Author Topic: "Creation" 1927  (Read 2022 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dupin

  • Moderator
  • Forum Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1147
  • Gender: Male
  • οτι ο θεος αγαπη εστιν
    • View Profile
Re: "Creation" 1927
« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2011, 09:20:07 PM »
I have the book among the ones whi9ch haven't been unpacked yet David.  So it's too bad I can't take a look and see where you are going with that.   :(


Dupin

Davidimus

  • Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: "Creation" 1927
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2011, 05:07:09 AM »
I wasn't really going anywhere. Just stating the comment to the picture.
Searching for real truth,wisdom and understanding.

Dupin

  • Moderator
  • Forum Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1147
  • Gender: Male
  • οτι ο θεος αγαπη εστιν
    • View Profile
Re: "Creation" 1927
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2011, 01:30:51 PM »
Unpacked the books and pretty much all of my "rainbow series," the Rutherford books, were eaten up with mildew.

I even had to throw away my copy of The Harpof God.  She never liked me collecting "old light" when we were active Witnesses to begin with.  So I'm not so surprised she stored them in such a way.  Two of my old Studies In The Scriptures were in that box but they managed not to come to any harm.  So I still have early editions of three of the studies.

Dupin

mikeg

  • Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: "Creation" 1927
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2011, 04:24:57 PM »
this picture was brought up on a conference call run by an ex jw rick fearon he got called a homophob for it the picture does look inapropriate i have the book myself i read it before didnt even notices it tell i heard it on the conference call and looked closely at it i showed my parents they thought it looked bad also  i think if you showed the picture to most witnesses they would be more upset about the cross than what it looks like is going on behind it which is something i never understood even if they did think that cross was mistranslated why not just go along with that cause thats what most people think is correct thats what they say about the term jehovah they will admit that yaway maybey is more accurate but say we use jehovah because thats how its been translated i think its just another way to get in a dig against the churches like them depicting jesus with no beard in the past in the 1960s they got new light saying jesus wore a beard

bro tom

  • Bible Student
  • Forum Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 351
  • Gender: Male
  • Christ has returned
    • View Profile
    • Jackson Bible Students
Re: "Creation" 1927
« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2011, 05:43:36 AM »
...its just another way to get in a dig against the churches like them depicting jesus with no beard in the past in the 1960s they got new light saying jesus wore a beard

When I first came to the truth, Br Bill Gill explained to me that as light increases, it does not change the previous light but makes it clearer.  Those things that we see thru a glass dimly, will become clearer, but they are not re-created truths.  For example; the light that reveals the Great Company is a heavenly class, is not replaced by later light that maks the Great Company an earthly class.  My understanding is that the term "new light" is in reference to the seven messengers.  We received the last "New Light" with Br Russell revealing Christ's return and the Divine Plan.  Light we receive today, is based largely on gaining insight on the Divine Plan as we experience life under Christ's presence and restitution.
Bro Tom
Jackson Bible Students