Posts by a Christian

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

a Christian

Scholar,

I don't believe you can answer my question. So I doubt you will attempt to do so. This line of inquiry sent you packing the last time we discussed "607" with you on this board.

If you cannot or will not give me a straight answer to this question I must conclude one of the following:

1. You are so "mentally challenged" that you cannot understand this simple question. I doubt that is the case.

2. You are so completely brainwashed that you refuse to allow yourself to seriously consider any question that might shake your faith in the organization. I believe this is a possibility, but an unlikely one.

3. You are absolutely insane, in much the same way that a fellow who used to post here under a lot of different names (Gary, Larry, Bibleman, JCannon, etc.) claiming to be Jesus Christ was insane. Many here would often try to reason with him to no avail. He was very happy living in his fantasy world and, because he was, he would allow no reality to disturb that happiness. I believe this is a strong possibility in your case.

4.You are evil. Possibly even under demonic influence. As such, you are deliberately doing all you can to promote what you know are false teachings and a corrupt religious organization in order to harm any who may believe what you know to be Watchtower lies. I think this is a possibility.

5. You are an "apostate" who is only pretending to be a JW. As such you are doing your best, as well as any real JW could possibly do, to present and defend JW arguments for the date 607. You are doing so in order to show everyone who reads these boards how totally lacking in merit the Watchtower's position and arguments are on this subject matter. Again, I believe this is a possibility, but an unlikely one.

6. You engage in these discussions as a form of self amusement. You know you are wrong. But you enjoy being the center of attention and playing this game. I think this is most likely what is going on here.

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

a Christian

Scholar, You wrote: A Christian's post has already been answered by me several times in the course of my posting history ... It comes down to methodology and the fact that secular chronology does not account for the seventy years ... What a bunch of double talk! This is so typical of you, claiming that you have answered a tough question in the past when you have never done any such thing. I asked you why JWs prefer to establish the date for Jerusalem's destruction by starting your count of time with "the 7th year of Cambyses," as astronomically dated by Strm Kambys 400, rather than doing so by starting your count of time with "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar," as astronomically dated by VAT 4956.
I pointed out that the latter method ( VAT 4956 = 587/6 BC ) requires the employment of no possibly mistaken assumptions as does the former ( Strm Kambys 400 = 607 BC ). That being the case, the only valid reason for dating Jerusalem's destruction beginning your count of time with "the 7th year of Cambyses," as astronomically dated by Strm Kambys 400, would be if historians believe that Strm Kambys 400 is a much more reliable historical document than VAT 4956. But d o they? Again, I ask you to tell me why you accept Strm Kambys 400 which leads you to your 607 date only in a very round about way and not VAT 4956 which leads us directly to the 587/6 date. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/107943/1892811/post.ashx#1892811 You talk about having to "account for the seventy years." But as I have pointed out, the Bible's "seventy years" prophecies have nothing to do with this subject. For either way you can, if you wish, understand the Bible's "70 years" prophecies to refer to years of total desolation for Judah. In other words, you could accept the 587/6 BC date for Jerusalem's destruction, clearly established by VAT 4956, and then maintain that the Jews returned home 70 years later, in about 517. Instead of maintaining that Vat 4956 must be in error in regards to its apparent dating of Jerusalem's destruction in 587/6 BC, as you now must do, why do you not maintain that Strm Kambys 400 must be in error about its apparent dating of Cyrus' conquest of Babylon in 539 BC? One more time I will ask you a simple question and hope you will give me a straight answer. Why do you accept the astronomical dating found in Strm Kambys 400 and reject the astronomical dating contained in VAT 4956?
Mike

153

I've got $500 on Taylor Hicks to win American Idol ( 10 to 1 odds ) : )

by a Christian in

i've got $500.00 on taylor hicks to win american idol.

at 10 to one odds ( pinnacle sports ) !

normally i'm not a gambling man.

a Christian

Since I started this thread I have added several more bets on Taylor to win. ( Somebody stop me! ) Right now I have about $1,250.00 bet ( I mean "invested" ) on Taylor to win. If he wins (I mean "when he wins" ) I will win a little over $10,000.

He will win. Won't he? If he doesn't I'm gonna join Gamblers Anonymous. : (

19

Is there a 3rd option to explain the origin of life?

by nicolaou in

the creation / evolution debate has raged for 150 years with almost everyone coming down on one side or another (although creation has never offered an explanation for the origin of life).

my question is; 'is there another way of explaining the existence of life in the universe'?.

it's tangential and difficult to imagine but can we drag our perceptions away from the well established religious and evolutionary grooves to arrive at something .

a Christian

I see no reason to choose between Divine Creation and evolution. It seems clear to me (and to millions of others) that God used evolution as His means of creation.

