My Joe, you wanted a few quotes from Historians pointing to 1914 as a turning point. There is no shortage of them,  this is about 25 min click and past.

\The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World is the title of a 2007 book by Alan Greenspan. For almost 20 years, he was chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Board, which oversees that nation’s entire central banking system. Greenspan highlights the marked contrast between the world situation before 1914 and what followed:
  “By all contemporaneous accounts, the world prior to 1914 seemed to be moving irreversibly toward higher levels of civility and civilization; human society seemed perfectible. The nineteenth century had brought an end to the wretched slave trade. Dehumanizing violence seemed on the decline. . . . The pace of global invention had advanced throughout the nineteenth century, bringing railroads, the telephone, the electric light, cinema, the motor car, and household conveniences too numerous to mention. Medical science, improved nutrition, and the mass distribution of potable water had elevated life expectancy . . . The sense of the irreversibility of such progress was universal.”
  But . . . “World War I was more devastating to civility and civilization than the physically far more destructive World War II: the earlier conflict destroyed an idea. I cannot erase the thought of those pre-World War I years, when the future of mankind appeared unencumbered and without limit. Today our outlook is starkly different from a century ago but perhaps a bit more consonant with reality. Will terror, global warming, or resurgent populism do to the current era of life-advancing globalization what World War I did to the previous one? No one can be confident of the answer.”
  Greenspan recalled from his student days a statement by Economics Professor Benjamin M. Anderson (1886-1949): “Those who have an adult’s recollection and an adult’s understanding of the world which preceded World War I look back upon it with a great nostalgia. There was a sense of security then which has never since existed.”—Economics and the Public Welfare.

A World Undone, by G. J. Meyer, published in 2006. We read: “Historic events are often said to have ‘changed everything.’ In the case of the Great War [1914-1918] this is, for once, true. The war really did change everything: not just borders, not just governments and the fate of nations, but the way people have seen the world and themselves ever since. It became a kind of hole in time, leaving the post-war world permanently disconnected from everything that had come before.”

Pandemonium, by U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, published in 1993, a comment on “the catastrophe of 1914” reads: “War came and the world changed—utterly. There are today just eight states on earth which both existed in 1914 and have not had their form of government changed by violence since then. . . . Of the remaining 170 or so contemporary states, some are too recently created to have known much recent turmoil

This does not specify 1914, but shows the change in the world in the ensuing century.
Out of Control—Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century (1993). The author is Zbigniew Brzezinski, former head of the U.S. National Security Council. He writes: “The onset of the twentieth century was hailed in many commentaries as the real beginning of the Age of Reason. . . . Contrary to its promise, the twentieth century became mankind’s most bloody and hateful century, a century of hallucinatory politics and of monstrous killings. Cruelty was institutionalized to an unprecedented degree, lethality was organized on a mass production basis. The contrast between the scientific potential for good and the political evil that was actually unleashed is shocking. Never before in history was killing so globally pervasive, never before did it consume so many lives, never before was human annihilation pursued with such concentration of sustained effort on behalf of such arrogantly irrational goals.”

Professor of history Robert Wohl wrote in his book The Generation of 1914: “Those who lived through the war could never rid themselves of the belief that one world had ended and another begun in August 1914

Historian Norman Cantor. “If the politicians and generals had treated the millions under their care like animals dispatched to slaughter, then what canons of religion or ethics could any longer inhibit men from treating each other with the ferocity of jungle beasts? . . . The slaughter of the First World War [1914-18] thoroughly debased the value of human life.”

“Of all the convulsive transformations of the European system, the Great War and the peace settlement brought about the sharpest break with the past, economically and socially no less than politically. . . . The mellow glory of that freely operating and productive system had vanished in the catastrophe of war. Instead, Europe had to cope with economic exhaustion and universal economic dislocation. . . . The damage was so great that the European economy did not recover from stagnation and instability before the next world war struck.”—The World in the Crucible 1914-1919, by Bernadotte E. Schmitt and Harold C. Vedeler.
“Like a ghost that lingered past the appointed hour, the nineteenth century—with its essential orderliness, its self-confidence, and its faith in human progress—had tarried until August 1914, when the major European powers suffered a collective attack of muddle-headedness that led directly to the senseless slaughter of millions of the best young men of a generation. Four and a half years later, as the world tried to pick up the pieces after the wrenching cataclysm of the Great War, it became apparent to many (but by no means all) contemporary observers that the last remaining vestiges of the old order had been swept away, and that mankind had entered a new age that was considerably less rational and less forgiving of human imperfections. Those who had expected peace to usher in a better world found their hopes betrayed in 1919.”—The preface in 1919—The Year Our World Began, by William K. Klingaman.
The Columbia History of the World states: “The great catastrophe of the Four Years’ War of 1914–1918 . . . showed the Western world that it could not protect civilization from its own stupidity or evil impulse. The spirit of the West has never really recovered from that shattering.”
It is indeed the year 1914 rather than that of Hiroshima which marks the turning point in our time.”—René Albrecht-Carrié, The Scientific Monthly, July 1951.
“Ever since 1914, everybody conscious of trends in the world has been deeply troubled by what has seemed like a fated and predetermined march toward ever greater disaster. Many serious people have come to feel that nothing can be done to avert the plunge towards ruin.”—Bertrand Russell, The New York Times Magazine, September 27, 1953.
“The modern era . . . began in 1914, and no one knows when or how it will end. . . . It could end in mass annihilation.”—The Seattle Times, January 1, 1959.
“The whole world really blew up about World War I and we still don’t know why. . . . Utopia was in sight. There was peace and prosperity. Then everything blew up. We’ve been in a state of suspended animation ever since.”—Dr. Walker Percy, American Medical News, November 21, 1977.
“In 1914 the world lost a coherence which it has not managed to recapture since. . . . This has been a time of extraordinary disorder and violence, both across national frontiers and within them.”—The Economist, London, August 4, 1979.
“Everything would get better and better. This was the world I was born in. . . . Suddenly, unexpectedly, one morning in 1914 the whole thing came to an end.”—British statesman Harold Macmillan, The New York Times, November 23, 1980

Many argue "there has always been wars' 'footshortages' and earthquakes etc etc, and they are right, but if you read the verse before, actually i will paste it in here;

4 And in answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads YOU; 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 [b]YOU are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that YOU are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet.[/b]7 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.

Notice verse 6 even points out that there will be wars, which there always has been, because after all as the prophet Jerimiah pointed out  "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." But the first sign Jesus gave of his presence "parousia"was "For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom", in a way that would be distinct from just 'wars and reports of war"

As far back as December 1879—some 35 years before 1914—The Watchtower (then known as Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence) gave Bible evidence proving that 1914 would be a significant year. Fair enough, as many are too keen to point out, they thought at the time that Jesus would actually arrive on earth at that time establish his kingdom, destroying the "gentile nations" this was due to the widely held belief (by many christian religions)  that these signs were evidence of Jesus "coming" as is often translated, rather than his actual "presence" in heavenly power. The following explanation shows the real meaning behind "parousia"

9 Sources back to the second century C.E. indicate that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Evidently he later wrote it in Greek. Many manuscripts in Greek have come down to our time and have served as the basis for translating his Gospel into today’s languages. What did Matthew write in Greek about that conversation on the Mount of Olives? What did he write about the “coming” or “presence” that the disciples asked about and that Jesus commented on?
10 In the first 23 chapters of Matthew, over 80 times we find a common Greek verb for “come,” which is er′kho‧mai. It often conveys the thought of approaching or drawing near, as at John 1:47: “Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him.” Depending on usage, the verb er′kho‧mai can mean “arrive,” “go,” “get to,” “reach,” or “be on one’s way.” (Matthew 2:8, 11; 8:28; John 4:25, 27, 45; 20:4, 8; Acts 8:40; 13:51) But at Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39, Matthew used a different word, a noun found nowhere else in the Gospels: pa‧rou‧si′a. Since God inspired the writing of the Bible, why did he move Matthew to choose this Greek word in these verses when penning his Gospel in Greek? What does it mean, and why should we want to know?
11 Pointedly, pa‧rou‧si′a means “presence.” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says: “PAROUSIA, . . . lit[erally], a presence, para, with, and ousia, being (from eimi, to be), denotes both an arrival and a consequent presence with. For instance, in a papyrus letter a lady speaks of the necessity of her parousia in a place in order to attend to matters relating to her property.” Other lexicons explain that pa‧rou‧si′a denotes ‘the visit of a ruler.’ Hence, it is not just the moment of arrival, but a presence extending from the arrival onward. Interestingly, that is how Jewish historian Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, used pa‧rou‧si′a.
12 The meaning “presence” is clearly borne out by ancient literature, yet Christians are particularly interested in how God’s Word uses pa‧rou‧si′a. The answer is the same—presence. We see that from examples in Paul’s letters. For instance, he wrote to the Philippians: “In the way that you have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence, keep working out your own salvation.” He also spoke of abiding with them that they might exult “through [his] presence [pa‧rou‧si′a] again with [them].” (Philippians 1:25, 26; 2:12) Other versions read “my being with you again” (Weymouth; New International Version); “when I am with you again” (Jerusalem Bible; New English Bible); and “when you once more have me among you.” (Twentieth Century New Testament) At 2 Corinthians 10:10, 11, Paul contrasted “his presence in person” with being “absent.” In these examples he plainly was not speaking of his approach or arrival; he used pa‧rou‧si′a in the sense of being present. (Compare 1 Corinthians 16:17.) What, though, about references to Jesus’ pa‧rou‧si′a? Are they with the sense of his “coming,” or do they indicate an extended presence?
13 Spirit-anointed Christians in Paul’s day were interested in Jesus’ pa‧rou‧si′a. But Paul warned them not to be ‘shaken from their reason.’ First there must appear “the man of lawlessness,” which has proved to be the clergy of Christendom. Paul wrote that “the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs.” (2 Thessalonians 2:2, 3, 9) Plainly, the pa‧rou‧si′a, or presence, of “the man of lawlessness” was not just a momentary arrival; it would extend over time, during which lying signs would be produced. Why is this significant?
14 Consider the verse immediately before that: “The lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence.” Just as the presence of “the man of lawlessness” would be over a period of time, Jesus’ presence would extend for some time and would climax in the destruction of that lawless “son of destruction.”—2 Thessalonians 2

