by leaving it at that.
Not one of Russell's expectations came to fruition. I try not to think about this too often. Quite frankly I don't like the way it makes me feel.
Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-11 12:45:27
Yeah i think we all have to be careful if we are stating what we believe to be absolute statements of truth . I tend to shy away from that now and its not suprising when i consider that for years as one of jehovahs witnesses i preached what i believed to be truth , we were all so convinced only to find out now that we were wrong on many points all along . So i tendnot to be too dogmatic any more
Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-10 15:22:07
Rutherfords book Prophecy said in 1929 "The scriptural proof is that the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 AD." (Page 65)
Reply by Christopher on 2016-01-10 20:06:40
Hey. I am a Bible Student and we believe this. Rutherford changed everything. He tried to move the date from 1914 to 1918 and stated in his book "Enemies" that if we do not accept this date then we would be enemies of God. He did that so that the harvest would have began in 1918 and would totally excluded all Russell's followers from being part of the truth and Russell from being part of teaching truth and would discredit anything he taught and get the members to believe in Rutherford. When this didn't work he started calling Bible Students the evil slave class and russelites when the didnt work he started calling to Bible Student for the evil slave class and russellites
Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-10 21:19:13
Do you believe that the period from 1843/1844 to 1873/1874 was the "tarrying of the bridegroom"? Have you read Jonas Wendells "Present Truth or Meat in Due Season to see how the 30 year difference was accounted for? It all stemmed from William Miller, and for me, all credibility is lost. These men were all blind guides, followers of followers, which is why they fell into a pit (their predictions failed)
Reply by Chris on 2016-01-11 18:57:40
We don't believe that the 1843/1844 is a correct date no. We believe though that the anti typical awakening of Elijah when we was awakened and fed is when Gods people (Antitypical for the Church class) was aroused the first time in the interest of the Lords return. The Christian Churdh owes its interest in the Lords return to this movement since not much discussion about the lords return was going on in churches. But the Miller movement struck interest. This corresponds to the foolish virgins who were awakened and gone to meet the bride groom. Elijah went back to sleep which is what some of the church class did when they stopped progressing due to the "tarrying of the bridegroom". Perfect fit. And many kept going on. The second reawakening to this (when Elijah was awakened again) is when the interest of the Lords return stirred them again in 1874. Elijah was told to journey to the mountain for 40 days (1 King 19:8). 1874 + 40 =1914. Now we don't believe what the JWs do on the subject of 1914.
We arrive at 1874 using the Jubilees and a more ready date Daniel 12:7,11-12. The 1,290 days, 1335 days and the 1260 days
539 + 1260= 1799. End of papal dominion
539+ 1290 = 1829. Miller movement. Waking up of Elijah and the bridesmaids awakened to meet the bridegroom.
539 + 1335 = 1874. Return of Jesus. Faithful going to meet the bridegroom.
It all fits.Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-11 22:17:31
Russell thought so too, obviously *sigh*
Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-12 04:32:09
Here is the book.
https://archive.org/details/PresentTruthByJonasWendell
Have a read of the last page. How ridiculous. These men found anything to support their view. The sun was darkened on this day.....stars fell from heaven on that day.....bla bla bla. The problem is these men were caught up too much in their own private ruminations. If I spouted the same nonsense today I would be considered a lunatic. The dizzy heights of having ordinary people follow your every word and scriptural explanation is too much for some men, and they failed to see what they became. False prophets, tickling people's ears.
Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-10 17:58:34
In the general resurrection there will be peoples whose lives were spent in the worship of false gods. They believed, they performed animal and human sacrifices, they fought one another, they enjoyed the fruits of their labors. A God of love was unknown to them.
The Watchtower's fantasy that JWs will live in "paradise" soon after Armageddon is a child's story.
JoshuaReply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 07:12:14
Hi Joshua,
You may like to note that according to Rev 20:5 the general resurrection does not begin until after the thousand years have ended.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-11 07:57:06
Hi ANTONINVS,
On this point, we disagree. On this point, I believe the witnesses have it right, at least in part. However, I'll leave it at that for now as I would like to put all the reasoning in an article, so that if there are any flaws in the logic, they can be analyzed by everyone.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 08:06:21
Hi Meleti
You may notice I didn't make a statement either way. I just reported what the bible actually says. I new this to be a contentious point so I avoided making a comment.
