Dan the Man:
You're acting like this thread is some kind of court trial!
Only to the extent that I believe there are productive ways to carry on an argument. There is "order" in the court. There ought to be order in any argument.
I wish you had responded to my request that you post the WT-CD hit count on certain scriptures versus the one that this thread is based upon.
This is an experiment that you should in good faith carry out. And while you are at it you might want to prove that such an exercise is a valid way of establishing anything significant about how much weight an organization places on certain concepts.
Is it significant that the Watchtower produces 214 hits for "love your neighbor" and only 72 hits for "love your enemies"? Could it have anything to do with the fact that "love your enemies" occurs 3 times in the bible whereas "love your neighbor" occurs 8 times in the bible. If you divide 72 by 3 you get 24. If you divide 214 by 8 you get 27. This would suggest that there is some correlation between a concept in the bible and how often its covered in the Watchtower. Why do you get 22,575 hits for the word "love" and only 1,179 hits for the word hate in the Watchtower. They like the "love" scriptures way out of proportion to the "hate" scriptures. "Love" appears 473 times in the Bible and Hate only 58. Dividing 22,575 by 473 gives you 48. Dividing 1179 by 58 gives you 20. JW's definitely prefer "love" scriptures to "hate" scriptures.
I wouldn't even begin to think I could establish some kind of validity to this sort of an exercise. I would have to make an exhaustive study of several hundred "ideas" to show some kind of validity to the proceedure. I would have to establish some mathematical level of confidence you can have depending on correlation etc. etc. So that's why I haven't played the game of counting hits that you seem to think would have such a clarifying effect.
And don't tell me to shut up. Your demands for apologies and telling us to shut up are childish and embarrassing.
I should have said "if [a person]" instead of "you". I didn't specificall mean "you" should shut up. I meant - if "a person" doesn't have hard data AND if they don't want to try create an instrument for gathering hard data THEN such a person ought to refrain from creating a big THEORY. Short cut = Put Up or Shut Up. If I offended you I am sorry. And it is because I don't want to offend that I think it fair to expect gentlemen to appologize when they are caught using unsavory techniques. If someone appologizes it indicates they might be arguing in good faith. By asking for an apology I am testing the waters.
It is clear to me that Metatron is not arguing in good faith. As usual he is not very responsive when criticized. Almost as bad as the Watchtower.