Maybe it is just a co-incidence that 1914 happened to be the start of WW1, right on queue with the bible prophecy of the 7 times stating in 607 BCE ending 2520 years later in 1914, and the first sign Jesus gave of this time period would be "Nation against Nation", and the turbulence of mankind since co-inciding with Revelation Ch 12's forsight into the first thing to happen "Woe to the earth because the devil has come down" but me thinks not.

607 bc is a contentious date, and it is true that some secular sources of history that point to 20 yrs later as the time Gentile times started (587 BC) but you can use bible chronology to pin point 607 bce, but it is a long winded arguement either way. The secular evidence mainly centres around dated coins and a few tablets, more to do with the length of babylonian kings reigns that anything to do with the Jews, but there are several discrepences when it comes to babylonian kings. The accuracy of the bible over popular secular views is often shown with new archeological discoveries (the Babylonian king Belshazzar was a perfect example of this!) Interesting to note that Josephus stated 2 different lengths for the enslavement of the Jews to babylon,  50 yrs and 70 yrs?? Perhaps there is still a lot we dont know about this time. but I will trust the bible that it was 70, because using the 607 date,(70 years prior to Cyrus well documented overthrow of babylon) too many prophecies just work too well to all be a co-incidence.

Interesting to note, another sign was that "the good news of the kingdom will be preached in the entire inhabited earth" That most people would "take no note" of the warning and therefore perish.  Take note of what??

Another line of evidence supporting 607/ 1914
Click here for more info

@RWilliams
What you pasted above only affirms the point I have been trying to make about how your Society takes quotations out of context and distorts facts to prove its own points.

RWilliams:

Another line of evidence supporting 607/ 1914
Click here for more info

I already addressed this on the previous page. Read it.

RWilliams:

My Joe, you wanted a few quotes from Historians pointing to 1914 as a turning point. There is no shortage of them,  this is about 25 min click and past.

\The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World is the title of a 2007 book by Alan Greenspan. For almost 20 years, he was chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Board, which oversees that nation’s entire central banking system. Greenspan highlights the marked contrast between the world situation before 1914 and what followed:
  “By all contemporaneous accounts, the world prior to 1914 seemed to be moving irreversibly toward higher levels of civility and civilization; human society seemed perfectible. The nineteenth century had brought an end to the wretched slave trade. Dehumanizing violence seemed on the decline. . . . The pace of global invention had advanced throughout the nineteenth century, bringing railroads, the telephone, the electric light, cinema, the motor car, and household conveniences too numerous to mention. Medical science, improved nutrition, and the mass distribution of potable water had elevated life expectancy . . . The sense of the irreversibility of such progress was universal.”
  But . . . “World War I was more devastating to civility and civilization than the physically far more destructive World War II: the earlier conflict destroyed an idea. I cannot erase the thought of those pre-World War I years, when the future of mankind appeared unencumbered and without limit. Today our outlook is starkly different from a century ago but perhaps a bit more consonant with reality. Will terror, global warming, or resurgent populism do to the current era of life-advancing globalization what World War I did to the previous one? No one can be confident of the answer.”
  Greenspan recalled from his student days a statement by Economics Professor Benjamin M. Anderson (1886-1949): “Those who have an adult’s recollection and an adult’s understanding of the world which preceded World War I look back upon it with a great nostalgia. There was a sense of security then which has never since existed.”—Economics and the Public Welfare.

I cannot continue to pursue that without sounding like a broken record, but some quick points:
- Greenspan is no kind of historian.
- “By all contemporaneous accounts, the world prior to 1914 seemed to be moving irreversibly toward …” can be applied to other dates in history. In fact, Greenspan does not dismiss the idea that future generations may substitute Sept 11, 2001 for 1914 in that statement.
- Statement’s like Anderson's can only be understood in certain contexts, especially since hard facts and figures don’t support the idea that the world has become less secure,

You have probably heard the story about five blind men that "saw" an elephant and each gave the elephant a different description because they touched different parts of it. But when it is still possible observe an elephant from a distance at get an overall picture as to what it looks like. It is possible to look at the whole picture of the world since 1914 to see what it looks like.
To help convey the point I am trying to make, let’s take the case of earthquake and this erroneous position from your Insight book:

Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1
“Jesus foretold earthquakes in significant number and intensity as a feature of the sign of his presence. (Mt 24:3, 7, 8; Lu 21:11) Since 1914 C.E., there has been an increase in the number of earthquakes, resulting in much distress. With data obtained from the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, supplemented by a number of standard reference works, a tabulation was made in 1984 that included only earthquakes that measured 7.5 or more on the Richter scale, or that resulted in destruction of five million dollars (U.S.) or more in property, or that caused 100 or more deaths. It was calculated that there had been 856 of such earthquakes during the 2,000 years before 1914. The same tabulation showed that in just 69 years following 1914 there were 605 of such quakes. These statistics are a means of indicating the extent of suffering from earthquakes during this period of history.”

Now, compare that with the contrary but correct position which is stated in The Watchtower magazine itself:
“In this regard, note what the book Natural Disasters-Acts of God or Acts of Man? has this to say: ‘There is no evidence that the climatological mechanisms associated with droughts, floods and cyclones are changing. And no geologist is claiming that the earth movements associated with earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami (earthquake waves) are becoming more violent.’ Similarly, the book Earthshock observes: ‘The rocks of every continent contain a record of innumerable major and minor geological events, every one of which would be a catastrophic disaster to mankind if they occurred today-and it is scientifically certain that such events will occur again and again in the future.’ In other words, the earth and its dynamic forces have more or less remained the same throughout the ages. Hence, whether or not some statistics indicate an increase of some forms of geologic or other activity, the earth has not become uncontrollably violent in recent times.” (w93 12/1 p 6)

If you make a careful analysis of wars, violent crime and diseases, you will reach the same conclusion as that Watchtower article correctly did concerning earthquakes. In fact, in some cases such as pestilence, you may find improvements. But maybe you’ve not compared the infant mortality rates of today to those of 1900.

So I ask you again, where is the historian saying that the worse has become worse since 1914?

RWilliams:

A World Undone, by G. J. Meyer, published in 2006. We read: “Historic events are often said to have ‘changed everything.’ In the case of the Great War [1914-1918] this is, for once, true. The war really did change everything: not just borders, not just governments and the fate of nations, but the way people have seen the world and themselves ever since. It became a kind of hole in time, leaving the post-war world permanently disconnected from everything that had come before.”

I can't see what part of that supports your 1914 theory. It merely says the world changed in 1914, the way George W. Bush and even some journalists and historians said the world changed on 11 Sept 2001.

RWilliams:

As far back as December 1879—some 35 years before 1914—The Watchtower (then known as Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence) gave Bible evidence proving that 1914 would be a significant year. Fair enough, as many are too keen to point out, they thought at the time that Jesus would actually arrive on earth at that time establish his kingdom, destroying the "gentile nations" this was due to the widely held belief (by many christian religions)  that these signs were evidence of Jesus "coming" as is often translated, rather than his actual "presence" in heavenly power. The following explanation shows the real meaning behind "parousia"

Yeah, they did not merely state that “1914 would be a significant year.” That’s telling a lie to meander out of another lie. (And that's the only issue some of us "honest-hearted ones" have with your church - not the lies, as we all make mistakes, but the refusal to accept them, come clean and admit they are human just like the rest of us and not some specially consecrated vessel being used by God to dish out truths to mankind.) They prophesied that the world would end in 1914 and made this affirmatory statement:
"They are, we believe, Gods dates and not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.”
Zion’s Watchtower 15 July 1894
Note that this remained your official teaching till 1925. Yet your church would have you believe that when Jesus came in 1918 it was picked because it was found to be teaching the truth. That is, Jesus picked your religion at a time it was teaching a lie about its most fundamental doctrine.