That is what the bible says. Everyone can draw their own conclusion.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-11 09:11:14
It is a contentious point and I appreciate your prudence in not starting a discussion on it now, as that gives me time to prepare an article and then invite comments by which we might establish common ground for everyone.
You are right also in saying "that is what the bible says." Jesus also said that he would raise his body up, causing some to believe that he exists forever in the flesh. Jesus also said: "“. . .and everyone that is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all.. . .” (Joh 11:26) He was speaking to Lazarus' sister who did exercise faith in him and yet did die.
I think we can all agree that what we need to look for is not what it says, but what it means.
If we didn't have to discern the meaning behind what it says, then the Bible would be an open book and everyone could understand it. Jehovah has had it written in such a way as to hide the meaning from those undeserving while revealing it to all the ones he has chosen. He puts all the security coders of our age to shame by creating an unbreakable code.
“I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved.” (Lu 10:21)Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 14:12:54
Hi Meleti,
Good idea. Please write about it. Again I will shy away from making a comment now. Since you are planning to write about it I won't steal your thunder.
However, I will simply mention that with regard to your comment on Jesus' remarks about himself some bible commentators draw a distinction between a physical resurrection and a bodily resurrection. This distinction also applies to the resurrection of all Christ's brothers.
Now some may view this as nothing more than a play on words and conclude that essentially these are one and the same.thing. A closer examination reveals this is not necessarily the case.
Again out of deference to you I'll leave off making a comment now. I'm just giving you a heads up. This may be a point to consider in your article so that you can head off any potential objection from some of your readers.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 17:36:37
Hi Meleti,
Just a simple example of how correct and accurate translation can elucidate the biblical text.
Using the verse you refer to, John 11:26. The MCT puts it this way, "And anyone, the one living and trusting in me, no, should not die to the coming age."
The way Mickelson translates here makes it obvious that Christ is saying those living, shall not die eternally, and can be said to live forever prospectively. At a glance this translation removes all the doubt as to what Christ meant.
Translation is crucial. With translations such as the MCT the meaning and explanation become apparent as you read. There is no need for the reader to wonder what the real meaning might be. This is exactly how a first century Greek would have read and understood it.
This is just an example of how colourful and vital the MCT translation is.
Hope you enjoyed that.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 18:50:14
Incidentally, in addition to my previous comment regarding John 11:26.
It should be noted that even according to the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, this verse literally reads as follows, "and everyone the living and believing into me not not should die into the age."
Then, like many translations the NWT confuses the issue by translating the verse as, " and everyone who is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all." The meaning is distorted here. In no way, shape or form, does this translation convey the thought of living forever in prospect with reference to the age to come. Where's as the original Greek text does precisely that. It removes the ambiguity from the text altogether.
So many queries and misinterpretations would not arise if translation was consistent and accurate.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 19:34:12
Hi Meleti,
I would just mention one basic yet crucial point that should be taken into consideration regarding Rev 20:5.
The context reveals a straightforward description of the first resurrection, nothing more nothing less. There is no ambiguity. It is almost universally accepted that this passage of scripture is a LITERAL description of the reality, employing what at first glance may appear to be quasi-symbolic imagery so we can comprehend what is being said. But the fact remains that regardless of the imagery employed the subject is literal.
The question is this. If the context is LITERAL, what basis is there to conclude that mid-stream as it were John throws in a statement that should be taken symbolically and then continues his previous LITERAL line of reasoning? This would seem to make little sense unless verse 5 is simply to draw attention to the contrast between the first and second resurrections.
I hope I'm not getting ahead of myself by advanceing this point. I did say we should wait for your article, and I'm happy to continue doing so. Although the cat may already be out of the bag. If so, I apologise. I only raise it so that you can address it. Because as simple as this question may seem on the surface, it is anything but.
Thanks again.
Reply by life2come on 2016-01-11 08:55:58
Personally, I would like to see an analysis on this scripture as it has puzzled me in the past and the JW explanation was not convincing.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-11 09:12:46
It is in the works, life2come. I am just working through a backlog, but hope to catch up soon.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-11 14:27:59
Hi life2come,
Hang on tight, an analysis of Rev 20:5 is coming. In fairness we'll give Meleti an opportunity to write his article first.
In the meantime here's a (friendly) challenge. Find one scripture, one will do, that EXPLICITLY teaches otherwise regarding the general resurrection.
If you can find one, I'll congratulate you now. Since you will have been the only person in history ever to do so. LOL
All the best.