16

Sewing machines - a sign of the time of the end?

by Bonnie_Clyde in

clyde seems to think that the wt a long time ago referred to sewing machines as a sign that the end was near.

i don't remember.. anyone here recall anything like that?

a Christian

Juni, You ask: Where does he get his idea scripturally that inventions have something to do with the end times?????????????? I think Rutherford most likely had Daniel 12:4 in mind. There Daniel was told that during "the time of the end" "knowledge will increase." Since we are now living in the "information age," with the Internet now providing most of us virtually limitless "knowledge, " I guess following such logic "the end" must now be very near. : )

167

JC ON TAPE

by SickofLies in

jw
friends

http://neocrat.com/sol.mp3 .

http://www.savefile.com/files/1740618

sorry for the long file, is there anyone that can clean this up a bit, the quality is actually pretty good considering the mic was hidden and i was in a big room.

a Christian

Dan,

If the subject of evolution comes up again and some Elder insists that Genesis clearly tells us that God created everything in some "poof" kind of way, you may want to point out to him the following:

Genesis uses the Hebrew word for "create," "Bara," only three times, first when it tells us of God's bringing into existence the heavens and earth, next when it tells us of his creating life in the sea, and last when it tells us of the creation of mankind.

All other kinds of life, vegetation and animals, Genesis tells us, were not directly "created" by God but were actually "produced" by "the land." (Gen. 1:11,12, 24)

Hebrew lexicons tell us that "Bara," the Hebrew word translated as "create" - which is used just three times in the Genesis "creation account" - refers to "the initiation" of something and to "the absolute newness of the object." However it is not "Bara" but the the Hebrew word "Asa" which is translated in Genesis as "produced" - as in "God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures.' " (Gen. 1:24 ) And Hebrew lexicons tell us that this Hebrew word primarily connotes "the fashioning of" preexisting materials. (See Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, by Harris, Archer & Waltke, 1980, Vol.2, pg. 701)

These things being so, Genesis chapter one may not only allow for the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to bring about all life on earth, but may, in fact, actually teach us that he did so.

Mike

167

JC ON TAPE

by SickofLies in

jw
friends

http://neocrat.com/sol.mp3 .

http://www.savefile.com/files/1740618

sorry for the long file, is there anyone that can clean this up a bit, the quality is actually pretty good considering the mic was hidden and i was in a big room.

a Christian

Dan,

When you are asked the question, "Do you believe that the men who run the Watchtower Society are God's sole channel for Bible truth on the earth, Christ's 'Faithful and Discreet Slave' who he appointed over all his belongings?" rather than answering their question, I suppose you could answer their question with some of your own. You might want to try these:

How did the men who run the Watchtower Society find out that Christ had made this appointment? Did Christ tell them he did so while appearing to them in a dream or vision? Did he send an angel to deliver this news to them? If he did not, how did they find out that Christ had appointed them to be his "Faithful and Discreet Slave?"

Doesn't the parable of the faithful and discreet slave informs us that when Christ returns he himself will judge which of his servants have faithfully taken good care of all he entrusted to them? With this in mind, is it the place of Christ's slaves to proclaim themselves to be faithful? Since Jesus himself never actually told the men who run the Watchtower Society that he was then declaring them to be faithful, and that he was then appointing them over all his belongings, was it right for them to tell the whole world that Christ himself had done those things?

Didn't Christ say that he will judge his slaves. Wouldn't you agree, that it would be very presumptuous for a slave to judge himself as faithful and then tell all the world that Christ himself made that judgment? Doesn't God condemn presumptuousness in the Bible? Doesn't god say in his Word that, "I shall actually cause the pride of the presumptuous ones to cease."? (Isaiah 13:11)

I'd like to hear their answers to these questions.

By the way, I would say very little in your "appeal letter." You are entitled to an appeal. So just ask for one. If you put too much in your letter there will be little need to give you much of a hearing which you can record. Your written words alone may be suffiucient for them to decide to uphold your disfellowshipping, with very little need for much of any further recordable discussion. The more you write the less you and they will talk.

