![](http://content.invisioncic.com/r266724/set_resources_5/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_pattern.png)
AnonymousBrother
-
Posts
59 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation Activity
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from admin in Life before AutoCAD.
I was a beta tester for them in 1984 because the owner of the company I was working at knew some guys at Autodesk. We got a completely free setup.
Type in "regen", go to lunch, come back an hour later, have cofee, restroom stop, make rounds on the machining floor, check in with the R&D head to see if he needed any additional programming help (I happened to know PDP-11 BASIC), back to the desk by 2:00 PM. Wait another 5 minutes, and voila! A clean picture.
Lol.
-
AnonymousBrother reacted to JW Insider in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
True. This is the way it's now defined. But when did the first group die off, or do we know for sure they have died off yet? If a person can be anointed from their mother's womb or their birth, even if they did not personally realize that anointing until they were 10 or 15 years old or older, then a 113 year old person, living today but born in 1914, can be included in those persons who "saw" the sign in 1914, even if they didn't understand it. Remember that even a man like F.W.Franz who was part of the first group, and even BAPTIZED in 1914, was still claiming that Jesus presence had begun in 1874 and his kingdom had begun in 1878. He claimed that well into the 1920's. He didn't drop the first of those two ideas until 1943. The "Gentile Times" had ended because, in 1914, Jewish people would now be returning to Palestine. So NONE of the anointed "discerned" the so-called meaning of the 'events" of 1914. Therefore a one-day-old child in 1914 was just as discerning as F.W.Franz was on that particular count, and they both "witnessed" the events of 1914.
So, who says the first group has actually died out? Based on the definitions given. a 103 year old, such as my grandmother-in-law, might actually be part of the first group, and she appears to still be in pretty good health. Good eyesight, good original teeth, good hearing, excellent mental health and memory. She walks a little more slowly than when she was younger, and could leave us at any time, but she was born in 1914, and I'm sure there are older persons than her in a similar situation.
So, perhaps persons in the second group are still being born, and perhaps Jehovah sees their anointing from the womb, or from birth. If any of these persons live to be 103, no older than my grandmother-in-law, then the generation can technically last until 2120. (2017+103=2120) People of "this generation" that Jesus spoke of might be born today.
How far off is that reasoning?
-
AnonymousBrother reacted to JW Insider in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
AL,
Saw this in "The Atlantic." You made it hard to read, however:
The following (down below) is taken from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/
I have quoted too much of it, but this is the whole of the first few paragraphs. I understand your point, and I assume that you are referring to methods of trying to disrupt speech on this forum that have backfired, thus the dozens of alternate names that continue the disruption. But I also know that the person or persons behind all this recent disruption likely feel that an injustice has been done, and without taking sides on this, I understand that too. Unfortunately, it's difficult to police a forum without some injustices and biases, and those who feel over-policed will typically lash out.
I bring this up because it's more on-topic than most people think. The question arose earlier about why we tend to hear so much from those ex-JWs who are boisterous and vindictive and yet so many others just go on their way and "live and let live." I think that "censored speech" is one of those injustices that I should have included more explicitly on the list I made earlier. More to the topic, I think that the reason the Watchtower Society brought up 1975 again this year, after having dropped it, is directly because of the noise being made online by ex-JWs. The WTS is, in effect, now involved in a social media dispute with ex-JWs. This makes me curious about how people will understand the discussion of Social Media and the dangers of addressing concerns of "apostates" online, if it is observed that the WTS is now doing the same thing, obliquely, through videos and presentations that also end up online (via jw.org, tv.jw.org, etc).
---------- quote from The Atlantic --------------
Socrates (right) teaches Alcibiades. The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech'
Today’s campus controversies reflect a battle between two distinct conceptions of the term—what the Greeks called isegoria and parrhesia.
Little distinguishes democracy in America more sharply from Europe than the primacy—and permissiveness—of our commitment to free speech. Yet ongoing controversies at American universities suggest that free speech is becoming a partisan issue. While conservative students defend the importance of inviting controversial speakers to campus and giving offense, many self-identified liberals are engaged in increasingly disruptive, even violent, efforts to shut them down. Free speech for some, they argue, serves only to silence and exclude others. Denying hateful or historically “privileged” voices a platform is thus necessary to make equality effective, so that the marginalized and vulnerable can finally speak up—and be heard.