If you take some time to read the books from which those quotations up there were drawn you may see why people accuse your publications of taking quotations out of context.

I have said enough in this thread and some might wonder why you can’t see through spin and lies and hypotheses and conjectures, all in the justification of 1914, a date which amounts to nothing more than the personal opinion of Pastor Russell who actually arrived at it through star reading and measurements taken of certain pyramids in Egypt. You will find that in your old publications.

I grew up as a Jehovah witness and my family is well reknown in the western part of the country (Ilesha) as prominent Jehovah witness family. Presently, i am not an active witness because of what i have seen happening in most congregation i have attended and the organization as a whole.

If you are a witness, please answer the following questions

1 The Watch Tower library only contains publication that was release after 1950. Why? Ask the elders in your congregation and i am 100% sure that you will not have it in your congregation library and if you insist, you will be threaten with apostasy and dis-fellowship like i was

2 Why was the presents of Jesus Christ coming change from 1875 to 1914 ( it was change in 1920) - If you are a witness, you will not know this because no publication after 1950 mention it. If you need the book - herald of Christ presence-, i can send you the PDF

3 Why was the date of Armageddon change from 1920 to 1925, from 1925 to 1950, from 1950 to 1975? The explanation for 1975 Armageddon day was ludicrous. The Governing body made a mistake in calculating the date. Please check the internet for this

4 Do you know that the society join the United Nation for 10 years from 1991 to 2001? During this time, the membership was renew every year and the Governing Body (GB) and the society as a whole only dissociate themselves after the knowledge became public.

5 Please, research the Beth Sarim and Beth Shan and what the Society says about this

6 Why the doctrinal changes in 1995 about the generation that will not pass before the end of the world. It was the core believe that JW holds but it was change because the generation that witness 1914 are nearly all dead. It was change to overlapping generation in 1995 to account for the shortage of their prediction

If you are a witness, answer this question please and make sure you research your answer very well

jaidopor:


Why was the presents of Jesus Christ coming change from 1875 to 1914?

If I'm not mistaken it was actually 1874 not 1875.   Nelson H. Barbour that was the first that said that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874 and Russell believed him.

Another few earthquakes and a Tsunami in the last few months, floods, tornados, weather extremes everywhere. You know it has all happened before, but I think the bible will prove true, and as we go deeper into the last days even the sceptics will have to admit that these things are taking place more and more. Even WHO recently announced we are on the edge of a "post anti-biotic era" pestilence may not be too far away on a scale we don’t want to even think about. Thankfully, everyone who knows what the bible says will realise what is happening and will be able to "lift their heads erect" because they know their deliverance is getting near.

Who knows how bad it will get or where we are into "the last days" we all tend to rush things as short life-spanned humans, but in reality even a century is a very short time.

The questions posed a few threads back are easily answered. You can read all about the things that JW used to believe in their own "Proclaimers" book, here's a few more
• They used to celebrate Christmas, a celebration that mixed false dates of Christs birth with pagan festivals (sounds a bit like the golden calf in Aaron and Moses time, lets worship god using pagan ideas, he really likes that, not to mention the commercialisation of something supposedly religious. I seem to remember Jesus getting very angry about something similar)
• They used to celebrate Easter, mixing fertility gods/ esses from several pagan belief systems with the death of Jesus
• They used to venerate the cross, a pagan symbol of the god Tammuz, also tied in with hot cross buns used in the above pagan celebrations. Quite interesting when you research it!
• Russel Dabbled in Pyramidology
I could go on, there are lots of things they have changed, and they probably have been a bit overzealous of being ‘on the watch’
But I am glad they are doing their best slowly but surely of getting out of “Babylon the Great”, by removing themselves from here “spiritistic practices” that are misleading the entire inhabited earth.
They show the love Jesus said would indentify his true followers on a world- wide scale, refusing to take up arms against their brothers, or their enemies, even in the face of death.
They are doing the will of God that Jesus urged his followers to do on a scale unprecedented “preaching the good news of Gods kingdom”
They are sticking to the moral principles outlined for Christians instead of turning a blind eye to the things mentioned in the bible that Christians should stay clear of, whilst many other religions just turn a blind eye to it.
There will probably many things in the future they will gain a better understanding of, that is bound to happen with the progressive search for truth, but at least the JW’s are progressive, instead of standing on tradition to things clearly wrong.

I am a Jehovah's Witness and have been since I was little. I am 16 and I love it! Many say we are pressured to join the 'group'. What they don't understand is that this isn't a 'group' its a religious organization! We use the bible in all of our teachings! Give us a chance if we come to your door. Have you ever had that feeling that you get when you have something important and exciting to share? Well that's the same feeling we get when we knock on your doors! That's all we don't try to bother or pester people by any means. Check out our websites www.jw.org www.watchtower.org and www.jw-media.org. Don't trust any other websites, these are the only ones published by Jehovah's Witnesses currently.

Thought I was done with this thread, but I need to correct this false impression about the Proclaimers book, much of which I have read, being a credible source of information.

RWilliams:

Another few earthquakes and a Tsunami in the last few months, floods, tornados, weather extremes everywhere.  You know it has all happened before,

What, then, is your point?

RWilliams:
but I think the bible will prove true,

You mean your interpretation of it. Substitution of words – “the truth” for our religion, “the Bible” for our doctrine or our interpretation of the Bible, etc – is a tool of mind manipulation. Beware!

RWilliams:
and as we go deeper into the last days even the sceptics will have to admit that these things are taking place more and more.

That is the problem – they are not. Anyone who is not too lazy and is just following Awake! along knows that. Some things are getting worse. Others are improving. That is how things have always been for the most part. Stop catastrophising. I’m not saying the world is not ending soon – who am I to say? All I am trying to show you is the rather obvious fact that 1914 as the end or beginning of the last days is a piece of pure fiction.

RWilliams:
Even WHO recently announced we are on the edge of a "post anti-biotic era" pestilence may not be too far away on a scale we don’t want to even think about.

Yes, the spectre of an explosion in the number of superbugs which don’t’ respond to medicine have been the worst fear of the medical science community for quite a while. We are not there yet, but let’s assume that by 2014 there are several of these superbugs which are not susceptible to anti-biotics, will that be proof that pestilence, worse than pre-1914, has come? Well, let me remind you and the writers of Awake! that tyrothricin, the first anti-biotic to be used successfully on human ailments, was invented in 1939, 25 years into the period your people claim as the time of pestilence. Yes, there are now strains of tuberculosis that are resistant to treatments, but I will remind you that streptomycin, first used to the treat TB, did not come until 1944. And do you really know how many diseases have been wiped off the surface of the earth over the past 50 years? Do you know that leprosy, so famous in the Bible, has been almost completely wiped out in Europe? Do you know how many babies died at birth 100 years ago and how many die now? I am convinced some of you Awakers will be gloomy when a HIV vaccine arrives on the scene a few years from now!

I think there are only three kinds of people who can say diseases are worse today than they were 100 years ago: (1) those who are intellectually dishonest (2) whose who who are amnesic (3) those who read it in Awake! and, believing its writers are “spirit-directed”, accept everything it says without formulating questions from their own intellectual processes.

I will not suggest that mankind is beyond the possibility of pestilence such as “we don’t even want to even think about” – we are not that advanced yet - but I am certain there will be nothing that will surpass what happened in the past. And that is no idle certainty. Do you know why the recent SARS (the no-more-kissing disease) and the bird flu scare did not kill many people? Because we know things today we didn’t 100 years ago.

RWilliams:
Thankfully, everyone who knows what the bible says will realise what is happening and will be able to "lift their heads erect" because they know their deliverance is getting near.

You mean your interpretation of it.

RWilliams:
Who knows how bad it will get or where we are into "the last days" we all tend to rush things as short life-spanned humans, but in reality even a century is a very short time.

How convenient. In another 500 years – unless a team of reform-minded, radical, young Turks – make it into your Governing Body – your organization will still be telling you that.

RWilliams:
The questions posed a few threads back are easily answered.

But you haven’t.