Mike

167

JC ON TAPE

by SickofLies in

jw
friends

http://neocrat.com/sol.mp3 .

http://www.savefile.com/files/1740618

sorry for the long file, is there anyone that can clean this up a bit, the quality is actually pretty good considering the mic was hidden and i was in a big room.

a Christian

Dan,

The problem I see with your appeal is this:

As I wrote earlier, "What finally sealed my fate was when they asked me if I believe God is using the Watchtower Society as his 'Faithful and Discreet Slave' and as his 'sole channel of communication and Bible truth on the earth.' After a brief pause, though I did not want to be disfellowshipped, I knew I had to answer honestly. As soon as I answered that question with the word 'No' I knew I was gone."

I was told later that even if I had answered that question with "I'm not sure" such an answer would have resulted in my disfellowshipping. For that is the primary doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses. To question the authority of the men who run the Watchtower is to question the authority of God.

Surely, during your appeal hearing before your new tribunal you will be asked this same question. So, you had better decide right now how will answer it. Any answer other than an unqualified, "Yes, I do." will result in your disfellowshipping being upheld. And I know as well as you do that such an answer would be a lie. I don't think a person who here calls himself "Sick Of Lies" will be able to do that. But even if you are able to do so, you will only get their decision reversed if you promise your new J.C. that you will never openly question anything published by the Society again. If you make such a promise to them as soon as you break it you will be gone. With what you now know to be the truth, I don't think you can make such a promise and, if you can, I don't think you can keep such a promise.

So, what's the point of your appeal? I guess the point is that you now have a chance, probably your last chance, to talk face to face openly with a few of Jehovah's Witnesses and help them to see that they do not have "The Truth." May God be with you.

Mike

167

JC ON TAPE

by SickofLies in

jw
friends

http://neocrat.com/sol.mp3 .

http://www.savefile.com/files/1740618

sorry for the long file, is there anyone that can clean this up a bit, the quality is actually pretty good considering the mic was hidden and i was in a big room.

a Christian

Dan,

Listening to your recordings brought back memories. I too was disfellowshipped for apostasy. For questioning similar matters.

That the date 607 is most likely wrong and 587 is most likely right, making 1914 wrong. That God most likely used evolution as his means of creation and the wording of Genesis allowing that possibility. That the flood of Noah's day was most likely a large but non-global flood and the wording of Genesis allowing that possibility.

I actually got the elders to admit that all of those things were possible and that the Society might change their teachings on all of them in years to come. So they said questioning our present understanding of them is not wrong, so long as I did not "run ahead of the 'Faithful Slave' on such matters" and did not spread doubts about the "Faithful Slave" in the congregation.

What finally sealed my fate was when they asked me if I believe God is using the Watchtower Society as his "Faithful and Discreet Slave" and as his "sole channel of communication and Bible truth on the earth." After a brief pause, though I did not want to be disfellowshipped, I knew I had to answer honestly. As soon as I answered that question with the word "No" I knew I was gone. It was a question I hoped they would not ask. If they had asked you that same question early on I think that "brother" could have got home to his "sick wife" a lot sooner.

Listening to you speak during your hearing it was hard to tell how you really now feel about various matters. I hope you have only lost your faith in men and not Christ. Feel free to e mail me if you want to talk to someone who has "been there done that."

Mike - [email protected]

153

I've got $500 on Taylor Hicks to win American Idol ( 10 to 1 odds ) : )

by a Christian in

i've got $500.00 on taylor hicks to win american idol.

at 10 to one odds ( pinnacle sports ) !

normally i'm not a gambling man.

a Christian

DialIdol Rank	Idol	DialIdol Score	Margin Of Error	Actual Rank
1	Taylor Hicks	37.333	1.72	-
2	Katharine McPhee	28.589	1.836	-
3	Kellie Pickler	28.135	1.842	-
4	Chris Daughtry	26.915	1.857	-
5	Ace Young	23.787	1.897	-
6	Bucky Covington	23.113	1.905	-
7	Paris Bennett	19.035	1.955	-
8	Elliott Yamin	14.184	2.013	-
9	Mandisa	13.177	2.025	-
Margin of error: Per Idol; not scientific.

Here are DialIdol's stats from Tues. night. They were dead on this week in their predictions of the bottom three based on the frequency of contestants' busy signals. So I'm sure they were also right about Taylor being the top vote getter this week, as he has been every week dispite being stuck with a lousy song.. Taylor is not a country singer. "Country Roads" was not his song choice. He obviously would have preferred singing something else. But his fan base is so large and supportive that he could have sung "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" and still been the top vote getter. Just wait til they let him do his thing. He will blow everyone away! And as contestants start being voted off he will get more of their votes than Chris, Kelly, or Katherine will.