The reason that appeals to the First Amendment cannot decide these campus controversies is because there is a more fundamental conflict between two, very different concepts of free speech at stake. The conflict between what the ancient Greeks called isegoria, on the one hand, and parrhesia, on the other, is as old as democracy itself. Today, both terms are often translated as “freedom of speech,” but their meanings were and are importantly distinct. In ancient Athens, isegoria described the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly; parrhesia, the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom.
When it comes to private universities, businesses, or social media, the would-be censors are our fellow-citizens, not the state. Private entities like Facebook or Twitter, not to mention Yale or Middlebury, have broad rights to regulate and exclude the speech of their members. Likewise, online mobs are made up of outraged individuals exercising their own right to speak freely. To invoke the First Amendment in such cases is not a knock-down argument, itÂ’s a non sequitur. -
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from DefenderOTT in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
And the beat goes on . . .
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from JW Insider in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
And the beat goes on . . .
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from Foreigner in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Not here. In Asia things are more dedicated. How the "next phase" is calculated is not that important. They can mostly talk about it, but pay less attention to the details than the result: "Wait. Not time yet."
I'm moving back to the US in a couple of weeks (been in Asia 24 years). But even then, the congregation I will be attending aren't that fixated on "how" just "when" (sorta speak).
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from JW Insider in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Not here. In Asia things are more dedicated. How the "next phase" is calculated is not that important. They can mostly talk about it, but pay less attention to the details than the result: "Wait. Not time yet."
I'm moving back to the US in a couple of weeks (been in Asia 24 years). But even then, the congregation I will be attending aren't that fixated on "how" just "when" (sorta speak).
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from tromboneck in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Guess the horse ain't dead yet.
-
AnonymousBrother reacted to James Thomas Rook Jr. in New Movie: Blood, dealing with Blood Transfusions. Coming to a theater near you soon!
People that are DELIBERATELY ignorant have my profound and deepest sympathy.
They say "Ignorance is bliss" ... but it's shameful to be publicly orgasmic about it.
-
AnonymousBrother reacted to James Thomas Rook Jr. in WHEN DOES THE GREAT TRIBULATION BEGIN?
Queen Esther:
Most people do not use logic and reason to discover NEW TRUTHS, and my previous posting was to help you determine the right QUESTIONS to ask.
If I told you the answer you would not believe it.
If You struggle and sweat to understand the question, and then the answer ... the joy is incredible.
It's HARD brain work, but it's worth it!.
-
AnonymousBrother reacted to Anna in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Wow, big change! Welcome back
I have a friend who moved to China a year ago, "under cover".
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from Anna in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Not here. In Asia things are more dedicated. How the "next phase" is calculated is not that important. They can mostly talk about it, but pay less attention to the details than the result: "Wait. Not time yet."
I'm moving back to the US in a couple of weeks (been in Asia 24 years). But even then, the congregation I will be attending aren't that fixated on "how" just "when" (sorta speak).
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from Anna in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
It wasn't. It was an assignment to show biblical references for proper planning.
Supposed to last 6 minutes. Took about 10 (my wife is not native speaker). No one complained and the elders just said "I never thought of it that way."
Amazing what you can do with Scriptures and a little math . . .
-
AnonymousBrother reacted to Anna in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Lol!
I've always liked what one father said to his daughter (quoted in one WT): "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime, but live your life as if it will come tomorrow"
I apologise to those who have heard me say this numerous times before.
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from Anna in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
No.
But, you do not have to try, either.
People should have better things to do than chase cats.
I gave a talk about the "overlapping generations" when it was "new".
Pointed out not to ignore things like retirement plans, etc., because this overlapping stuff could easily drag on another 100 years--likely longer as medical tech advances.
Jehovah has his own time frame.
We were told to be ready at any time for the fan to be hit. We weren't told to jump the gun. As many seemed want to do.
Of course, not having been a witness back then, I cannot say about general moods and such. But I have seen many nowadays starting down the "before next decade" path. I tell them not to plan their lives around a date, and just be ready to run for the hills at any time, because the fan could be hit *tomorrow* or *one hundred years* from now.
