The simplest answer is being overlooked.
There is zero evidence for the Bible's use of extraordinary age as factual.
You could almost make a case for "months" instead of years--but not quite.
It is fabulous mythmaking.
Posts by Terry
-
55why did man go from living 900 years to 90?
by sowhatnow ini cant recall the scripture, where it says than only a few men will he live to be 80 years or so, can anyone recall that?.
so then im wondering, if it is a fact that men lived long years 900 in some cases, for what reason would god limit our lifespan if our time is so short compared to his?.
how on earth does man go from living 8 and 9 hundred years down to 80 to 100 ?.
-
-
-
33
Richard Ashe Court Deposition - " Let elders handle child abuse- don't talk about it "
by flipper inas some of you know i was given pdf files of much of the conti and lopez child abuse court cases and asked from a friend to peruse through it and post some excerpts on the board here that may have been missed or not addressed in the pbs newshour report or the abc news nightline report.
so after going through this richard ashe testimony i feel i found something quite interesting that exposes the real attitudes of the wt society leaders towards child abuse and the attitudes wt leaders put into it's appointed men's minds as well.
the viewpoint that richard ashe displays is repeated in elders throughout thousands of jw congregations on this planet.
-
-
Terry
The nonsensical notion that Elders are "trained" to counsel people who have been molested is totally unsupported.
What medical, psychological, psychiatric, or legal expertise do window washers, janitors, plumbers and such actually possess for the position they hold?
Let's start with: NONE.
-
25
So Why Do They Need The Money?
by konceptual99 inso, as well reported, the latest jw broadcasting show is all about giving money.
as far as the wt society goes they have been pretty candid about there not being enough funds to meet the expenditure.
there are plenty of views on if this is really the case or not but underlying this is why are they spending so much money?.
-
-
Terry
Remember the RICO charges leveled against the WTS, using a Kingdom Hall as a money laundering scheme?
Had that case been properly executed with the assistance of actual attorneys we might have seen a much different outcome.
_______________________
A tax-exempt religion is just a playground for malfeasance.
Cue up the Scientology documentary and watch it happen. . .
-
11
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OLD SUPREME COURT CASE (THEY LOST) COMES UP IN THE NEWS concerning TERROR and HATE SPEECH!
by Terry ini know about it and i'll explain the reason why.it has to do with terrorism and hate speech!________________________.
in researching my book about jehovah's witnesses, (i wept by the rivers of babylon) i studied many supreme court cases jehovah''s witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.. one such case is: 1942 supreme court ruling chaplinsky v. new hampshire.. if you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: fighting words.. __________________________.
a jw street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their god, their religion, their government, and their flag.. (that doesn't surprise you, does it?:).
-
-
Terry
Nobody likes TROLLING, and I've never see it defended under "free speech" underpinnings. I think this is because an agent provocateur invites civil disorder as a chief motive rather than fostering debate or merely expressing a personal, subjective POV.
JW's were clearly preaching a message of condemnation during the war years under the guise of religious freedom and free speech. They were trolling.
Today, sponsoring a contest to draw the prophet Muhammed is certainly hard to see as anything but a form of trolling. The essential question becomes: IS IT LEGAL?
You'll notice how JW's have become a kinder and gentler form of troll in modern times and not even a shadow of their former public image as hard-hitting martyrs eager to usher in the New World Society.
Do you suppose the Chaplinsky ruling had anything to do with it, or was it the death of the mean old bastard RUTHERFORD in that same year (1942) which brought an oasis of semi-sanity into the organization for a few decades under Nathan Knorr?
-
11
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OLD SUPREME COURT CASE (THEY LOST) COMES UP IN THE NEWS concerning TERROR and HATE SPEECH!
by Terry ini know about it and i'll explain the reason why.it has to do with terrorism and hate speech!________________________.
in researching my book about jehovah's witnesses, (i wept by the rivers of babylon) i studied many supreme court cases jehovah''s witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.. one such case is: 1942 supreme court ruling chaplinsky v. new hampshire.. if you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: fighting words.. __________________________.
a jw street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their god, their religion, their government, and their flag.. (that doesn't surprise you, does it?:).
-
-
Terry
DATA-DOG, you're a real buzz-kill sometimes! :)
-
11
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OLD SUPREME COURT CASE (THEY LOST) COMES UP IN THE NEWS concerning TERROR and HATE SPEECH!
by Terry ini know about it and i'll explain the reason why.it has to do with terrorism and hate speech!________________________.
in researching my book about jehovah's witnesses, (i wept by the rivers of babylon) i studied many supreme court cases jehovah''s witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.. one such case is: 1942 supreme court ruling chaplinsky v. new hampshire.. if you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: fighting words.. __________________________.
a jw street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their god, their religion, their government, and their flag.. (that doesn't surprise you, does it?:).
-
-
Terry
Here is what is interesting to me about this application of precedent.
