1914 ....A significant year in bible prophecy

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by TJ1

... (1 Cor. 13:8) But there are "prophets" in the sense that they preach the Word of God and warn others, just as the ancient prophets did.

So this leaves the question, did you deliberately misquote the Watchtower or was it someone you copied from, and why? Could it possibly be for the purpose of spreading lies about us? (Matthew 5:11)
TJ

So do teachers and ministers. The second part of a "prophet" is telling what will come true, and it does, exactly as prophesied. Without the second part, there is no "Prophet". And the one who claims to be a prophet of God, but has even one error, is to be stoned to death. That too is Biblical.

Quasi-prophet is sort of like, quasi-star? quasi-profficient? Not fully engaged, therefore of no real significance. Quasi means not all criteria are met to fullfil the obligation.

No one has lied about anything. Your own words and title, give pause to consider.

[Dor]

Actually it was an accidental misquote. Sorry my Firefox seetings do not allow pasting off clipboard so I was typing from a different window and I admit my typing is the hunt and peck method.

I do not need to spread lies about The Watchtower and have not said anything about your integrity yet. Thank you very much.

No one needs to spread lies about The Watchtower there record of "prophecies" speaks volumes.

[TJ1]

Originally Posted by Dor

Actually it was an accidental misquote. Sorry my Firefox seetings do not allow pasting off clipboard so I was typing from a different window and I admit my typing is the hunt and peck method.

And how exactly did you accidentally leave out six quotation marks and at least three sections (that I counted) of text without giving any indication of it? I guess I don't see how that couldn't be deliberate.

But if it was in some wierd, crazy way an accident, how about we be a little more careful about what we post as fact.

Originally Posted by Dor

I do not need to spread lies about The Watchtower and have not said anything about your integrity yet. Thank you very much.

No one needs to spread lies about The Watchtower there record of "prophecies" speaks volumes.

Once you catch me misquoting you or your church then you have the right to question my integrity as well. And as for your last comment, I find it interesting that when you have just given a false quote, for whatever reason, you have the nerve to take a shot at the source you just misquoted.


TJ

[FLOWERGIRL]

Hi TJ1,

Does the Watchtower compare itself to Ezekiel then?

Originally Posted by Watchtower, March 15, 1972, p. 189
More accurately, was there any group on whom Jehovah would be willing to bestow the commission to speak as a “prophet” in His name, as was done toward Ezekiel back there in 613 B.C.E.?

Also, is there any further information (context) I could read up on in that page (189) of the Watchtower, March 15, 1972? Just so I get the whole picture.

Thanks.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by FLOWERGIRL

Hi TJ1,

Does the Watchtower compare itself to Ezekiel then?

Originally Posted by Watchtower, March 15, 1972, p. 189
More accurately, was there any group on whom Jehovah would be willing to bestow the commission to speak as a “prophet” in His name, as was done toward Ezekiel back there in 613 B.C.E.?

Also, is there any further information (context) I could read up on in that page (189) of the Watchtower, March 15, 1972? Just so I get learn the whole picture.

Thanks.

Interesting question. Didn't E99 address this once? Dor? Mee? Can you folk remember?

[TJ1]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

So do teachers and ministers. The second part of a "prophet" is telling what will come true, and it does, exactly as prophesied. Without the second part, there is no "Prophet". And the one who claims to be a prophet of God, but has even one error, is to be stoned to death. That too is Biblical.

Quasi-prophet is sort of like, quasi-star? quasi-profficient? Not fully engaged, therefore of no real significance. Quasi means not all criteria are met to fullfil the obligation.

"Quasi" means "to some degree." So if they put "prophet" in quotation marks for the purpose of indicating 'a prophet to some degree,' then they were purposely bringing out one particular sense of the word, that being preaching and warning others, and leaving the "second part" you described above. This isn't rocket science, and I'm not quite sure what you're argument here is. If you read the articles, you'll see that they are using the prophet Ezekiel as an archetype and describing the modern christians as the accompanying type.

