Talk:Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine

message: 1882: No hellfire. According to Russell, most references to "hell" in the New Testament were more accurately translated as "grave".[63][64]
Everybody knows that one of the first things Russell was taught by Second Adventists was that biblical soul is mortal and that biblical hell is a synomym to death and grave. This is in early 1870's and surely not in 1882.--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a check and "everybody knows" isn't listed as a reliable, verifiable source. The Adventists may have held that view and Russell may have concurred, but the timeline has to consist of published statements in which a doctrine is explicitly expressed. LTSally (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The references are in the article, Vassilis. LTSally (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I will concede your point that Russell briefly mentions his belief on man as souls. But I'd appreciate if you wouldn't continue to revert back to your mangling of the English language when listing these doctrines. I have rewritten these points for clarity. LTSally (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hellfire rejected in 1882???

message: Can more knowledgeable editors format the entries in the article to distinguish unchanged yet current doctrines introduced after 1879 (or perhaps after 1931 reflecting adoption of the Jehovah witness name) from doctrines that have changed constantly and/or abandoned?--Kencaesi (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought about that too, and at one point was going to suggest that each current belief have its short-label be bolded. However, I believe somewhere there are rules about what you can and can't do and I think maybe they want us to use italics instead. The article would benefit from an editor who is more knowledgeable about such things. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to more clearly indicate which beliefs are still current. WP:MOSBOLD places quite specific restrictions on bold formatting, and also discourages underlining and coloured text as a means of emphasis. So italics may be the way to go. Alternatively, a separate section after the others could summarise the current beliefs, though I'm not entirely happy with the thought of such repetition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to be an ugly combination of text in italics and non-italic. It might be better to list all current beliefs in a separate section, but then again isn't that just going to repeat the material at Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Beliefs? The link to that article already exists at the bottom: I say leave it as it is. BlackCab (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your concerns of what may seem to be arbitrary formatting within the existing sections, and some of the points don't really have a suitable short form. It would be nice to have some kind of summary indicating their current beliefs though, i.e., indicating to where their beliefs have developed. An alternative may be to separate the article into separate sections to more clearly show development in specific areas; e.g., Christ's presence, 'generation', blood and medicine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for article format 

message: The article states that Inerrancy of the Bible is a doctrine unchanged since 1879. However, The Watchtower, April 1, 1920, p. 103, stated, "That [Studies in the Scriptures] contains some mistakes is freely admitted. Even the Bible contains some." (formatting added), and The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126 stated, "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible and there has never been a book written yet that is perfect that has been written by any human hand." (formatting added) The statement therefore should not be included in the 'unchanged' doctrines section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Biblical infallibility is different from Biblical inerrancy. The Watchtowers of April 1, 1920 and April 15, 1928 (quoted in the above comment) say this on their inside front covers: "This journal...urge[s] our readers to prove all its utterances by the infallible Word [of God]" and "This journal...confidently invites a careful examination of its utterances in the light of the infallible Word of God". The article now uses the proper term. --Soc8675309 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible inerrant 