RWilliams:
You can read all about the things that JW used to believe in their own "Proclaimers" book, here's a few more
• They used to celebrate Christmas, a celebration that mixed false dates of Christs birth with pagan festivals (sounds a bit like the golden calf in Aaron and Moses time,  lets worship god using pagan ideas,  he really likes that, not to mention the commercialisation of something supposedly religious. I seem to remember Jesus getting very angry about something similar)
• They used to celebrate Easter, mixing fertility gods/ esses from several pagan belief systems with the death of Jesus
• They used to venerate the cross, a pagan symbol of the god Tammuz, also tied in with hot cross buns used in the above pagan celebrations. Quite interesting when you research it!
• Russel Dabbled in Pyramidology
I could go on, there are lots of things they have changed, and they probably have been a bit overzealous of being ‘on the watch’

I once chanced upon this video in which a guy was teaching the techniques of “toasting” a woman. One thing he said that stuck in my mind was, “don’t make yourself look perfect”. But he admonished that you should carefully select what negative stuff you reveal about yourself, so that the really dirty stuff can be hidden. And the great instructor then gave us an example. “You could say something like this: ‘I don’t floss as often as I should,’ or …” and he made one other silly suggestion I can’t recall.

Information management. You let out enough stuff to let “them” think they have it, while keeping back the really disturbing truths. Half-truths, subterfuge, distortion of facts, etc. It was something the Russians perfected during the Cold War. It is a technique used in that Proclaimers’ Book.
For example, here is the portion of the book which admits Russell dabbled in pyramidology:
“For some 35 years, Pastor Russell thought that the Great Pyramid of Gizeh was God’s stone witness, corroborating Biblical time periods. (Isa. 19:19) But Jehovah’s Witnesses have abandoned the idea that an Egyptian pyramid has anything to do with true worship. (See “Watchtower” issues of November 15 and December 1, 1928)”

What the above does not tell you are:
1. While Russell originally got the 1914 doctrine, in its totality, from the Second Adventists, he got his confirmation from (i) measurements taken of some of these pyramids, and (ii) measurements taken of the distance between the US cities of New York and Pennsylvania. 607, of course, was thrown in later.
2. Not only Russell, but Rutherford, your church’s second president, also believed in the pyramids, before he later changed his mind about them, calling “of Satan”.

People who are not thoroughly familiar with your teachings will not realise the seriousness of the situation here, but you do – or you should. The doctrine on which is rooted your church’s claim to divine selection (1918 inspection), as well as all the talk about Jesus’ presence, was based on Russell’s pyramids, and all your book says is “Pastor Russell thought…”

Another classic example is “Beth Sarim”, a mansion that was built by Rutherford in San Diego, California, to house Abraham, Isaac and the prophets who he said would be resurrected to earth in 1925. He later moved into the house and bought a car to drive the prophets around once they showed up. After his death house was sold by the church to cover the embarrassment of it all. But how does your Proclaimers book present this matter? Read it.

If I were a history teacher at a faculty, I would make the Proclaimers’ book compulsory reading for my students under “hagiography”. For that is the conclusion anyone that knows anything about Rutherford years will come with away after reading the Rutherford years presented in that book. That book does its spin job at the level of CNN most times, but on occasions it degenerates to that of Press TV. Between the Proclaimers’ book and the Evolution book, I'm not sure which is the most discredited JW book among unbiased critics.

RWilliams:

But I am glad they are doing their best slowly but surely of getting out of “Babylon the Great”, by removing themselves from here “spiritistic practices” that are misleading the entire inhabited earth.

What is “spiritistic”? Christmas? Birthdays? Why do you seriously think – and where in the Bible or anywhere else did God tell you - that God would be angry with me for having a good time on a set date just because some nasty oba who lived 3500 years ago did something really nasty on the same date? No, really, why? Do you know the origin of the wedding ring, which you probably wear if you are married? What do you know about the origin of wedding anniversaries, which Watchtower has not yet annulled? How do you know the origin of the labels on your designer clothes were not “spiritistic”?

RWilliams:
They show the love Jesus said would indentify his true followers on a world- wide scale, refusing to take up arms against their brothers, or their enemies, even in the face of death.

Permit me to borrow a leaf from one of the famous posters in this section by quoting myself:

It is true Witnesses refuse to kill their neighbours in war, which is commendable. Many of them have also refused to betray their brothers. But, you see, it doesn’t end there. For one thing, fighting in war is not always a bad thing. In fact, it is sometimes the right thing to do. I, for instance, am totally against violence. But I do recognise, like the non-violent George Orwell also did, that the reason I sleep peacefully on my bed at night is because someone stands outside ready to do violence on my behalf. Do you know what would have happened if brave men and women had not offered up their lives to stop the Third Reich? Hitler would have taken over the world (God forbid!) and (1) all the Jews and Slavs in the world would have been exterminated (2) All the blacks in the world would have been sent to labour camps (3) All homosexuals, the mentally ill and other “impurities” would have been exterminated (4) All the JWs in the world would have been sent to labour camps.

But the above would mean nothing to you. You believe it was Jehovah who stopped the Third Reich so your preaching work can continue, not the people of the world led by the UK, the US and Russia. It appears you Witnesses live in a world of your own, following your perverse interpretation of “you are no part of the world.” Which is why a Witness almost invariably manifests a childlike refusal to deal appropriately with the complexities of the world around him. Pain, disease and misgovernance are of Satan’s world – no need to do anything since Armageddon, which is around the corner, will end it all. So everybody, forward march to Armageddon! A Witness will never speak out against injustice except when it is directly targeted at his preaching work. But you know the result of this, friend? Injustice within your Organisation is also not dealt with!

RWilliams:
They are doing the will of God that Jesus urged his followers to do on a scale unprecedented “preaching the good news of Gods kingdom”

I won’t quote myself here, but I addressed this earlier. There is nothing unique about your preaching – almost every religion does it. Where you get confused is equating preaching with house to house preaching. There is no proof that this method of preaching is most effective, nor is there any biblical reason to believe that Jesus used it. Earlier, I showed you figures proving that methods adopted by other churches may be far more effective than yours.

RWilliams:
They are sticking to the moral principles outlined for Christians instead of turning a blind eye to the things mentioned in the bible that Christians should stay clear of, whilst many other religions just turn a blind eye to it.

This is highly subjective, Mr Williams, and if I were you I would not bring it up. I mean, your church can easily be accused of “turning a blind eye”. It is widely known that The Watchtower Society has paid out millions of dollars in settlement of child abuse cases involving responsible members of the church, in order to avoid exposure of what many consider to be cover-ups. While I don’t believe that your church’s child molestation problems are worse what obtains anywhere else, there are many people who believe that the current methods of handling this matter, as set out in the elders’ manual, Pay Attention to Yourself and to Your Teaching, is not helpful.  You may wish to research this matter.
There are people in all religious who “stick to moral principles” and there are a lot of bad people too. The fact your church expels erring members and subject them to considerable humiliation does not change anything. There are other churches that do similar things. There are some that use more humane methods of correcting. And, of course, there are many churches that don’t care at all.

RWilliams:
There will probably many things in the future they will gain a better understanding of, that is bound to happen with the progressive search for truth, but at least the JW’s are progressive, instead of standing on tradition to things clearly wrong.

It is my personal opinion that they are not progressive at all. In fact, I wonder how you can say they are progressive. They are stuck in their old ways, refusing to admit mistakes and carry out a badly-needed reexamination of their teaching, from A to Z. Shifting the dates of Jesus’ coming is brought about, not by rational progression, but because Jesus has constantly refused to show up on the advertised dates. Seems he won’t be pushed by anyone. (Read Jeremiah 14,14)

Let me reiterate that I have nothing against your church any more than I have against any other. I am merely trying to help you see the obvious fact that it is more like every religion – a group of people searching for God and believing they have found him. And your leadership are not the channel God is using – far from it. Their willingness to preach the idea that one of these days God’s angels will pass through this way and slaughter everyone, except members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith, only shows the size of their mind.

@Myjoe.Your comment above show that you are one of the apostates.

^^^ The Pavlovian response mode! Your comment, sir, shows you have been programmed like a computer. Few people here will understand the significance of what you wrote above. You respond in a certain way when certain things are said. Your delusion is amazing. Because I say a certain thing you imagine I am one of those who waited for Jesus to show up on certain advertised dates and he failed to show up. No, I wasn't. I wasn't even born then!

Apostate my foot! Do you even know what the word means? See im mouth like apostate.

My Joe.
If all Christians stuck to bible teachings, in particular the teaching of Jesus, the third Reich would never have happened in the first place. WW1 and WW2 would not have happened. If you go outside Christianity, if the adherents of many other religions stuck to the essence of their teachings, much of the conflict we have on this world would be gone.

Most of the countries in WW1 were Christian, Imagine if every Catholic, Protestant and Church of England member (Including their hierarchy) took the same stand as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hitler would not have had an army to go to war with. Just because every other Christian goes against the bible teaching to be peaceable with all men, to turn the other cheek, and to love your enemies, does that mean that a true Christian should join them?