In the same way, I can say John the Baptist was "Elijah." (Matthew 17:12)

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No one has lied about anything. Your own words and title, give pause to consider.

Someone has certainly misquoted the Watchtower, making it look like it said something it didn't, which just happened to make it look bad. If you are going to deny that, well, that's your decision.


TJ

[TJ1]

Originally Posted by FLOWERGIRL

Hi TJ1,

Does the Watchtower compare itself to Ezekiel then?

Originally Posted by Watchtower, March 15, 1972, p. 189
More accurately, was there any group on whom Jehovah would be willing to bestow the commission to speak as a “prophet” in His name, as was done toward Ezekiel back there in 613 B.C.E.?

Also, is there any further information (context) I could read up on in that page (189) of the Watchtower, March 15, 1972? Just so I get the whole picture.

Thanks.

Hi FLOWERGIRL,

I'll send you the two articles in their entirety.


TJ

[FLOWERGIRL]

Originally Posted by TJ1

Hi FLOWERGIRL,

I'll send you the two articles in their entirety.


TJ

Thanks TJ. I appreciate that.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by TJ1

"Quasi" means "to some degree." So if they put "prophet" in quotation marks for the purpose of indicating 'a prophet to some degree,' then they were purposely bringing out one particular sense of the word, that being preaching and warning others, and leaving the "second part" you described above. This isn't rocket science, and I'm not quite sure what you're argument here is. If you read the articles, you'll see that they are using the prophet Ezekiel as an archetype and describing the modern christians as the accompanying type.

In the same way, I can say John the Baptist was "Elijah." (Matthew 17:12)

Someone has certainly misquoted the Watchtower, making it look like it said something it didn't, which just happened to make it look bad. If you are going to deny that, well, that's your decision.


TJ

First of all we have had the pleasure of some mighty fine people here at CR who are JWs post here. And they have been quite forthright in their beliefs, which allowed us to learn alot and appreciate where they are coming from. Second, the Watchtower is of no import here as this is a Bible based forum. Perhaps that is why people like me and Thomas, and Abo, do not bring forth extenuating literature to further any cause we may have for our own peculiar versions of Christian faith, and why folk like E99, Mee, Tommy stick with their version of the Bible instead of exracurricular material that the rest are not privy to on a daily basis.

It is very easy to misquote material that changes relatively frequently, such as the "watch tower". Indeed the message has changed three times since 1977. So, please bear with any sceptism, or consider avoiding it all together by sticking with Biblical references, to back your "case in point".

It is common ground we all "understand".

Just a thought.

v/r

Q

Oh, and Welcome to CR

[TJ1]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Second, the Watchtower is of no import here as this is a Bible based forum.

I quote from the Bible, not the Watchtower. The only time I do is when someone misquotes it or asks me to.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Perhaps that is why people like me and Thomas, and Abo, do not bring forth extenuating literature to further any cause we may have for our own peculiar versions of Christian faith, and why folk like E99, Mee, Tommy stick with their version of the Bible instead of exracurricular material that the rest are not privy to on a daily basis.

I have used the NIV, NASB, the American Translation, and the KJV in my replies when proving my beliefs, though the NWT is certainly a fine translation.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

It is very easy to misquote material that changes relatively frequently, such as the "watch tower". Indeed the message has changed three times since 1977. So, please bear with any sceptism, or consider avoiding it all together by sticking with Biblical references, to back your "case in point".

So how exactly is it "very easy" to take out six quotation marks which clearly changes the meaning of the article?

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Oh, and Welcome to CR

Thank you much.


TJ

[Dor]

Very easily. I was reading words. Closing a window. And then typing. I missed them. I am a man I am allowed to make a mistake and all ready admited I did such. If it was purposeful then I will answer to Jesus for it one day.

As for your continued insistance that I purposely left them out. I been around here for a little while and while alot do not agree with things I say, the majority that have been around for awhile know what I do and do not do.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by TJ1

I quote from the Bible, not the Watchtower. The only time I do is when someone misquotes it or asks me to.