message: Regarding concerns raised at Talk:Nontrinitarianism#Bible Students 2012 about whether Russell ever believed the Trinity, I agree that the sources are not completely clear that he personally ever believed the doctrine. It may be that only Barbour and Paton held those views. However, the sources do indicate that the idea was endorsed in early Zion's Watch Tower publications, and therefore seems appropriate to retain.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trinity? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106203545/http://www.mostholyfaith.com:80/bible/Reprints/Z1914JAN.asp to http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/Reprints/Z1914JAN.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106203619/http://www.mostholyfaith.com:80/bible/Reprints/Z1916FEB.asp to http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/Reprints/Z1916FEB.asp#Z38:1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713214204/http://www.mostholyfaith.com:80/bible/Reprints/Z1916SEP.asp to http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/Reprints/Z1916SEP.asp#Z265:2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The 1925 Watchtower citation is correct, but the Battle of Armageddon, written by Russell - not Rutherford - does not suggest that the Pope is Michael.  Instead, it calls Michael, '"the Captain of our salvation,"'.  I doubt that even Catholics would call the Pope, "the Captain of our salvation", but if someone does interpret it that way, that's their synthesis.  I strongly doubt that any reputable source will be found, for that synthesis. 
Therefore, I suggest that this item be removed. Downstrike (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That source is certainly ambiguous, but it was indeed claimed that 'Michael' was 'the Pope'. I will replace the existing reference. It's obvious that Rutherford didn't actually write the 1889 book, but that is now superfluous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I think that citation is much more to the point.  It actually was published, if not written, by Rutherford. Downstrike (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, The Finished Mystery was written by C. J. Woodworth and George Fisher, but it was authorised/commissioned by Rutherford. At least some of the content may have been based on notes left by Russell, but this is disputed and probably impossible to reliably confirm.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1920–1929; 1925: Michael Suggestion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/Reprints/Z1887SEP.asp%22The
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029020852/http://cchasson.free.fr/deposit/trial/Walsh_Trial.pdf to http://cchasson.free.fr/deposit/trial/Walsh_Trial.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This independent source mentions the 24 July 1929 Watchtower magazine about the origin myth of the black people that would have resulted from the curse of Canaan.  8 October Awake! magazine denounces this belief of some groups as non-scriptural, showing that it was no longer part of doctrine then (although it interestingly doesn't refer to their own old literature about it).  I'm not sure if this is important enough for an entry in this article or if there are better sources about it yet, so I'm posting it here for review and input.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that it's not a vital doctrine, with current JW demographics very multiethnic, etc.  It could even be considered the president's personal beliefs, although he was still writing it as "God's channel"...  Good point about Ham, I now remember this, is it still current?  I agree that if anything is added to the article, this would be important (and that the 1943 source would be better than the 1977 one).  Without a second third party source we're probably still at WP:SYNTH at this point though?  Maybe not a problem if uncontroversial and WP:DUE (still in question).  Thanks for the comments, —PaleoNeonate – 15:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the black people and justification of slavery 

message: Was surprised WT statement that Adam was created bi-sexual didn't make the cool timeline - I actually don't know when they changed that thought:
Watchtower March 01, 1926, p 77, par 7
After this Adam was put into a deep sleep while God took from him that from which he could form an helpmeet for Adam. This means that Adam at the first was a bi-sexual creature, and that God took away from him that part which would make the female. God formed a woman and then brought her to Adam. When he beheld his counterpart, still more graceful than he, he named her isha (woman) ’because she was taken out of ish [man]". (Genesis 2: 23) The woman,then, with Adam,formed not of clay as Adam was, but from him and perfect like him, together with him enjoyed the garden and the blessings of God, and continued to learn more of their gracious Creator.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.224.44.7 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The original source did not intend 'bisexual' as in 'attracted to men and women'. Rather, it was intended in the sense of 'hermaphroditic'. In any case, it seems to be a one-off comment in passing rather than a particularly notable belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bi-Sexual Adam 

message: There is already an entry IRT the recent doctrinal change where Russia is assigned as the King of the North of Daniel.  Apparently it was the USSR before the 70s then phased out in the 80s and once was Nazi Germany before that.  Since this 2018 entry exists it might be a good idea to include older related doctrinal declarations.  I didn't take the time to look for the relevant sources but it may also be something trivial for someone else, so leaving this post for now.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some changes to this effect. Let me know if any concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 King of the North 

message: Four Bibliography books could not be downloaded from strictlygenteel.co.uk (err 404): at hand, thy kingdom, light and divine plan. I switched to archive.org. I put the first version (1886) of The Divine Plan of the Ages (1886 as The Plan of the Ages, revised 1887, 1903, 1907, 1908, 1911, 1913). 2001:2003:F658:CC00:2824:9CED:A50C:F992 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The rather brown-skinned book Three Worlds couldn’t be downloaded either (heraldmag.org), but now it can. 2001:2003:F658:CC00:2824:9CED:A50C:F992 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography