Research on the validity of 1914

by Bluegrass Tom 78 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AlanF

  That's right, Brad, but we'll have to see. A friend of mine, one Jay Hess, was DF'd about 15 years ago for "apostasy". He told me that he was absolutely sure, until the moment his DF'ing was confirmed by the so-called judicial committee, that the Watchtower cult was "God's organization". Once the DF'ing was confirmed, he changed his tune right quick.

  But you never know. I know of other JWs treated horribly by Watchtower minions and the Watchtower Society itself, but they never quit. Takes all kinds, no?

  AlanF
• 

  hillary_step

  Alan,

  "Mice-trap", HS? Have you been partaking a bit too much of the bubbly?

  lol...Actually it should have spelled "Nice-Trap".

  HS
• 

  DaCheech

  Scholar, a couple of questions? How could Jacob wrestle (grapple) an angel and win, when angels can destroy entire cities?

  Why would Lot give his daughters to be raped to the mob, than rather let an angel show his power?

  How can the watchtower interpret when a day means a day, and when a day means a year, and when a day mean 1000 years, and so on?

  How can the watchtower still hold a straight face, and change it main characters on the king of the morth/south prophecy every time a new twist in history happens?

  Scholar, I am waiting! Hit and run tactics are your way. Please report your accidents to the authorities
• 

  scholar

  Alan F disciple of Jonsson

  The only piece of information of any value is the gender of this Kristen Jorgensen. This so called 'scholar' does not present when one types the name into Google's search engine. She must be a lightweight but when you type Rolf Furuli then Bingo, his scholarship jumps right at you.

  I have her paper and it simply presents her opinion and that is fine as it simply presents a criticism but the bias destroys any inherent value but if it converts you that too is fine. For me, this is just one of many papers and articles in my collection on the seventy years and that I can refer to at my leisure.

  scholar
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar,

  If you ever get round to answering my question please make sure there is at least some substance to your reply for a change.

  For example, no sweeping statements like this: "I have her paper and it simply presents her opinion and that is fine as it simply presents a criticism but the bias destroys any inherent value", which you never explain or give reasons for your conclusion.

  CF.
• 

  Golf

  Good accountants can conveniently 'adjust' the books.
  
  
  
  
• 

  DaCheech

  Scholar.... like Furuli is not biased?
• 

  Stealth

  Scholar emulates his god the Governing Body with statements like this...

  The great merit of WT chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and has prophetic significance leading to 1914 as shown by the recent disaster in Asia.

  More like "for the simple minded".

  And like his god the Watchtower Organization, when asked to explain what he is talking about, several times, there is a deafening silence.

  What does the "recent disaster in Asia" have to do with the WT 1914 eschatology?
• 

  Leolaia

  This is too funny! How does Neil, our resident self-professed "scholar" evaluate critical scholarship?

  The only piece of information of any value is the gender of this Kristen Jorgensen. This so called 'scholar' does not present when one types the name into Google's search engine. She must be a lightweight but when you type Rolf Furuli then Bingo, his scholarship jumps right at you.

  That's it....if you get hits on Google, you're a bonafide scholar...with your "scholarship" jumping out all over the place. But if Google does not present much for someone else you type the name of, this person must be a "lightweight" in comparison whose information and analysis is of little value. LOL!!!

  I have her paper and it simply presents her opinion and that is fine as it simply presents a criticism but the bias destroys any inherent value but if it converts you that too is fine.

  In any form of scholarship, critical analysis merely present one's opinion -- it's how well supported it is by the evidence that matters. But Neil shows little interest in this and says nothing about why the author's arguments are supposed to be wrong. Rather, he is content just to label her analysis as an "opinion" and leave it at that. The justification for this unscholarly attitude is his simple cavalier statement that her "bias destroys any inherent value" of her work. Is he not aware that no one works without a bias and in scholarship one does not try to hide one's own bias and assumptions? If Neil is instead objecting to a bias that affects the validity of her arguments, why does he not describe this bias? Instead he just lazily takes a pot-shot.

  For me, this is just one of many papers and articles in my collection on the seventy years and that I can refer to at my leisure.

  So it does have some inherent value?