Obviously, the certification is believed to come from Jesus by referring to to Adam and Eve as historical. In fact the whole story of Adam is integrated with JC life and ministry and death as a ransom. The point that you fail to grasp is that according to the Bible, A&E were not allegorical and Jesus verified or certified their existence as being created. Also, Jesus genealogy stated in the Bible shows historical characters and the the time frame of that chronology can be extrapolated to a number less than scientific dating. Therefore based on JC, Bible chronology is certified as true so there is good reason for JW to believe Bible chronology compared to scientific dating. Obliviously cofty doesn’t have to believe JC or the Bible but in order to debunk the belief of those that do, you need to prove that humans existed before when Bible chronology says so and that has not been done. So the belief stands.
Fisherman
JoinedPosts by Fisherman
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Fisherman
Fishy your OP is THE VERY DEFINITION of begging the question.
No it is not. Simply put: The Bible says that humans began to exist some 6000 years ago whereas scientific dating says much older. That is the issue. There is no proof that scientific dating debunks Bible chronology.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Fisherman
begging the question '?
Doesn’t apply here
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Fisherman
Jeffro,
The tension here is not your favorite version of Bible chronology compared to wt interpretation but that scientific dating is much older than Bible chronology challenging the Bible.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Fisherman
laws of thermodynamics
The descriptive universe did not exist before the big bang. Or did it? What laws applied if it did or didn’t? Fill me in on what existed or didn’t exist before the universe existed and what laws applied or didn’t apply, Einstein.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Fisherman
The funny thing is, your ‘solution’ is that the universe appeared out of nothing, and an infinitely complex being just always existed.
Not funny at all. The premise is that something always existed, God and the universe came from something.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Fisherman
cofty, my fine feathered friend. That is not proof:
Multiple lines of evidence
You mean interpretation of evidence which is not the same as the evidence.
prove beyond ALL doubt
Disagree with your belief. There is reasonable doubt. Also, using preponderance as the standard, there isn’t enough evidence to convince. By definition, proof means enough evidence. Also, interpretation is not evidence. For example, in the CE book, wt challenges the dating method.
as risible as flat earth.
Nah. A flat earth is debunked with empirical evidence.
scientific evidence on this many times.
No you haven’t. (Although, I do enjoy your posts and your personality.) You often confuse evidence, proof, interpretation, conclusion, argument, theory, and your personal belief: what you feel should be sequitur.
That is not proof. Myself and many others are not convinced.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Fisherman
According to JW interpretation of Bible chronology, the earliest human, Adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older. Since Jesus validated the creation of Adam and Eve as historical people and JC’s own lineage is traced all the way back to Adam, Bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating. What proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what Bible chronology says?
-
32
Elder Arrested For Decades Long Abuse
by Sea Breeze innot sure if this has already been posted:.
https://kdvr.com/news/affidavit-religious-elder-abused-raped-children-for-decades/ .
-
-
Fisherman
charges are often dropped "without prejudice" because of time issues in an investigation. By doing that, a DA can re-file charges at a later date. I have had many cases either rejected for filing or pled down
I think that a prosecuting agency has a lot of power and discretion too and as you’ve said, they may not want to prosecute for different reasons. But this is not a victimless crime. I don’t know anything about this guy or about this case except what is posted here recently and my subsequent reading about it online. I figured though that because it involves minors, victims and JW, the DA is under pressure to get this guy —unless it is part of some strategy to reinstate the charges later on as you suggested, so he is not off the hook. It just seems strange to me that with all the news and publicity and all those accusations, and the pressure (because a lot of people have it in for JW) is not enough for the DA. I concluded, therefore, that there was no solid evidence at that point in time ago and that is strange too even 4 month later, nothing yet. Surely with all those accusers and victims and years of alleged abuse, there must be some substance to that by now —but seemingly, nope.
Whatever the case, I carefully re-read your post again and your opinion is not nonsense or baloney ( I apologize for saying that.) It is possible as you say that the DA dropped the charges at that time for whatever reason it had at it’s discretion and can reinstate them later on if it wants. I still think though that if it had enough evidence, the DA would have been be forced to prosecute unless part of a strategy. If you know more about this case, would be interesting.
-
32
Elder Arrested For Decades Long Abuse
by Sea Breeze innot sure if this has already been posted:.
https://kdvr.com/news/affidavit-religious-elder-abused-raped-children-for-decades/ .
-
-
Fisherman
so that it didn't ruin the track record of the DA's office.
Nonsense. The DA has a duty to prosecute and will do so unless for reasons of not enough evidence or equity. You are again saying the same thing that the DA doesn’t want to do his job here. Baloney, the DA is compelled to prosecute if the case meets the legal requirements for sufficiency of evidence. Obviously the DA can’t and obviously if and when it has enough evidence it can prosecute or reinstate the charges in this case—which contradicts what you keep saying that the DA does not want to.