I like the NWT rbi8. I think that it is a magnificent masterpiece ( but what do I know ) and read it same as I would a poem. I really enjoyed its allusive literary style, and mastery of the English language it uses to interpret the translation. The NWT highlights by its style of writing that the text refers to more than the context.
Fisherman
JoinedPosts by Fisherman
-
-
-
-
26
Evidence of Human Activity in Northern Siberia 45,000 years ago.
by fulltimestudent inthis information makes the biblical dating of human origins a sad joke.
quote: " when they dated the remains, the researchers got another surprise: the mammoth died 45,000 years ago.
that means that humans lived in the arctic more than 10,000 years earlier than scientists believed, according to a new study.
-
-
Fisherman
Natural disasters prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the god of christian theism does not exist.-Cofty
Your argument is not a proof. It is only an argument that purports to show your formula to work.
-
26
Evidence of Human Activity in Northern Siberia 45,000 years ago.
by fulltimestudent inthis information makes the biblical dating of human origins a sad joke.
quote: " when they dated the remains, the researchers got another surprise: the mammoth died 45,000 years ago.
that means that humans lived in the arctic more than 10,000 years earlier than scientists believed, according to a new study.
-
-
Fisherman
As time passes days get longer. There was a time when a day of creation was only 7000 years long and the earth was not billions of years old. All be it, at most, all that can ever be shown is a dilemma (paradox) but no dilemma could ever disprove the existence of God although evidence could (only) show at most that Bible interpretations are wrong.. -
30
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man inwatchtower teaches jws that christ's presence began invisibly in 1914. they also teach that the start of christ's presence coincides with the start of the last days.
whether you believe in the bible or not, watchtower claims these teachings come from the bible.
so does the bible actually agree with them?
-
-
Fisherman
....my conclusions
Need I say more? -Except that your opinions do no discredit JW teaching.
-
30
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man inwatchtower teaches jws that christ's presence began invisibly in 1914. they also teach that the start of christ's presence coincides with the start of the last days.
whether you believe in the bible or not, watchtower claims these teachings come from the bible.
so does the bible actually agree with them?
-
-
Fisherman
Most JWs today aren't even aware
Fin, the jig is up, the internet has made it known and they know.
-
30
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man inwatchtower teaches jws that christ's presence began invisibly in 1914. they also teach that the start of christ's presence coincides with the start of the last days.
whether you believe in the bible or not, watchtower claims these teachings come from the bible.
so does the bible actually agree with them?
-
-
Fisherman
JWs can capitalize on its vagueness
That is what you see and what do you know?
-
30
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man inwatchtower teaches jws that christ's presence began invisibly in 1914. they also teach that the start of christ's presence coincides with the start of the last days.
whether you believe in the bible or not, watchtower claims these teachings come from the bible.
so does the bible actually agree with them?
-
-
Fisherman
"short period of time " juxtapose "I am coming quickly.." -
30
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man inwatchtower teaches jws that christ's presence began invisibly in 1914. they also teach that the start of christ's presence coincides with the start of the last days.
whether you believe in the bible or not, watchtower claims these teachings come from the bible.
so does the bible actually agree with them?
-
-
Fisherman
You only posted your conslusions which does not disprove Jw's. -
56
Any former elders brains I could pick?
by BarelyThere ini posted in another topic a few hours ago.
it is my first time on here or any website like this, ever.
i was dfed back in september for adultery.
-
-
Fisherman
According to WHO, my friend?
I agree, but if you sign a marriage contract with someone are you not bound by its terms? Is it not proper to obey the terms of the contract agreement? Adultery is legal and scriptural grounds for divorce against the offending party. And why? But if a person gets a legal divorce on legal grounds, she cannot be charged with adultery by the State, or even by her mate (legally) later on if she remarries or has sex with someone else after the divorce (the congregation can). And frankly, who would want for force a spouse to stay married to him? And when she is divorced, should not the spouse see that she respected him and the marriage. Even the congregation does not view them legally married and are not allowed to have sex should they wish to return. But if a spouse cheats on her mate during the marriage, such conduct violates the marriage agreement, and that is not the proper thing to do.
-
56
Any former elders brains I could pick?
by BarelyThere ini posted in another topic a few hours ago.
it is my first time on here or any website like this, ever.
i was dfed back in september for adultery.
-
-
Fisherman
Not the scriptural thing to do but the proper thing to do under the circumstances was to face your spouse and inform him of your decision to divorce and also the congregation and then get your divorce -defiantly, and after that your spouse cannot say to you that you cheated, he would have to respect you acknowledging that you cannot be forced to stay with him if you do not want him and were unhappy with him. Same consequences in terms of DF, however, DF is guaranteed doing it this way but you would have shown respect to your spouse and your marriage. Is that not the way you would have wanted it if the shoe was on the other foot?