so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).
Yes they have. Repeatedly
No, they haven't.
and you said:............
Yes, I said I was guessing -for the last time.
So - answer my question.
Jan 1st 2018.
Will you post on this forum and be man enough to admit the the JW 1914 doctrine was crap?
For the second and final time on this thread, if my guesses turn out to be wrong, so what, it was only a guess. But show me how if I guess wrong, WT douctrines are invalid.
so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).
No - that's what the evidence proves.
No it don't. That is an opinion, an interpretaion, a conclusion from the evidence.
Tax receipts.
You believe the conclusions of others but you don't know.
Stop being so angry that others disagree with you.
so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).
And I guess it still doesn't add up to you.
You can guess too.
so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).
So - answer my question.Jan 1st 2018.Will you post on this forum and be man enough to admit the the JW 1914 doctrine was crap?
This thread aint about generation. That is another topic. But I already told you that I was posting guesses and my guesses are not wt doctrines. If you don like it, too bad.
If nothing happens in 2017 and my guesses turn out to be wrong; so what? But it would not invalidate WT 's 1914 or Wt's generation or WT's interpretation of 607.
so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).
the copious amounts of evidence from the Neo Babylonian era does.
That's what you and others think. Cofty already posted that 587 is agreed upon. But, WT interpretation of the Bible does not. And WT views on 607 have not been disproven.
so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).
@wzstick "just guessing" means what it says.
How about you? What do you think you know? However, GTR does not prove 587.
In another thread, "scholar" debated 587, but I see you dont like it and you get very upset when people don't agree with you, and express what they think.
POI, relax, have a cup of tea, the world ain't coming to an end -or is it?
so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).
"silly"
GTR is mostly commentary. However, on page 403 of the latest revision of said book, the author concedes that there is controversy disputing 587: RR Newton and scholarly support for his belief that challenges Ptolemy's observation as fabricated. - See Scientific American Oct 1977 issue page 80.
for information:.
court of appeals of the state of washingtondivision iidocket number: 48070-1file date: 01/24/2017.
keisha baumgartner appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her medical malpractice wrongful death claim against anesthesiologist dr. mark morehart and columbia anesthesia group, p.s.
for information:.
court of appeals of the state of washingtondivision iidocket number: 48070-1file date: 01/24/2017.
keisha baumgartner appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her medical malpractice wrongful death claim against anesthesiologist dr. mark morehart and columbia anesthesia group, p.s.
I tried to upload a photo of a billboard advertising "no blood surgery Safe options for your family, reducing the risk and compliations" from one of the major hospitals in the US. In fact, first heart trasplant in the US was done in this hospital. The upload failed -But JW are not the only ones that opt for no blood surgery. The hospital offers the option to everyone regardless of religion.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
It is human nature to be moral because man is made in God's image, but since humans -unlike animals- are free moral agents, they are free to fo whatever they like, even to deviate from what comes naturally, but not without consequences.