Comment by Christopher on 2016-01-10 20:02:41
You are absolutely right. The JWs don't realize that the judgment is not at Armageddon but is 1000 year process. It will culminate with the judgment of the sheep and the goats at the end. The wheat and the chaff is at the end of the Jewish Age Harvest. The wheat and the weeds is the harvest at the Gospel Age and the sheep and the goats is at the end of the Millennial Age.
Comment by AR on 2016-01-11 23:27:30
Always appreciate your review of the Wt study Meleti, your insights are valuable. Roger K brought out the Greek word' Naos 'something I only recently learned, after decades as a JW. So here at rev 7:4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, 144,000, Note he says "I heard the number" 144,000...it seems it's not a fixed number because in Vrs 9 he says "he saw and look a great crowd , which no man may number" so first he hears'then he 'see's' what he heard. I believe the number if anything means perfection in gods eyes. I'm open to correction as I'm trying to fully understand the connection with the number and great crowd. I get the meaning of Naos.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 01:00:43
Hi AR
For your consideration. This is a point of view I came across that seems to makes sense.
" first the 144,000 and the great multitude are not two different peoples but two different ways of describing the same purified bride. Literally, the 144,000 and the great multitude are comparable to the lion and the lamb. Just as John is told about a lion and turns to see a lamb Rev 5:5-6, so he is told about the 144,000 and turns to see a great multitude Rev 7. Thus, the 144,000 is to the great multitude what the lion is to the lamb, namely, the same entity seen from two different vantage points. From one vantage point the purified bride is numbered; from another, she is innumerable - a great multitude that no one can count."Reply by AR on 2016-01-12 01:38:09
Thanks ANTONINVS, I appreciate that, makes sense. I appreciate your comments, throughout also.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 01:39:45
Hi AR
You are most welcome.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-12 07:38:24
While the meaning of the 144,000 and the great crowd may not become crystal clear to us prior to the Lord's return, one thing we can say without doubt: There is no scriptural basis for considering the great crowd to be composed exclusively of Christians who are not God's children, the secondary class of Christian that Rutherford believed existed.
Reply by AR on 2016-01-12 22:16:14
thanks Meleti, i appreciate your input also,its amazing what ive come to learn from the articles and different points from the comments.
Comment by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 01:32:43
1 Corinthians 11:26 says, "For whenever you eat this loaf or drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes." NWT
If as JW's claim, Christ came and has been present since 1914, why do they continue to commemorate his death?
The verse quoted above indicates that Christ's death should be commemorated until he comes. Logically, once he comes and is present there is no need to continue commemorating his sacrifice.
This is another woeful error.Reply by F J on 2016-01-12 14:51:33
I had that one pointed out to me many years ago by a born again christian . I researched the point in the publications and come up with a claptrap excuse that it was because the anointed were not with christ yet and the promises had not been fulfilled . The reality was of course that it was because christ had not returned yet like he was trying to tell me . The man knew more about the bible than me .but i wouldnt listen because i had become arrogant thinking that only our religion knew the real truth .
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 16:04:07
Hi FJ
I hear you.
Comment by Menrov on 2016-01-12 01:36:05
Thanks Meleti, please note that the lead text is not from John 4:8,16 but from 1 John 4:8,16. Overall, I scanned through the article and wonder if this article actually increases ones appreciation for the fact that God is love. The title is wrong actually because He is not the God of love but is love. In par. 2, It first indicates that obedience is key but true love means it is a gift, grace not a reward for being obedient. But for the organisation, obedience is most essential.....
I am not convinced that allowing suffering (deceases, wars, rape, molestation etc) for over 7000 years is truly a sign of love. But, in the reasoning of the WT, I guess this justifies their policy of DF and related shunning: it is not to make you suffer but a sign of love
The creation (earth, universe etc) is all very nice but in my view, I do not really see this as proof of Him being love. When a painter paints a beautiful painting, it cannot be said his motivation was love for the people.
Par 12 again stresses obedience: "The blameless one” comes to know Jehovah and his Son and obediently does God’s will"
Par 13 sneaky shows that a personal relationship with God: have a close personal relationship with Jehovah because of his great act of love""
I guess they mean being a friend. Not as being His child.....
Par 15 SAYS “God loved the world [of redeemable mankind] "... So, not mankind but a subset. Cannot find this in the bible. Also strange as God love us while we we sinners: Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
All in all, for those that have attended meetings for the last say 3 years or more, nothing new in essence.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 02:43:11
Hi Menrov
I appreciate your comments. However, once it is all boiled down it comes to one inescapable fact, "God is love".