The whole problem with mankind is that "Man dominates man to his own injury" Jesus taught a "way" that is peaceable, making peace. If only everyone had followed it. Now if a JW had gone to war, Could a JW in Germany who killed his own English brother in the battle field in France really be showing the love that Jesus said would be a mark of his true followers? No.

Until everyone follows Jesus teaching, there will always be wars, this world will go on its own merry little way, that is why, when he has no choice but to, god will have to bring to ruin those ruining the earth. That is not just a JW teaching, it is what the bible says in black and white, like it or lump it. If your beef is with the bible, then I rest my case, because faith in what it teaches is something you have to be looking for and want if you are going to find it.
Yes there are bad eggs in amongst the JW organisation, Jesus even said that there would be “Wolves in sheep’s clothing” but there ways eventually catch up with them and when it does unless they are willing to change them, and they are no longer able to remain in it. But if you look on the whole at the organisation, they are preaching the word in the entire inhabited earth, on a scale without precedence; they preach peace at any cost, especially amongst themselves. They encourage good morals as outlined in the bible, not the “new morality” the world has embraced, even if it labels them as intolerant (more like not permissive in my opinion). These are the “fine fruits” that indentify a true follower. I agree that in the early days they had some strange ideas, as did many of the Adventist/ Pentecostal religions that were springing up around that time, but more and more they are moving away from observing times and seasons, leaving that in god’s hands and concentrating on learning about god, examining what he wants from humans, and helping people to put bible principles in their life.
[/b]Quote:
It is my personal opinion that they are not progressive at all. In fact, I wonder how you can say they are progressive. They are stuck in their old ways, refusing to admit mistakes and carry out a badly-needed re-examination of their teaching, from A to Z. Shifting the dates of Jesus’ coming is brought about, not by rational progression, but because Jesus has constantly refused to show up on the advertised dates. Seems he won’t be pushed by anyone.[b]

JW’s have never shifted the date of Jesus coming or presence, he came in 1914 and they still believe that. 1925, 1975 etc were just over-anticipation on some members of the organisation for the time his kingdom would start to “crush and put an end” to the system as we know it (Daniel 2:44). Really that is in god’s hands.  As for your quote
[/b]Their willingness to preach the idea that one of these days God’s angels will pass through this way and slaughter everyone, except members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith, only shows the size of their mind.[b]




Well, if they just so happen to be “my true followers” (and you would be silly to preach that unless you believe there is such a group), and the bible just so happens to be Gods word to mankind, you are calling the mind of god small, because unless you blind your mind to what the bible says about it, you can’t escape the fact that the bible preaches that there will be “a great day of god the almighty” that many are on the “road to destruction” and few on the “road to life” and that he will “bring to ruin  those ruining the earth”. This is not something that JW’s have come up with, it is there in black and white in numerous scriptures, we are merely preaching the good news of the better system to come, and at the same time warning of and helping people to get out of the system here at present and align their lives with God’s teachings. If people don’t take note, who have they got to blame?
Really, the earth and universe and what is right is so much bigger than us as humans. If mankind in general thinks it knows better than God and goes out of its way to reject his words, and ruins the earth because of such rejection, who are we to call God into account for setting up an organisation who pursue peace with all men, and getting rid of any who reject his requirements, (including those who call themselves his followers but still acting lawlessly). You are a proud silly man if you do.

My Joe
What point are you trying to put across please?

RWilliams:

My Joe.
If all Christians stuck to bible teachings, in particular the teaching of Jesus, the third Reich would never have happened in the first place. WW1 and WW2 would not have happened. If you go outside Christianity, if the adherents of many other religions stuck to the essence of their teachings, much of the conflict we have on this world would be gone.

A fantastically, horribly, childishly simplistic approach to life! Let me show you how simplistic this approach is. Say, you, Mr Williams, are vegetarian. You are entering a jungle full of leopards and believing that, well, since you are a vegetarian, the leopards will not attack you! Of course, if everyone lived by the Bible’s prophecy about beating swords into plowshares there would be no Third Reich and WW1 and WW2. But are they? What you are saying is that if someone attacks my community with the stated intention of killing the men and enslaving the women and kids I should bring out a Bible and waive it in his face, telling him to go live by its principles! Ever heard of the phrase “real world”? The issue is not whether wars would happen if everyone lived by Isaiah 2:4 (let’s not talk about other parts of the Bible, for now) – they won’t! – the issue is since people are not living like that and wars do happen, what should you do when attacked by someone who wishes to kill you enslave your wife and kids?

RWilliams:
Most of the countries in WW1 were Christian, Imagine if every Catholic, Protestant and Church of England member (Including their hierarchy) took the same stand as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hitler would not have had an army to go to war with. Just because every other Christian goes against the bible teaching to be peaceable with all men, to turn the other cheek, and to love your enemies, does that mean that a true Christian should join them?

The whole problem with mankind is that "Man dominates man to his own injury" Jesus taught a "way" that is peaceable, making peace. If only everyone had followed it. Now if a JW had gone to war, Could a JW in Germany who killed his own English brother in the battle field in France really be showing the love that Jesus said would be a mark of his true followers? No.

The complexities of the world, Mr Williams! The world in which "man dominates man to his injury". Imagine Claude, an Englishman normally apolitical, doesn’t give a hoot about world affairs, but today he is scared that his country and the world is about to be destroyed and millions killed by a mad man called Hitler, so he decides to join the war and help stop Hitler. Then think of Pieter, a South African of European descent back in the 80’s; he believes that his is the master race which should dominate Africa so he signs up for military service in order to be deployed to Angola or Namibia. Are these two the same? If I am Claude and you asked me why I killed a member of my religion who was fighting on Hitler’s side that would be a very easy question to answer – “I have searched my conscience and found I am fighting a just cause. Now go ask the German what he was fighting for.” I admit that my examples are a bit simplistic, as many soldiers don’t tend to answer to these examples (Rommel fought gallantly “for Fuhrer and country” but then turned around and plotted against Hitler) but my point is that on, a case by case basis, people’s consciences should decide in these matters, not some old men living in Brooklyn and out of touch with day-to-day realities.

RWilliams:
Until everyone follows Jesus teaching, there will always be wars, this world will go on its own merry little way, that is why, when he has no choice but to, god will have to bring to ruin those ruining the earth. That is not just a JW teaching, it is what the bible says in black and white, like it or lump it. If your beef is with the bible, then I rest my case, because faith in what it teaches is something you have to be looking for and want if you are going to find it.

I don’t recall having expressed any “beef” with the Bible in this thread. By the way, the invitation I extended you to discuss the Bible is still open.

RWilliams:
Yes there are bad eggs in amongst the JW organisation, Jesus even said that there would be “Wolves in sheep’s clothing” but there ways eventually catch up with them and when it does unless they are willing to change them, and they are no longer able to remain in it. But if you look on the whole at the organisation, they are preaching the word in the entire inhabited earth, on a scale without precedence; they preach peace at any cost, especially amongst themselves. They encourage good morals as outlined in the bible, not the “new morality” the world has embraced, even if it labels them as intolerant (more like not permissive in my opinion).

True. The Witnesses pay much more attention to morality and holiness than most other Christian groups. And I used to think they were more moral, indeed. Things I have encountered in recent years tell me this is just wishful thinking. The Witnesses you encounter anywhere along the west coast of Africa are just as “sharp” as everyone. They push “those things” aside and “do what they have to do”. You know religious folk are very good at capitalizing on one particular sin. For brother A it might be fornication – he will avoid that one but he will lie and cheat. For sister b it might be something else. There are some good ones, of course – just as in other faiths. And if you seriously think that what you call “new morality” – the loosening of sexual restrictions – that has swept the world since the second half of the century that ended not too long ago has somehow left your church members behind, you, sir, should open your eyes.

RWilliams:
These are the “fine fruits” that indentify a true follower.

Yes. You do preach some fine fruits. But you also preach some bad ones.

RWilliams:
I agree that in the early days they had some strange ideas, as did many of the Adventist/ Pentecostal religions that were springing up around that time,

Good. So can you, please, answer me just one question: If your church had false teachings just like the other churches that sprang up at the same time it did, on what basis, then, did Jesus select it among the rest when he is said to have come for inspection in 1918?

RWilliams:
but more and more they are moving away from observing times and seasons, leaving that in god’s hands and concentrating on learning about god, examining what he wants from humans, and helping people to put bible principles in their life.

Bravo!
All that’s left is for God to grant them the wisdom to see the arrogance and presumptuousness in claiming to speak for God when God did not expressly speak to you and the courage to admit their horrendous mistakes on prophecies and issues like blood transfusion and tell their members to stop calling other Christians “so-called Christians”.