The offense can only take place inside the mind of another person!
By deciding to be 'offended' I can curtail your right to say the thing which offends me!
If this isn't arbitrary, capricious, and whimsical--I don't know how else to characterize it.
It is not that different from saying "sexual harassment" is whatever causes another person to feel 'harrassed.'
This circumvents the necessity of DEFINING something specifically.
In other words, Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder and Fighting Words are whatever make somebody want to fight.
-
11
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OLD SUPREME COURT CASE (THEY LOST) COMES UP IN THE NEWS concerning TERROR and HATE SPEECH!
by Terry ini know about it and i'll explain the reason why.it has to do with terrorism and hate speech!________________________.
in researching my book about jehovah's witnesses, (i wept by the rivers of babylon) i studied many supreme court cases jehovah''s witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.. one such case is: 1942 supreme court ruling chaplinsky v. new hampshire.. if you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: fighting words.. __________________________.
a jw street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their god, their religion, their government, and their flag.. (that doesn't surprise you, does it?:).
-
-
-
11
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OLD SUPREME COURT CASE (THEY LOST) COMES UP IN THE NEWS concerning TERROR and HATE SPEECH!
by Terry ini know about it and i'll explain the reason why.it has to do with terrorism and hate speech!________________________.
in researching my book about jehovah's witnesses, (i wept by the rivers of babylon) i studied many supreme court cases jehovah''s witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.. one such case is: 1942 supreme court ruling chaplinsky v. new hampshire.. if you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: fighting words.. __________________________.
a jw street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their god, their religion, their government, and their flag.. (that doesn't surprise you, does it?:).
-
-
Terry
Read in greater depth here:
-
11
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OLD SUPREME COURT CASE (THEY LOST) COMES UP IN THE NEWS concerning TERROR and HATE SPEECH!
by Terry ini know about it and i'll explain the reason why.it has to do with terrorism and hate speech!________________________.
in researching my book about jehovah's witnesses, (i wept by the rivers of babylon) i studied many supreme court cases jehovah''s witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.. one such case is: 1942 supreme court ruling chaplinsky v. new hampshire.. if you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: fighting words.. __________________________.
a jw street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their god, their religion, their government, and their flag.. (that doesn't surprise you, does it?:).
-
-
Terry
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES are in the news today--and nobody seems to know about it. I know about it and I'll explain the reason why.
It has to do with TERRORISM and HATE SPEECH!
________________________In researching my book about Jehovah's Witnesses, (I WEPT BY THE RIVERS OF BABYLON) I studied many Supreme Court cases Jehovah''s Witnesses were fighting during the 1940's.
One such case is: 1942 Supreme Court ruling Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.
If you had to use just two words to describe this case those two words would be: FIGHTING WORDS.
__________________________
A JW street preacher incited his fellow citizens to riot against him by insulting everything they held dear: their God, their Religion, their government, and their flag.
(That doesn't surprise you, does it?:)
Anyway. . .
A precedent was established in that ruling which amounts to this: There are some things IF SAID will cause people to want to hurt you. These things are FIGHTING WORDS.
What does that 1942 precedent have to do with TODAY'S NEWS?
Read on. . .
______________________In Texas, where I reside, a contest to DRAW THE PROPHET MUHAMMED was being held in a suburb of Dallas and some radical Islamic terrorists showed up with automatic weapons, firing indiscriminately into the crowd. Local police sent them quickly to Paradise and 72 virgins.
A New York politician's son, named Chris Cuomo (TV News guy) spoke up about the cartoon contest and called it "HATE SPEECH" and said it was not protected by the Constitution because of---(he cited the Chaplinsky ruling about Fighting Words.)
__________________________I will cut and paste from my book the relevant paragraphs.
-
66
BART EHRMAN answers my question
by TerryWalstrom inas a member on bart ehrman's blog, i am able to ask him direct questions.is jehovah in the bible?.
question:.
how firmly grounded in reality is the claim of jehovahs witnesses that the divine name (jehovah) belongs in the new testament?.
-
-
Terry
The purpose of a NAME is to make an additional distinction for clarity.
The genuine, essential difference between BAAL (meaning LORD) and ADONAI (meaning LORD) requires further differentiation--does it not?
If I'm illiterate and need to sign a contract, it is legal for me to "make my mark" by affixing an X on the signature line.
That X represents ME.
That's not the same thing as the NAME by which I am known and called by those who know me. (i.e. TERRY).
X doesn't need to be pronounced to be a legal mark on my contract.
If all X's represent gods, how do we further distinguish the REAL X from the imagined (and thus false) X gods?
________________
Let us be honest . . .
to speculate what MAY or may NOT have been done (pronouncing god's name) in Jesus' day isn't evidence. It isn't fact. It isn't recorded history. Intellectual honesty requires we stick to what can be verified historically.