If one believes that the bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God, then whether one finds the statement "God is love" difficult to believe or accept is a moot point.
We cannot contend on the one hand that the bible is infallible and then on the other hand pick and choose what we accept from its pages. If we say the bible is the inspired word of God we are duty bound to accept everything it says, without exception, whether it fits our particular world view or not.Reply by Menrov on 2016-01-12 05:00:10
Hi ANTONINVS, thanks for feedback. Probably my wording but it is not that I do not believe God is love. My point was that the most of the examples provided in the study article do not provide proof to me that God is love. Except for His Son, which is an act and proof of love.
With regards to the infallibility of the bible, I can only say that I have full confidence in the message in the bible but as ALL translations are fallible, I do not automatically take each word or phrase as 100% correct or true.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 05:22:04
Hi Menrov
Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. I apologise, it appears I got the wrong end of the stick.
What you say about bible translations containing errors is true. I would say however, that when it comes to a simple statement of fact such as "God is love" it is not a statement that lends itself to any interpretation. It is self explanatory, and requires no justification. There are times when the meaning and intent of a verse is beyond dispute. Clearly, this is one of those times.
There are dozens of complex translation issues. As you rightly point out, not all bibles do them justice.
Thanks again for getting back to me, all the best.Reply by Vincent Gomez on 2016-01-12 09:15:16
I do agree that some Bible translations contain errors. That can't be disputed. But I don't find many of them. Most are easily spotted. In my view, many times I see these "errors" as just "another flavor". It is all ice cream but just different flavors. I am happy that God allowed men to translate the Bible in many ways. It just gives you more depth. Just like John 1:1. Is it "the Word was God", or is it "divine"? Heck, even "a god" gives perspective. However "God" is a little more reflective. Do we say Jesus was worshipped, or given obeisance? "Worship" is more reflective for me, but the other gives balance. . I have seen this in the discussion forum, where one thinks this or that is a wrong translation, but in the end, it is not always wrong, but rather perception. Imagine if their were only one Bible translated perfectly. That may sound ideal. But would it? We may begin to wonder, what does that scripture mean? We then would have no other translations to reflect on possuble meanings. It would leave no room for any possibilities. It would always be a "wait on Jehovah" situation. Period. The Watchtower has the thinking, "my way or the highway". By allowing different ways of translating, we can see clearly that God is not like that. It is like me telling my children that I want their chores done, but allowing them freedom to accomplish it in different ways. Bottom line for me is that most of these "errors", are not so much misguidance by individual men or churches, but rather, another layer of depth. God did not inspire the Bible in that he gave them exact words. But rather it was his thoughts. He gave some leeway. It becomes a "focus on the forest and not the trees" matter. Reminds me of 2 Timothy: 2:14. "Remind them of these things, charging them in the sight of the Lord, that they don't argue about words, to no profit, to the subverting of those who hear." After leaving the Watchtower, we question EVERYTHING. I understand. Personally, I want to relax and enjoy my journey.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 15:51:04
Greetings Vincent,
Good to receive your thoughts. I'm afraid I can't go along entirely with your reasoning. Using just one of the points you mentioned I'll illustrate why.
The "Word" referred to in John 1:1.
You may or may not be aware that in all the original Greek manuscripts capitalisation was NEVER used. Therefore, in John 1:1 it should translate as "word" not "Word".
You may wonder, so what? How does that change anything?
The implication is huge, Simply put, if "word" is capitalised it then becomes a title and refers to a person. If it remains uncapitalised the reverse is true, it is not a title and does not refer to a person.
The same principle applies to holy spirit. If you capitaliise it becomes a title, therefore a person. This is precisely what most bibles do. THEY PLACE THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS ABOVE LINGUISTIC ACCURACY. They allow doctrine to dictate translation. In this way any given translation quickly becomes biased, since it promotes a particular theology.
The NWT is no different it capitalises "word" in John 1:1 theryby making it a title. However, it doesn't apply the same rule when it comes to the holy spirit. Notwithstanding the fact that neither word is capitalised in the Greek manuscripts. Whether to capitalise or not becomes arbitrary on the part of the translator.
So the NWT like most other translations renders many passages in a particular way to fit their theology. Since JW's don't believe the holy spirit is a person they refrain from capitalising it.