RWilliams:
[/b]Quote:
It is my personal opinion that they are not progressive at all. In fact, I wonder how you can say they are progressive. They are stuck in their old ways, refusing to admit mistakes and carry out a badly-needed re-examination of their teaching, from A to Z. Shifting the dates of Jesus’ coming is brought about, not by rational progression, but because Jesus has constantly refused to show up on the advertised dates. Seems he won’t be pushed by anyone.[b]

JW’s have never shifted the date of Jesus coming or presence, he came in 1914 and they still believe that.

They have. Have you forgotten, Mr Williams? JW’s taught that Jesus returned invisibly in 1874 and would then bring things to conclusion in 1914. This doctrine was officially changed in 1925 to say Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 and will conclude things before those who alive and old enough to be wise in 1914 (the 1914 generation) all died. The 1914 generation was later change to… and then changed to… you know all that.

RWilliams:
1925, 1975 etc were just over-anticipation on some members of the organisation for the time his kingdom would start to “crush and put an end” to the system as we know it (Daniel 2:44). Really that is in god’s hands. 

Matters carried by your church’s official journals, written and endorsed by the church’s highest ruling members, the men who formulate policies and doctrines for the church, the men said to be "spirit-directed", the channel God is using to dish out truths to mankind in the end times. You call that “some members”? I understand people go to any length to defend their religion, but this is like a Catholic saying a doctrine deliberated on by the College of Cardinals and issued by the Pope ex cathedral amounts to the opinion of some members.

RWilliams:

As for your quote
[/b]Their willingness to preach the idea that one of these days God’s angels will pass through this way and slaughter everyone, except members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith, only shows the size of their mind.[b]




Well, if they just so happen to be “my true followers” (and you would be silly to preach that unless you believe there is such a group), and the bible just so happens to be Gods word to mankind, you are calling the mind of god small, because unless you blind your mind to what the bible says about it, you can’t escape the fact that the bible preaches that there will be “a great day of god the almighty” that many are on the “road to destruction” and few on the “road to life” and that he will “bring to ruin  those ruining the earth”. This is not something that JW’s have come up with, it is there in black and white in numerous scriptures, we are merely preaching the good news of the better system to come, and at the same time warning of and helping people to get out of the system here at present and align their lives with God’s teachings. If people don’t take note, who have they got to blame?
Really, the earth and universe and what is right is so much bigger than us as humans. If mankind in general thinks it knows better than God and goes out of its way to reject his words, and ruins the earth because of such rejection, who are we to call God into account for setting up an organisation who pursue peace with all men, and getting rid of any who reject his requirements, (including those who call themselves his followers but still acting lawlessly). You are a proud silly man if you do.

When did God set up this organization? You see, what you are really talking about here is your interpretation of the Bible. The idea that on “a great day of God the Almighty” he will kill all those who failed to see the truth preached by Jehovah’s Witnesses is something JWs have come up with. [b]You were told that God picked your religion out of the others at some point. Did you ever ask how God communicated this acceptance? Who did he tell? No, you just believed! Why? You do not think that question is worth asking? Probably because you already believed that a religion that quotes the Bible so fluently and teaches that God does not burn people in hell must be right about anything it says. [/b]Yours is not the only religion that claims God is its own founder or member and will punish everyone else who refuses to join. What many find surprising is the arrogance of it all and the willingness of many to believe.

As to God punishing some people and rewarding others, that is a viable idea. But who will he reward and who will he punish? JWs and non-JWs respectively? You wish! Let your Bible answer that question for us:

Matt 25:31-46, NIV
   31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
   34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

   37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

   40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

   41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

   44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

   45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

   46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

firestar:

My Joe
What point are you trying to put across please?

My lecture is to provide you knowledge to help you think things through for yourself. In any competition between a professional and a newcomer, the conclusion is foreordained. With aggressive religious proselytisers folks stand no chance. With knowledge you stand a chance. My lecture is free - it's my contribution to world religious literacy.

Say what?

MyJoe:
My lecture is to provide you knowledge to help you think things through for yourself. In any competition between a professional and a newcomer, the conclusion is foreordained. With aggressive religious proselytisers folks stand no chance. With knowledge you stand a chance. My lecture is free - it's my contribution to world religious literacy.

And what knowledge is that?

[size=5pt]Knowledge to weigh pros and cons.

Knowledge to enable you stop regurgitating things read in publications without pausing for one second to pass them through your own thinking processes, like Perito4u has been doing.

Knowledge to stop reigning your thought processes in a box, scared of connecting the dots and admitting the obvious, like RWilliams has been doing.

Knowledge, not necessarily to make you leave the JW faith, if you are a member, but to make you realise some home truths and practise your religion from a position of a realisation of (1) the inadequacies of all religions and (2) the perfection of love - universal love! - taught by Jesus Christ; to stop practising your religion from a position of the naive belief that "any body of writing [or a religion or movement's leadership can be] accepted as infallible and ABSOLUTELY correct in truth." par Deep Sight, 2010.

Knowledge to. . .
[/size]

Actually my contributions are like every other person’s. Read them and make what you can of them as I’m prepared to make of yours.  If you need any clarification on what I have written, ask about that. But back to your question as to what point I am trying to put across, I suggest you read all my posts here, as I stated it repeatedly. Now, thank you, ma’am. Have a nice day.

Do you mind[b] enlarging [/b] your observations? Squinting isn't easy on the eyes.

MyJoe:

[size=5pt]Knowledge to weigh pros and cons.

Knowledge to enable you stop regurgitating things read in publications without pausing for one second to pass them through your own thinking processes, like Perito4u has been doing.

Knowledge to stop reigning your thought processes in a box, scared of connecting the dots and admitting the obvious, like RWilliams has been doing.

Knowledge, not necessarily to make you leave the JW faith, if you are a member, but to make you realise some home truths and practise your religion from a position of a realisation of (1) the inadequacies of all religions and (2) the perfection of love - universal love! - taught by Jesus Christ; to stop practising your religion from a position of the naive belief that "any body of writing [or a religion or movement's leadership can be] accepted as infallible and ABSOLUTELY correct in truth." par Deep Sight, 2010.

Knowledge to. . .
[/size]

Actually my contributions are like every other person’s. Read them and make what you can of them as I’m prepared to make of yours.  If you need any clarification on what I have written, ask about that. But back to your question as to what point I am trying to put across, I suggest you read all my posts here, as I stated it repeatedly. Now, thank you, ma’am. Have a nice day.

Hey , i've just started to study with JW's.
I haven't really studied much of any religions.

But one thing i don't get in the "holy bible' is that you guys don't use "Gods" real name "yhwh or yahweh"  PSALMS 83:18. http://bible.cc/psalms/83-18.htm

Why does it not say "Jesus Christ, are the Most High over all the earth" ?

Im so confused on what to believe now days , so many religions are different but as the bible for says , satan will rise up and fool the many )=

No one knows 100% which religion is the truth , i guarantee that , i guess you only believe what you have been brought up with ,  ?

jowlzaah:

Hey , i've just started to study with JW's.
I haven't really studied much of any religions.

But one thing i don't get in the "holy bible' is that you guys don't use "Gods" real name "yhwh or yahweh"  PSALMS 83:18. http://bible.cc/psalms/83-18.htm

Why does it not say "Jesus Christ, are the Most High over all the earth" ?

Im so confused on what to believe now days , so many religions are different but as the bible for says ,  satan will rise up and fool the many )=

No one knows 100% which religion is the truth , i guarantee that , i guess you only believe what you have been brought up with ,  ?

Jesus Christ is the only Way to God Almighty, that's for sure. He is the founder of the Christian religion.

My Joe

You obviously missed or ignored the whole point of my argument on war.

You use an illustration on the leopard in the jungle. The the only thing is in both world wars the "Leopards" were "Christians" on both sides, when they should have been vegetarians. If all the leopards acted like vegetarians then whoever is represented by Hitler would have no one to fight his war. Get it? No obviously not, and even if you did you would not admit it because you are hell bent on vindictivly discrediting any thing JW do, good or bad.

Ok that was not the case (that everyone became vegetarians lol), but two wrongs dont make a right, just because everyone else is doing the wrong thing does not make it the right thing to do. JW's were imprisoned and shot on BOTH SIDES of the conflict, for simply doing what every Christian should have, standing up for Jesus' teaching on war and peace. Whatever the world does in this regard "My followers will be no part of the world"

We know from bible prophecy that the world is following a divinly set plan. These wars and there outcomes are already written as though they already happened in the bible, and no matter what goes on in this world true christains are to be "no part of it" as far as practical. Especially when it comes to politics and war.


You are stating to sound like a very broken record

Hello Jowlzaar ,  Good question.
I have spent many hours researching this topic of gods name.