-
AnonymousBrother reacted to Anna in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
It is quite weird really. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Just recently I listened to one of the old recordings. The "infamous" talk given by District overseer Charles Sinutko, where the phrase “stay alive till 75” apparently got coined. It was entitled “Serving with everlasting view in mind” I am sure you know which one I am talking about. Br. Sinutko begins his talk by asking “do we know what 1975 means to us? Well we don’t have to guess what the year 1975 means for us. The WT May /1 1967 is very explicit; the end of 6000 years of human existence…and…possibly …the time when God executes the wicked” Unfortunately that word possibly got completely destroyed by what he says at the end of his talk, at around mark 20:20, when referring to the Society he says; “they know what’s coming, and don’t wait till 75, the door is going to be shut before then!”. I can only imagine what those in attendance were thinking. It must have been hard for them not to “be looking forward to a date!”.
He of course wasn't the only person with a leadership role to have voiced things this way. There were many, many others, as you personally know. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that those of the FDS, at least Fred Franz, really believed the end would come in 1975, although never officially taught, but merely insinuated. Logically, there is no reason to believe otherwise.
-
AnonymousBrother reacted to JW Insider in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Thanks. But I was referring to the irony of responding to a point about "honesty" by creating additional, false, contradictory accounts -- alter-egos or "personalities," as it were. However, that is almost a perfect lead-in to what many of us saw happening not long after the 1970's came and went without the expectations fulfilled. I haven't studied the psychology of these things, so I can't speak to egos and ids as others might be able to. But I can agree that ego in the more common meaning of the word would help explain why so many people didn't want to admit having been wrong -- and were more than happy to adjust to the belief that this whole thing didn't really happen the way it did, and even if it did, it was only because a few brothers and sisters "ran ahead" of Jehovah's organization.
Even people who lived through the time period, as I did my along with own large family, including an extended family of Witnesses, were very quick to dismiss the idea that anything was ever said in the way it was actually said. A Bible study could actually read directly from photocopies of 10 to 20 year old publications to my mother and father, and they would deny that these were actual photocopies. My grandmother, who collected almost every special talk from every traveling visitor and Society (branch) representative, had all the old talks from the period, and even a circuit assembly from 1970, I think, that was just full of amazingly unscriptural talks about what the 1970's were sure to bring. My father was usually the "Sound Servant" (speakers, mics, mixers, amps, wires) at any assembly we attended, whether circuit, district, international, special meeting, and we often attended at least 6 assemblies a year due to this fact. He kept a master copy of most of the assemblies and visits to the Norco Assembly Hall (the first one) and I would sometimes hear a talk again when he made copies of some of these talks on request. I heard the talks from this period more times than I care to remember.
Still, I found this time period to be exciting and entertaining. And I still think that the expectations--even though they were not fulfilled at the time many of us expected--were sill faith-strengthening rather than devastating, as they were to some. I thought they made us imagine more clearly what our lives could be like in just a few years, and it made us imagine what they might be like if things didn't happen as many expected. I never had a problem with this "exercise" of our faith. It was like a kind of mental "fire drill." I think it helped many to clarify their relationship with Jehovah. I was baptized in 1967, when the 1966 book that started this post was required reading for baptism. and began to auxiliary pioneer with all the magazines and books related to this issue. I was scheduled to graduate in 1975 but quit high school to pioneer full-time in 1973, not even 16 years old. This was recommended and encouraged by elders, circuit overseers and district overseers. My father, an electrical engineer, put some strict conditions on me if I were to leave school, including the amount of money I had to earn and split with the family per month, how soon I had to be able to support myself and leave the house (when I was 18 years old). So my life was defined around 1975 in such a way that I was not as apt to forget what happened and why.
But many persons who lived through the same period are now quick to deny that any of what happened actually happened, including things that happened to them personally. This is a disconcerting observation.
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
The only problem with speculation is people's tendency to treat it as FACT.
Early Adopter Syndrome, that wanting to be "one of the first", plays a huge role in that, fueled by one's ego.
Not always, mind you.
But, many times, sure enough.
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from Noble Berean in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Guess the horse ain't dead yet.
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from DefenderOTT in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Guess the horse ain't dead yet.
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from JW Insider in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Guess the horse ain't dead yet.
-
AnonymousBrother reacted to JW Insider in 1975 and the Jehovah's Witnesses
I have not made it a secret that I think we are currently hurtling toward the same problem we created for ourselves in the 1970's. Therefore, I think it's very important that we don't forget this part of our history, as we can learn from it. I think we learn just as much from the defensive attempts, like the one on "Defending Jehovah's Witnesses" linked above. In fact, I think the mistakes made back in the 1960's and early 1970's with respect to 1975 were very trivial compared to the lessons we can learn about our own egos, our pride and our honesty. Honesty is a form of faithfulness, and that's the only reason that this discussion might still be important to some of us today.