It doesn't get much bigger than knowing if "word" is Jesus and the "holy spirit" is a person. These are crucial. Hence, why the importance of correct translation should never be underestimated. A whole belief system can be based on a lie.
All good interlinear bibles will show that in John 1:1 "word" is not capitalised in the original text. You can easily check this for yourself.
Below are three translations that offer an alternate rendering based on the fact that "word" should not be capitalised and applied as a title. You may find these helpful for comparative purposes.
"In the beginning there was God's grand design, and that declaration was with God, related to Him as His project, and it was fully expressive of God himself."
"In the beginning was the message of God's purpose. This message of His purpose was integral to God, and what God was the message was."
The great William Tyndale himself, father of the English Bible, translated the verse as follows:
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God: and the word was God."
My point is, just from this one seemingly simple verse a whole doctrine can arise that then becomes central to an entire belief system.
Interestingly, apart from John 1:1 no other occurrence of "word" in the scriptures is translated as "Word". Any honest hearted enquirer has to wonder why translators observe translation rules in every case regarding "word" except for John 1:1. The Ancient Greeks had no concept of the term "word" referring to a person. To them it meant simply, message, declaration, utterance, etc.
How important therefore, that whichever translation we use, it reflects the message God intended as closely as possible.
I hope this was helpful.Reply by Vincent Gomez on 2016-01-12 18:27:59
Thanks ANTONINVS. Yes, I agree with EVERYTHING you said.
“In the beginning there was God’s grand design, and that declaration was with God, related to Him as His project, and it was fully expressive of God himself.”
I have that translation myself. It is my favorite! Christ is the Logos. I guess, John 1:1 is one of those scriptures that is easier to figure out due to the fact, that many errors in the Bible are connected to people's wanting to believe in the trinity. The way I think, is that once you have the big picture of Christ being the Logos, then in a general way I can see why he would be called God in other translations. Also, I take for granite that when I see "Word", I think of the Greek word "Logos". But not everyone thinks that way. This is a good example of why we need different translations. It really boils down to us needing to take responsibility for digging and finding truth.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 19:04:12
Hi Vincent,
Thank you for your kind remarks, I appreciate them. I would be happy to share with you what I have learned about John 1:1. This is a fascinating subject. Very few people actually know what the opening verses of John are really talking about. Most simply accept the traditional explanation.
For example, just one quick point, and this may come as an outright shock to many, most of the great Trinitarian minds, particularly the foremost scholars of the 20th century onward, openly acknowledge that in John chapter one Jesus does not come into view until verse 10 at the earliest. Let's not forget these men are die-hard Trinitarians. Even they accept that the opening verses of John chapter 1 do not refer to Christ.
Anyway that is just a teaser, may already know this.
When I have a little time I will contact you at vinman. Like you I am a family man. My time is not entirely my own. I'll be in touch, because it is a very technical and involved subject. It will require much time to examine the various lines of reasoning. It is well worthwhile, however, the proofs are staggering.
All the best.
Reply by Vincent Gomez on 2016-01-12 18:35:08
ANTONINVS.
PS: Feel free to email me about this subject. I am in the "Finding Friends" section under vinman. This is one subject that I love and has changed life in many ways.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-12 19:22:20
Not to get into the theological discussion, but keeping it with the grammar, ancient Greek had on capital letters so deciding whether or not to capitalize is within the purview of the translator.
Second, capitalization can be used to refer to a person, but it is not restricted to that. Capitalization is used to create a proper noun, essentially a noun that is a name. For example, we capitalize God to refer to refer to the one true god based on our theology. In Greek it is "ho theos", literally "the god" whereas we capitalize it for the same effect: God. However, things can also be represented by capitalize, turning them into proper nouns, such as The Library of Congress.
Now for the theological part. I do not agree that it is wrong to capitalize the Word, for it is a proper noun and does refer to a person.
Rather than write more here, you can see my view on the matter here.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 19:50:56
Hi Meleti,
Not to make too finer point of it. But almost no English bible prior to the KJV capitalised logos. It would seem it was not viewed as a proper noun.
I am fluent in Italian, Spanish and Portugese. I can assure you the same is true of the earlier (16 - 17 century) bibles in these languages.
The change form "word" to "Word" would appear to have come much later, from the KJV onward.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-12 21:46:44
English has changed greatly over those centuries. What is important isn't what was done then, but whether in modern English it is appropriate to translate logos as a proper noun.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 21:59:52
Hi Meleti,
Consider this:
Many prominent Tritarians accept that Jesus does not come into view for the first time until John 1:10. And these are die-hard trinitarians.