I know you cant always trust Wiki but here is a quote from there
Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (ca. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but there appears to be evidence that Jehovah form of the Tetragrammaton may have been in use in Semitic and Greek phonetic texts and artifacts from Late Antiquity.[5][6] Others say that it is the pronunciation Yahweh that is testified in both Christian and pagan texts of the early Christian era.[5][7][8][9][10]

Karaite Jews,[11] as proponents of the rendering Jehovah, state that although the original pronunciation of יהוה has been obscured by disuse of the spoken name according to oral Rabbinic law, well-established English transliterations of other Hebrew personal names are accepted in normal usage, such as Joshua, Isaiah or Jesus, for which the original pronunciations may be unknown.[12] They also point out that "the English form Jehovah is quite simply an Anglicized form of Yehovah,"[12] and preserves the four Hebrew consonants "YHVH" (with the introduction of the "J" sound in English). Some argue that Jehovah is preferable to Yahweh, based on their conclusion that the Tetragrammaton was likely tri-syllabic originally, and that modern forms should therefore also have three syllables.[13]

The truth is we don’t know the true pronunciation, but Jehovah has for many years been the anglicized pronunciation of the divine name, as are Jesus, Joshua and countless other Hebrew names that no one raises a question about .
There are a lot of arguments for Yahweh and also for Jehovah as being the most correct, however, rhyming phrases of the Psalms seem to indicate a 3 syllable name, and there is research that also indicates that although there is no letter for “ J” in Hebrew it is still highly possible that the sound was still used.

You could find a thousand pages with different arguments on this, but the important thing is that one’s realises that god has a personal name and calls upon it.

Jehovah's witnesses themselves should not claim a monopoly on god's name or tell us that God can be refered to by no name other than "Jehovah",because they themselves are either not sure of His name to be "Jehovah" (in english) or they like all other religious groups who believe in One Almighty and Universal Unique and Unseen God also call God different names to fit His position and names that are not associated with paganism.

the watch tower has rendered the tetragrammaton into different words in different languages.for example,in english He is refered to as "Jehovah".in Japanese "Ehoba".in Arabic,"Yahwah".

these are already 3 names and there are many more depending on the language!

so on what basis would Jehovah's witnesses claim monopoly on god's name or that only them know His name or even that only the tetragrammaton should be used to refer to God?

also,what prevents Jehovah's witnesses from accepting other beautiful words that truly represent God and people refer to Him with,just as the tetragrammaton refers to Him?

for further reading on this subject,you can discover that the tetragrammaton is mentioned in the Holy Quran and you can also discover that God's name is "ALLAH" even in the bible!

here is an article by Ahmad Deedat with the topic:"What is His Name".

that is exactly the question jehovah's witnesses are taught to ask when preaching or talking about God's name in their quest to "catch fish" or convert others!!!

here is the article:

http://www.islamawareness.net/Allah/wihn.html

you can download the booklet here:

http://www.ahmed-deedat.net/wps/modules.php?name=myBooks2&op=open&cat=7&book=456

just a few points to add:

1.) muslims from all ethnicities and nationalities and in all languages refer to God as "Allah".additionally God have many beautiful names which the Holy Quran teaches us to call Him with.

2.) before the 16th century,the word "jehovah" was unheard of.jews in particular forbid their people from pronouncing the four letters.the watch tower has injected vowels into the 4 letters to make it possible to pronounce it.and as in the case of the japanese word,changed the word and make it impossible to find or figure the tetragrammaton in it.

3.) the tetragrammaton or four letters (YHWH) is not found once in the new testament manuscripts.that is in the entire new testament,the "name of God" that jehovah's witnesses teach others to be the only acceptable way of calling God is not found in the new testament of 27 books! it looks like Jesus forgot what God's name is.or may be as they would argue that the new testament books have their manuscripts in greek and not their presumed "original" hebrew,the tetgragrammaton was expunged.if that is the case,and they presume God's "only" four letters that refer to His "only" name can be expunged,then that casts a doubt on the bible as to what more could have being expunged.

4.) the jehovah's witnesses version of the bible known as the new world translation have replaced in the bible anywhere the words of "lord" and "god" with "jehovah".

The Tetragrammaton in the Quran:

"Jehovah" is a pressumption from the tetgrammaton or "four letters" (YHWH) by injecting vowels.those four letters are not articulated.also,if you search deep you will know that the tetgrammaton (YHWH) is not a word but an adjective phrase refering/describing the uniqueness to/of the One Almighty God who is Unseen.YHWH refers to "He that is Present" or "Oh He (who is)" in literal arabic and hebrew.the tetragrammaton can also be found in the Holy Quran in several places by the phrase "Qul HoWaHAllahu" which means "Say He is Allahu"!

the prefix,"YA" is an exclamation in semitic languages meaning "Oh".if you add "Ya" to "HoWaH" it becomes "YaHoWaH" (YHWH).

"HoWaH"="He is"!


so YaHoWah="Oh He (who is)".

what hapens is simply injecting vowels into the letters (YHWH) in order to make the letters pronounceable.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-753786.0.html#msg9125070

in sequence to what i've written in the above post,jehovah's witnesses are taught a preaching technique which is more or less a deception when preaching or trying to convert others.they are taught to ask:"what is His name".that is: "what is god's name".

many who are not jehovah's witnesses or are not well informed on the subject would reply His name is "god".the jehovah's witness would reply "god is a title and not a name",so "what is His name".you will be shocked and puzzled to know you do not know god's own name!!!then he (the jehovah's witness) would say with a smile "His name is jehovah".so,they catch you napping.and ofcourse in that way you must join them because who better than them knows "jehovah".you are simply impressed and taught that they are "jehovah's people".that is how they "catch fish" and convert others on a matter they themselves know so little about as explained in my post above.

RWilliams:


[size=18pt]The truth is we don’t know the true pronunciation,[/size] but Jehovah has for many years been the anglicized pronunciation of the divine name, as are Jesus, Joshua and countless other Hebrew names that no one raises a question about .

but why shouldn't "jehovah's organization",the watchtower,which claims a direct telephone line to Jehovah,with countless endtime prophecies both that have come NOT to pass and the remaining ones they are hanging around the necks of witnesses with the fear of armageddon (intimidation),their obligatory order for every witness to preach door to door with official record keeping of the number of hours preached,and their claim to be the "only true religion",cannot reveal the true pronunciation of God's "name"?that is the same "name" they bluff about and use to convert others,when infact they themselves do not know the correct pronunciation.so much for confusion and deception and tricks.the jews themselves who own the hebrew language in which the 4 letters appear have decided not to give themselves headache with its pronunciation while "jehovah's witnesses" have made a religion out of 4 letters they themselves cannot pronounce correctly and at the same time claim to be the only "true religion" with contact with Jehovah.how is that possible?are we not talking about a man-made imagination formed into a religion here?

why keep playing the game of try and error with God's "name" by injecting vowels into a four letter word and end up rendering it into different words? is that not confusion?

as for the names of Jesus and Joshua,the only difference is the "J" and the "Y".the europeans have a taste for making the "Y" into a "J".aside from that their names are neither obscure nor confused with so many words or rendered into so many words and not knowing which one is the right one to pronounce.

RWilliams:

My Joe

You obviously missed or ignored the whole point of my argument on war.

You use an illustration on the leopard in the jungle. The the only thing is in both world wars the "Leopards" were "Christians" on both sides, when they should have been vegetarians. If all the leopards acted like vegetarians then whoever is represented by Hitler would have no one to fight his war. Get it? No obviously not, and even if you did you would not admit it because you are hell bent on vindictivly discrediting any thing JW do, good or bad.

Ok that was not the case (that everyone became vegetarians lol), but two wrongs dont make a right, just because everyone else is doing the wrong thing does not make it the right thing to do. JW's were imprisoned and shot on BOTH SIDES of the conflict, for simply doing what every Christian should have, standing up for Jesus' teaching on war and peace. Whatever the world does in this regard "My followers will be no part of the world"

We know from bible prophecy that the world is following a divinly set plan. These wars and there outcomes are already written as though they already happened in the bible, and no matter what goes on in this world true christains are to be "no part of it" as far as practical. Especially when it comes to politics and war.


You are stating to sound like a very broken record       

Lol. Thank you, but I think you have not addressed the issue I have raised. You are sidestepping the point. You, see, Mr Williams, you whole argument, which I have already accepted (by agreeing with you there would be no wars if everyone were Witnesses or refused to fight, but you still ask if I get it and answer yourself that I haven't) is based on an IF, a supposition. When entering a forest full of leopards, would that be good enough? Would you pray and pretend there are no leopards or make preparations on how to protect yourself should you encounter them?