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from The Librarian in Coco Rocha Abandons Supermodel Career for Cart Witnessing
Why not? I am sure we have one sister, somewhere, with that name . . . ;-)
-
AnonymousBrother reacted to Gregorio Alberto in Did Jesus really say He was God?
When he had come into the region of Caes·a·reʹa Phi·lipʹpi, Jesus asked his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?”+14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist,+ others E·liʹjah,+ and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them: “You, though, who do you say I am?”16 Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ,+ the Son of the living God.”+ 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did. —Matthew 16:13-17
-
AnonymousBrother got a reaction from JW Insider in How can we be sure that Gods Name is Jehovah?
The exact pronunciation is not known anymore. So, as to the validity of "Jehovah".
It only applies in the languages it was defined as. How, you wonder? Let's take "fire".
Is that the original pronunciation of what we know as fire by the being that first mentioned it? We can 99.999999999999999% guarantee it is *not*. So. Is "fire" the incorrect word for fire? By the reasoning some want to apply, the answer is "yes." Which means, pretty much, no-one in he world knows what they are talking about and are speaking gibberish.
That is where we have "transliteration" and "translation". YHWH is incorrect. Why? The Tetragrammaton is *not written in modern Romanized characters.* YHWH is *not* God's name, *by any means.*
It is an attempt to use existing character combinations with an aproximate sound to the word in another language. In the case of YHWH, this is even *more* incorrect, since the pronunciation is not being transliterated, but raw characters, whose pronunciation in that particular combination in their native language *no longer exists.* This brings us to "translation". To use an example, if you ever meet a Korean with the name "Lee", "Lee" is *not* his name. It is a *translation*. His real name, in accurate *transliteration* is "Ee". Lim is really "Him" without the "H" sound. Mr. Park has no "r" in his real name. I am sure you also have many examples.
Which, now, brings us back to Jehovah and English.
Until the time of Tyndale, no one had translated the original Hebrew texts into English. Yet, there is a word there that occurs about 7000 times, the concept and exact match of which the English language *does not have*. Now, since *no one alive then or now* knows *how* that word is pronounced, Tyndale could have written Spongebob with a notation on the front that "Spongebob" is how he will represent the Tetragrammaton in his *translation*, because, with the pronunciation of the original *not known* he *cannot* transliterate. But, instead, he noticed that "Jeova" was being used elsewhere and why, so, rather than pick "Spongebob" he picked Jehovah (modern spelling. It was with an "i" before) and maintained some sort of reasoning for the translation.
And, of course, the reason Tyndale had to make a translation in the first place has its origins *with God.*
(ASV) Genesis 11:9 Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because Jehovah did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did Jehovah scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
As God did not reveal His Name until *after* the Babel episode, those who eventually learned English *had no native concept* of the meaning of God's name, therefore no equivalent word to the Tetragrammaton. They would have to come up with them when they ran into the concept. And, when Tyndale did, he coined
"Jehovah"
to represent the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in the English language about 500 years ago. And, this fact is attested to, still, in dictionaries:
British "Jehovah" in British English
See all translations Jehovahnoun
UK /dʒəˈhəʊ.və/ US /dʒəˈhoʊ.və/ › the name of God used in the Old Testament of the Bible http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/jehovah
Now, you can call out "Korean Dude!" or "Mr. Lee!". But, Mr. "Ee" will appreciate you using his name, which, in English, is Mr. "Lee."
And that is how we view Jehovah, which, in Korean, is Yohowah, which, in ancient Hebrew is . . . The Tetragrammaton. But, you can use Yahweh (or one of the 50 different variations claiming to be the True Pronunciation) if you want: It is *still* wrong. When the New Kingdom arrives for good, I am sure the True Name will be in wide use, and all will have the correct pronunciation. But, until then, we are left with Jesus's words at John 17:26
(CEB) I’ve made your name known to them and will continue to make it known so that your love for me will be in them, and I myself will be in them.”
And that is a *critical* reason to be using God's Name, *however* it may have been translated into the language *God Himself* gave you.