Raymond E. Brown, (catholic), N T Wright (Anglican), and James Dunn among many others.
Clearly the fact that the language has evolved is not the determining factor. It is theology is the factor.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 22:28:29
Hi again Meleti,
Like you, I don't wish to get bogged down in a discussion of John 1:1. Ultimately it would be very time consuming and there would be little accomplished. I feel sure you agree.
There is a very strong argument for contending that Jesus does not come into view until verse 10 of John chapter 1.
No doubt the same claim could be made for support of the standard position that Jesus is the Word. However, dropping a statement like 'language has changed' is not one of them. We are entitled to something more solid than that.
Please don't take my comments as a criticism. I respect your opinion as do many others. There is nothing personal in my comments, I am just addressing the issue. I don't see this as a point that must be proved at all costs. I'm sure you feel the same way. I am merely presenting an alternate view. The reader is free to make up his own mind.
As always, thank you and all the best.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-13 07:01:24
Not to worry. I don't take it as a criticism. However, I think you've misread my meaning. I wasn't contending that because more recent translations capitalize Logos, that this constitutes proof that logos refers to a person. My reasoning was based on the impression I got from what you wrote that you were basing your argument on how older translations were rendering the word. So when I said "language has changed" I wasn't suggesting that the way a translator chooses to render anything should ever be taken as proof of a theological argument. I only meant that if we are looking at the fact that old translations didn't capitalize, it may be that the reason wasn't because the translators didn't believe logos refers to a person, but rather that in those days capitalization of proper nouns might not have been used as it is today.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-13 07:20:35
Hi Meleti,
Thanks for your clarification, much appreciated. We may have talking at cross purposes without realising. All good.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-13 06:36:11
I quite agree. Perhaps I read you wrong. I thought that you were basing some of your argument on the fact that very old translations didn't capitalize the Logos when rendering into English. I do agree. Whether it should be considered a proper noun in English or not should be based on what the rest of scripture reveals about the nature of the Logos. But you already know my position if you've read the category on BP "The Word".
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-13 07:24:10
Hi Meleti,
It is always a little more difficult to explain oneself via piecemeal chats when complicated subjects are involved. It's a fine balance between avoiding writing a book's worth of explanation and being concise and yet understood.
Thanks again.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-13 07:35:58
Tell me about it... :)
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-12 08:20:16
Thanks Menrov. I'll fix that.
Comment by Father jack on 2016-01-12 03:59:54
Just thinking about the comments about seeing jesus return cannot be taken literal because those who pierced him will no longer be alive . Just thinking that if those who pierced him are not alive then they are not going to see him by perception either are they never mind literally . There was one roman soldier that literally pierced him as far as i know but the verse seems to be speaking of a number of people for it uses the term they . Could it be speaking of the roman soldiers , or the jewish sanhedrin . Or the jewish nation in the first century . We do know that at jesus return he performs ressurections from the dead could this be how every eye will see him . Even those that pierced him .
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 05:33:14
Hi father jack
Reasoning from the Scriptures page 343 paragraph 3 gives one explanation that I personally do not find objectionable.There are other valid explanations that easily dismiss any perceived problem with "those that pierced him" being there to see him.
This particular objection can be easily and satisfactorily be laid to rest.
All the best.Reply by F J on 2016-01-12 08:27:46
Cheers ant ive even give you the thumbs up there . Sound .
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-12 16:14:45
Hi FJ
Your are welcome, all the best.
Comment by leaving_quietly on 2016-01-12 18:35:51
Nice article.
Last paragraph: "If a Bible prophecy did truly show that Christ’s presence began in 1914, why does the writer would cite the Scriptural references to support it?"
I know what you meant, but, this needs a bit of rephrasing. :)Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-12 18:46:04
Thanks leaving_quietly. I'll fix that.
Comment by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-14 17:46:12
Mark 8:31 identifies the generation. Then in verse 38 of the same chapter we are told that Jesus will reject that very same generation when he returns in the future. He deals with them as it were, when he returns.
The picture emerges that, the generation first appears when Jesus walked the earth and spans one continuous age or eon until he returns.