I have used the NIV, NASB, the American Translation, and the KJV in my replies when proving my beliefs, though the NWT is certainly a fine translation.

So how exactly is it "very easy" to take out six quotation marks which clearly changes the meaning of the article?

Thank you much.


TJ

Ignore it. Stick with the Bible. No misquoting allowed there.

Stick with the NWT then, if that is where you are comfortable at. (I personally like the Latin Vulgate, though King James is quite acceptable).

The point is it is an "article" or series of articles, not God ordained scripture. I can show you 16 different versions of an article from a newspaper group all reporting on the same thing at the same hour on the same day. Which is right?

No one is condemning the NWT. But I can tell you for certain, if I were to start quoting Papal Bulls...all of you would go through the roof. What makes one think some other holy post (other than Bible script), wouldn't be considered offensive or ludicrous by others? That's all, nothing personal.

Your faith, must stand on it's own merit according to Biblical scripture (just like mine, and Abogado's, and Dor's, and Faithful's and InLove's, and Wil's, and Kenod's and the newer folk here), and I don't know about Cyperbi. I can't tell if he is Christian or Muslim, or a hybrid (which would indeed be interesting).

That's why we "discuss" points of faith.

Anyway, I've taken too much time up here on the board. Welcome.

v/r

Q

[TJ1]

Originally Posted by Dor

Very easily. I was reading words. Closing a window. And then typing. I missed them. I am a man I am allowed to make a mistake and all ready admited I did such. If it was purposeful then I will answer to Jesus for it one day.

As for your continued insistance that I purposely left them out. I been around here for a little while and while alot do not agree with things I say, the majority that have been around for awhile know what I do and do not do.

I'll take you at your word Dor and assume it was an honest mistake. What I had thought had happened was you copied it from a website where they had intentionally changed the text. This happens quite often. I have actually seen some go as far as making entire false articles which they then claim is from some random Watchtower!


TJ

[FLOWERGIRL]

Hello again TJ1,

I have a favour to ask of you if it's not to much trouble.

Would it be possible for you to also post me the following articles in their context?


As for the time of Christ’s second presence, Daniel’s prophecy is again the one that gives the chronology for it. (Dan. 4:16) It was figured out as pointing to A.D. 1914, and The Watchtower called notice to the significance of 1914 in the year 1879.- Watchtower, Nov 1, 1952

The Scriptural proof is that the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 A.D. -Prophecy, 1929, pg. 65

Why, then, do the nations not realize and accept the approach of this climax of judgment? It is because they have not heeded the world-wide advertising of Christ’s return and his second presence. Since long before World War I Jehovah’s witnesses pointed to 1914 as the time for this great event to occur.- Watchtower, June 15, 1954

From Mr. Barbour, editor of that publication, Russell also came to be persuaded that Christ's invisible presence had begun in 1874. Attention was later drawn to this by the subtitle "Herald of Christ's Presence," which appeared on the cover of Zion's Watch Tower. -Proclaimers, 1993, pg. 133


Thanks TJ

[TJ1]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No one is condemning the NWT.

I believe that is exactly what is being done in another thread here. But hopefully I can answer some of those common misconceptions. Still, I personally use a variety of Bible translations. Each one has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

But I can tell you for certain, if I were to start quoting Papal Bulls...all of you would go through the roof. What makes one think some other holy post (other than Bible script), wouldn't be considered offensive or ludicrous by others? That's all, nothing personal.

You're right, quoting a pope would do little for me unless he based his statement on the Bible so that I could check it. This is what the Watchtower does, bases its statements on the Bible and directs a person to the relevant parts, but still it is not considered to be inspired or infallible as some claim. But since many, especially online, would get offended or think I'm 'blind' if I quoted from the Watchtower, I wouldn't do that here. I only responded to a mentioning of it to clear up the confusion on what it said exactly.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

That's why we "discuss" points of faith.

Witnesses do this daily, both online and off, and we enjoy it!


TJ