I believe all men, not just Christians, should be vegetarians (in this context). I believe people should not cause trouble or fight wars – you and me are agreed on that, I am not disputing it. I agree that if all men lived like Jesus Christ there would be no wars. Get it now? Now let’s take the argument the way you prefer it – all Christians should be vegetarians. Are they? The answer is no. Let’s call the ones who are vegetarian (live peaceably) good Christians and the ones who are not (make trouble and start wars) bad Christians. The question remains: when my neighbourhood is invaded by these bad Christians with the stated intention of killing the men and enslaving the women and children is the proper thing to fight them or to pick up my Bible and go preaching, pretending God will handle things? In answer, you say if all men at not vegetarian that does not mean that everyone should be like them. That is a good argument – moral standards should not be determined by the majority. But I was talking about a case where you are not the aggressor; that is the point you have not addressed. If the country I currently lives in declares a war of aggression on a neighbour, I will not fight, since I don't give a hoot about patriotism. I certainly don't have to be a Witness to take that decision. And it would be a personal decision as it should be.  You are lumping all wars together. I am talking distinctions. Let me put it differently and more lucidly.

You are at home with your wife and someone attacks and tries to kill all of you. Would you defend yourself? Well, I don’t think you are silly, so you will. Now extend that to the community – someone attacks the whole community and the men are called upon to take up arms. That is what war sometimes amounts to. Now, in making their distinctions, different people will give different interpretations to the situation and some will refuse to join this communal effort at self-preservation. Fine. I may be able to live with that. But that decision should be made on an individual basis and there is something egregiously unhealthy about it when it is handed down by a central authority telling the men not to defend their community. Like I stated earlier, this is a complex issue of life and we may just have to respect each other’s decisions – those who fight and those who don’t – where such decisions are freely and conscientiously taken and not dictated by a group of old men whose personal opinions must not be challenged by a captive group of followers. And it is certainly wrong of you who refuse to perform your duty to the community to claim that just because you did not fight and kill human beings you are morally superior. What I have stated above is the point I was making when I told you that not fighting in wars which you are citing as a point for the Witnesses is not necessarily a good one. That is my personal subjective view on this matter of war and I am not placing it at par with the other important and much more objective points I have addressed in this thread.

Remember Jesus said “no part of the world”, that means he recognized there was a world which refuses to live by his principles. I think that recognition is far better than a childlike refusal to deal with the complexities of the real world! Thank you.

Your assertion on my being vindictive is a tragic mistake since (1) it is untrue (2) it will further obscure your ability to assess my arguments dispassionately the way I have assessed yours. I have previously stated that I have nothing against your faith. I know it’s common for people to make untrue statements about the Witnesses, but you have not accused me of a single lie against your people in this thread. Because you can’t. And I have certainly not discredited anything you do, good or bad in this thread. That is a lie. The problem with your religion is that a well-packaged material (it's full of holes but well-packaged, nonetheless) is mass-produced and aggressively sold from door to door, without the target being shown the whole essence, without the target having the information to make a balanced judgement. Under these circumstances such a person must be deemed a victim! If anyone close to me reads what we have said in this thread and researches them on their own and after assessing all that information decides to join your religion, I will applaud him and give him every support I can. My position is that he should have the information. That is only fair, Mr Williams!

Information compartmentalisation, that is something your religion’s leadership thrives on. (You are probably aware that when the UN saga was raging, several Witnesses were hauled into the backroom and “disciplined” for discussing it with other Witnesses.) It is unfair, wrong and immoral to let people take life-changing decisions on the basis of incomplete, distorted or bleached information. Even for those who are already members, the problem is common. When a member does not understand anything, he is told to wait for God. This from a religion that vehemently rejects every notion of direct sense experience of God.

Oh, yes, you are not entirely wrong about the broken record quip. But I suggest you read your posts and mine all over again. You don’t sound much like a broken record – you simply refuse to address issues you find uncomfortable and are prepared to bend facts to justify an already packaged conclusion. You clearly have an ability to think, unlike Perito4u, but you don’t think things through because you are not allowed to. When someone says something you are unfamiliar with or there is a new scientific discovery you wait for someone to tell you what to conclude before drawing conclusions. When you read a portion of the Bible you are not permitted to see the actual text or think what you think it says, but you are to funnel it through a central thought process. Whenever you are confused you rush to Watchtower publications for clarification because you believe God only speaks through Watchtower. And who told you that? Watchtower! That is what you sound like. It’s a strange phenomenon, religion; at least, some of them!

Actually, there is only one thing you fail to realise: TRUTH has to connect with FACTS. The very day you try to connect truth with facts, you see things differently. I have seen this happen again and again.

LagosShia:

in sequence to what i've written in the above post,jehovah's witnesses are taught a preaching technique which is more or less a deception when preaching or trying to convert others.they are taught to ask:"what is His name".that is: "what is god's name".

many who are not jehovah's witnesses or are not well informed on the subject would reply His name is "god".the jehovah's witness would reply "god is a title and not a name",so "what is His name".you will be shocked and puzzled to know you do not know god's own name!!!then he (the jehovah's witness) would say with a smile "His name is jehovah".so,they catch you napping.and ofcourse in that way you must join them because who better than them knows "jehovah".you are simply impressed and taught that they are "jehovah's people".that is how they "catch fish" and convert others on a matter they themselves know so little about as explained in my post above.

Lol. So funny. So incisive. So true. After you have been shown "God’s name" from your own Bible and you are still reeling from the shock of discovering this all important gem of truth after owning a Bible for 30 years, you soon learn that God is so merciful that he will not burn people in hellfire. This one really lifts you up into the clouds. The truth at last! You are giddy at this new truth which implies that you have believed all along that God is wicked by burning people – never mind you are now being taught that the same God will soon press the button for Armageddon and have his army of angels carry out a wholesale slaughter of 6.9 billion people (7b -  7.5m, that is, estimated world population minus JW membership) good, bad, adults and children alike, as long as they did not become members of the JW faith. After this, the rest is easy – blood transfusion, you are shown in the Bible, even though the Bible says no such thing; 144,000 people going to heaven, you are shown in the Bible, even though the portion of the Bible where that figure appears clearly suggests the opposite. But at this stage you are already captive, having already learned that people will oppose your new faith and such people are from the devil whose sole preoccupation is how to deprive you of enjoyment in a wonderful paradise earth. You now refer to your new found religion as “the truth” or “Jehovah’s organization” - hot button phrases that stop oxygen supply to the brain!  Now how do you reason with this kind of person? That is what happened to Perito4u. My own sister is a victim.

When I read that Wikipedia entry (apparently done up by Witnesses) I asked myself why anyone would take that seriously. I would wonder how those who teach that the Bible was preserved in perfection by God because it is his all-important book accept that when it came to his own name all God could manage to preserve was four letters of it which now spawn nothing but confusion. I would wonder what is the sense in insisting that a name no one knows its pronunciation is the open sesame for reaching the Almighty God. I would wonder why any Bible translator that hopes to be taken seriously for honesty would assign himself the reckless license to insert that name in the New Testament, using Jehovah to replace Ky′ri•os, “Lord”, or The•os′, “God.”, even though it never appeared there in the available original texts!

Bobbyaf:

You're in a dream world. You need to awake out of sleep. 

Bobbyaf, I just went thru all ur post on dis issue and i wld say u sound verse in the bible, But u still made alot of errors as well. Cant reply all ur post, but recall dat even Jesus disciples made alot of mistakes. The issue of circumsion, the issue of who was the greatest and Jesus referred to Peter as the Devil, If these things were obtainable then, wat do u expect 2day. I study with them as they are the only ones with answers to most of my scriptural questions, The truth get brighter and brighter until d day is firmly established.

I read some of ur comments and i feel bad for some of u. Must a witness tell u dat we r living deep in d last days. Cant u see and feel it for ursef. Those asking dumb questions like didnt wars exist b4 1914, (forgetting that human population increases steadily), e.t.c r so unneccessary. There r new diseases everyday killing pple. Geologic forces are causing disasters evrywhere. I have served in the Nigerian army and i speak to u all from my heart. Currently, i am a scientist/ researcher and i explore the vast waters of the Atlantic. I come close to nature and tragedy evryday. I have taken my time to study the bible. Was born a catholic. Attended RCCG, then decided to stop attending churchs for some PR.
Did the apostles not make mistakes. Did u not read where it is been said that the prophecies are concealed till the last days. That explains y there is a better understanding of evrytin now. R JWs perfect? NO,  Even as there r evidence, y is it hard to c see dat the world nose dived into violence since 1914, when christ presence began. Its called WW1, Not the spanish war or some other crazy war for farm lands.
All we know that u r my disciples if u have love amongst urselves John 13: 34, 35. Only Jws refuse to pick up arms or exalt one race, nation or sect above another, Love is d only true identifying mark of Christains, So if bible explanations and teachings by Jws do not meet u apostatic mind desire, Then u now have sometinelse to look at. I hope to become one of them soon, cos all the questions uve all been asking are simple and i understand how u feel, cos i was once a critic like u. I feel really pity for most, cos it very obvious that satan blinds pple from d truth,
No offense anyone, Just my thot