Although it begins with the religious leaders and Jews of Jesus day, the generation encompasses all perverse society that has continued to reject Christ through the centuries. In this way we can reconcile Jesus rejecting this generation when he comes. Because that will still be the prevalent attitude that marks the generation.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-14 18:54:32
I see two issues with this line of reasoning, but of them, the more important one is that Jesus words can be understood in one of two ways. Understanding it as you've explained requires us to accept a non-standard definition of his words, obviously one which his listeners would not have grasped. Or we could understand that he is referring to the wicked generation he was addressing. How then could he reject them when he returns given that they are all dead. We have to remember that he is the judge of the living and the dead. (Acts 10:42) He will determine whom to resurrect and whom to reject.
When a Scripture is ambiguous, we must rely on other texts to help us determine which of the two meanings is the correct one.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-14 19:03:59
Firstly, as we well
know Jesus made numerous statements that his listeners did not understand or appreciate. This is reported over and over in the scriptures. His own disciples misunderstood time and time again. They simply did not get the sense of what he was saying. Imagine therefore, those who rejected him outright.
Secondly, if the generation spans a time period then he would only need to be addressing those who are alive at the time. Since those that are being addressed are CHARACTERIZED by a prevailing attitude of rejection. It is not specific individuals that are dealt with but all those that display an attitude of rejection when he comes.
I don't see the slightest problem here. It all fits.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-14 19:11:52
The biblical record clearly demonstrates the general pattern was that Christ's listeners rarely understood everything he said. Jesus commented that many of the deeper things were not meant to be understood by those who rejected him.
This would have been much more so among the Jewish religious leaders, who were completely closed minded to everything Christ said.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-14 20:03:11
True, but we can hardly use that as a reason to accredit a non-standard definition of 'generation'. Your second point doesn't track. If other generations after his day were to display the same characteristics as that generation, they would also be rejected by him since the same principle would apply. There is no need to create a definition of the word that is not what his followers would have understood. For instance, Mt. 23:35, 36 is very specific as to which generation he is speaking to and what punishment would be meted out to them. While the attitude that generation exhibited is prevalent today, that doesn't mean people today are of that generation. The Jews rejected Jesus. People reject Jesus today. "Since those that are being addressed are CHARACTERIZED by a prevailing attitude of rejection", it follows that people who reject Jesus today are Jews.
You see, the word "generation" isn't defined solely by some characteristic of those making it up, but by a shared timeline. A man of my age could be said to be of the hippie generation because he is characterized by the prevailing attitude of those who lived through that era. If in another 300 years the hippie movement resurfaces, they would not be considered part of our current hippie generation.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-14 21:17:21
The problem is the confusion surrounding the word "generation"' in this context.
The Greek, genea (generation) has a far greater sigmificance than the word generation carries in English. Our English equivalent is a poor substitute. It is too one dimensional. This is not so with the Greek genea.
In order to get the right interpretation the first most basic step is to understand what genea really means. The English word generation is far to limited. Some bibles use the word age. This is better but also has its limitations.
In this context generation (genea) properly relates to the duration of a timespan, an age or eon. Generation has two aspects, one temporal and the other characterized by a prevailing societal attitude. It is the combination of these two elements that constitutes the generation Jesus spoke of, [a prevalent attitude that would characterize or define a period of time, or a cycle of existence, a continuous generation of offspring, perpetuating a state of being as passed on to progeny.]
If one doesn't start with the most fundamental step, getting the sense and meaning of the word generation in this context, then application that follows will be flawed, without exception.
It is really quite simple. There is no issue here. Sometimes we complicate matters by creating problems where there aren't any. Secondly, by not having a firm grasp of what a word or phrase actually means.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-14 21:28:27
I forgot to mention, we need to get this concept of generations (plural) out of our minds. It is one generation or age, eon.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-15 00:01:53
ANTONINVS, You just keep restating your case without giving proof. Interpretation yes, but not one that fits all the facts. Perhaps you'd care to open a topic on DTT. I'd be happy to participate. You could start by showing proof that all the times Jesus refers to the wicked generation, he wasn't using generation in the sense we understand it but in the sense you assert it means in Greek. You'd also have to harmonize this interpretation with all the other relevant Scriptures.
Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-15 01:05:00
Consider this for a start.
Matthew 24:29-31 states, 'that IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION Jesus sends his angels to gather his chosen ones.'
If the tribulation of those days occurred in the first century as you contend, when and how did Jesus immediately after dispatch his angels to gather the chosen ones. As you well know this did not occur in the first century. If it had, the poor apostle John for one, would have been left behind.
The scripture is clear, Jesus sends out his angels to gather his chosen ones immediately after the tribulation. If we place the tribulation in the first century, we have a huge discrepancy since, clearly Jesus did not gather his chosen ones at that time. This is a future event as we all know.
Therefore, it can be stated with certainty that Jesus' words regarding the generation await a future conclusion, this is a better word than fulfilment. These few words 'immediately after the tribulation' clearly fix the timing of the events.
These verses also support Mark 8:38 that I mentioned previously. In Mark it clearly states that Jesus will reject the generation he spoke of when he comes in glory.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-15 08:09:52
>>Consider this for a start.
No, you misread perhaps my last comment. I didn't want you to start a discussion here. This is a comment section, not well suited for complex back and forth discussions. I'll be setting up a special discussion subforum with Apollos very soon, hopefully over the weekend. If you'd like to prepare a submission, we could make that our first topic.
Incidentally, I've already answered the questions you've raised on the posts I gave you links to in a previous comment. However, when you prepare your submission, you will want to address how you know that the tribulation spoken of at Mt 24:29 is the same one referred to earlier, the one that was cut short resulting in the salvation of Christians in Jerusalem. And how you can be 100% sure he is not referring to another tribulation, a different one, that culminations at the time of this return.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-15 14:20:14
Hi Meleti,
Thanks for getting back to me, I appreciate it.
Did you consider my last point carefully? Your reply appears to indicate you missed my point.
The verses themselves fix the timing of the event, not me, because the events described are accepted universally as future events. I'm not sure how else I can put it. I would have thought it is self evident, since the verses in question allow no wriggle room. The details are specific and unmistakable.
I don't mind discussing this on the forum you suggest. I understood your invitation to do so. I felt however, that my points would get greater exposure on this forum.
I have numerous proofs to supply. As they say, I'm saving the best till last. I have been raising them one at a time so as not to bombard others with too much information at one time. If each point is raised in isolation it may make it easier for teaders to grasp the overall concept, slowly, methodically.
I'm not trying to be contentious or revolutionary. Everyone should have the benefit of examining and expressing different views. I thought that's what this site promoted? I hope I've understood correctly. If can't do that, we are no better than the WT that doesn't allow open and free discussion.
Many thanksReply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-15 16:56:20
To rephrase it another way, it is not me that is saying that the events outlined in Matt 24:29-31 are future, it is the bible account itself that unmistakably places these events squarely in the future.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-15 17:17:36
Is someone suggesting they are not future? I may have missed that comment.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-15 17:16:17
ANTONINVS,
I haven't missed your point. I see serious flaws in it. However, the comment section--I know I'm repeating myself--is not the proper forum for this time of discussion.
I've already done extensive research on this subject, and published that research. Your arguments have not addressed those points, but you seem to want to promote your own while ignoring mine. That's fine. We've created a forum just for such a contingency.
As for this: "I felt however, that my points would get greater exposure on this forum", if you can prove your points on the other forum which would involve disproving mine, then I will give you the exposure you desire. A post on BP is read more than the comments. A lot of readers do not read the comments, but a post gets greater exposure. But to post, you have to be able to prove your points scripturally before your peers.
You state: "Everyone should have the benefit of examining and expressing different views. I thought that’s what this site promoted? I hope I’ve understood correctly. If can’t do that, we are no better than the WT that doesn’t allow open and free discussion."
We welcome different viewpoints, but in this case, it isn't just a view or an opinion, is it? There is a teaching on this site and you are promoting a different teaching. That goes beyond the expression of a view and requires the evaluation that can best be handled in a moderated debating format. If you're up for it, give me a few days and I'll set it up.Reply by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-16 02:50:20
Thanks for the offer, sounds good.
Comment by Buster on 2016-01-15 17:29:27
I love that paragraph 15, has John 3:16 in brackets, with God loved the world [ of redeemable mankind], that is not what the scripture says, wait so are we going back to the old school NWT bibles and there Brackets [ ] cause I missed them, oh wait they been gone sincef the 2007/2008 of the NWT bible Nice!!!, I laugh how the Organization throws in there own Dogmas when ever they can, and you know On Saturday/ or Sunday a Elder is gonna point this out.
But I wonder if they tell people this when they go there doors at service, wait I taught Jesus came to Save Sinners, Matthew 9:11-15, or 1 Timothy 1:15, maybe Jesus needs to.get the memo only for Redeemable Mankind