Posts by Jeffro

85

I'm Returing To Become A Jehovah's Witness Again

by Space Madness in

jw
friends

a little background, i faded in 2007 and have been out ever since.

i started studying at 18 and have no jw realitives.

i'm returing because my life is heading in the wrong direction.

Jeffro

Space Madness:

Although I no longer believe in the Bible, the atmosphere and positive association will help me become the person I use to be. My life is all negative now and I need something positive to balance it out.

If your life feels 'all negative', it might help to talk to a doctor or counsellor. Assess whether everything really is 'negative', or if you're suffering from depression.

It would be a basic fallacy to assume that 'being a JW' (especially if you realise it's not true) will make you 'happy', and association with JWs is far from the only way to 'balance' your life. There's nothing unique about being a JW that makes people happy, so you should be able to make whatever changes are required without needing that crutch.

Given the peer pressure to conform among JWs, it will almost certainly make you unhappy if you go along with 'preaching' a message you don't believe. JWs tend to focus on all the negative things in 'the world', so associating with them isn't likely to make you feel more positive, especially if you recognise that their only sense of 'hope' is based on lies.

62

Ok, now I know why you atheists get so spittin' mad at some believers.

by Julia Orwell in

jw
friends

cuz they feel like they're banging their heads against a wall.. i don't really fall into the category of atheist or believer, but i'll go where the facts lead me.

that generally leads to atheism, and is why atheists end up getting mad and therefore rude at believers: they will lay out facts, raise questions, play devil's advocate, and reason in an evidence-based, structured way.

i've seen it many times before on this forum.

Jeffro

jonahstourguide:

I note that in your comment on the question in lf p 28 q 4 you only quote part of the printed answer.

I quoted what was sufficient to make my point about the contrast to the older Awake!

I have not checked the context of the original sources, but whether they were taken out of context is outside the scope of the comparison I provided.

62

Ok, now I know why you atheists get so spittin' mad at some believers.

by Julia Orwell in

jw
friends

cuz they feel like they're banging their heads against a wall.. i don't really fall into the category of atheist or believer, but i'll go where the facts lead me.

that generally leads to atheism, and is why atheists end up getting mad and therefore rude at believers: they will lay out facts, raise questions, play devil's advocate, and reason in an evidence-based, structured way.

i've seen it many times before on this forum.

Jeffro

Their abysmal Origin of Life brochure (quoted above) is full of terrible 'reasoning'. From just the same chapter as the quote above, they claim (relying on an extremely naive audience with no concept of the periods of time involved) that transitions between species are 'unreliable' because they're 'too close together':

*** lf question 4 p. 23 Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? ***
Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!

And then, on the next page, they claim that transitions between species are 'unreliable' because they're 'too far apart':

*** lf question 4 p. 24 Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? ***
Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34

62

Ok, now I know why you atheists get so spittin' mad at some believers.

by Julia Orwell in

jw
friends

cuz they feel like they're banging their heads against a wall.. i don't really fall into the category of atheist or believer, but i'll go where the facts lead me.

that generally leads to atheism, and is why atheists end up getting mad and therefore rude at believers: they will lay out facts, raise questions, play devil's advocate, and reason in an evidence-based, structured way.

i've seen it many times before on this forum.

Jeffro

The Watch Tower Society doesn't seem very sure what to say about Neanderthals. Neanderthals haven't been mentioned in The Watchtower since 1964!

In other publications, their approach has been to completely ignore the time period of Neanderthals and instead focus on similarities to modern humans.

Even then, they just keep wildly stabbing in the dark.

*** lf Question 4 p. 28 Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? ***
Question: Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence?
Answer: No.

*** g81 6/22 pp. 14-15 Were There “Cavemen”? ***
NEANDERTHAL MAN is also one of the better-known parts of the so-called evolutionary chain. When the first skull portion was found one scientist called it the skullcap of an idiot. ... And rather than his being an idiot, it is now admitted that Neanderthal man had a larger brain than most modern men!

32

More failed JW chronology

by Jeffro in

ive just been reviewing my timeline of the divided jewish monarchy and the neo-babylonian period.

i decided to check for correlations of egyptian and assyrian rulers mentioned in the bible that i had not previously considered at all (much less tried to make fit a particular year).

i was happy (though unsurprised) that no adjustments were required.. pharaoh tirhakah (taharqa) (2ki 19:8, 9; isa 37:8, 9) insight (volume 2, page 1109) claims the years assigned to him by historians must be wrong.

Jeffro

The timeline mentioned at the beginning of this thread is now located here.

If you notice any errors, please let me know.

56

This blew me away"The distant between Egypt and the promise land"

by jam in

i was reading a article about a national acclaim charles lummis for.

his poetry.

in 1884, while working at a newspaper in ohio, he was offered.

Jeffro

The story of the Jews leaving Egypt led by Moses is borrowed from earlier Ethiopic (i.e. Cushite Egypt) stories.

Never happened.

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

Jeffro

Laika:

Is there a nefarious reason why they get this wrong, such as with 607, or is this just a basic error?

Yes. They 'need' to make the period from the division of Israel and Judah until the fall of Jerusalem to be exactly 390 years. They also 'need' to adjust the reigns of Israel relative to the reigns of Judah to account for the 20-year gap they create in the Neo-Babylonian period.

For more information, see here.

In addition to scriptures where a difference of 1 year can only be reconciled by arbitrarily changing dating systems, JW chronology cannot be reconciled with itself for the following scriptures:

2 Kings 3:1 (2- or 5-year discrepancy)
2 Kings 15:1 (11-year discrepancy)
2 Kings 17:1 (2- or 3-year discrepancy)

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

Jeffro

The 2013 edition of the New World Translation renders 2 Kings 17:1 as:

In the 12th year of King A′haz of Judah, Hoshe′a the son of E′lah became king over Israel in Sa·mar′i·a; he ruled for nine years.

This is in fact a better rendering than the previous NWT, which stated:

In the twelfth year of A′haz the king of Judah, Ho·she′a the son of E′lah became king in Sa·mar′i·a over Israel for nine years.

Despite their improved rendering, the Watch Tower Society still claims that Hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 BCE, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of Ahaz. From there, things get messy.

They state that Hoshea's reign was 'established' in 748 BCE. (Insight, volume 1, page 466; New World Translation, 2013 revision, page 1747)

They also claim that Ahaz "evidently began to rule" in 762 BCE, but that "his first regnal year counted from 761" (Insight, volume 1, page 466; New World Translation, 2013 revision, page 1746).

The problem is, even if Ahaz' reign is counted from 761 (instead of 762), his 12th year would be 750 BCE, not 748. Once again, Watch Tower Society cannot even be harmonised with itself.

In reality, 2 Kings 17:1 actually indicates that by the time of Ahaz' 12th year (723 BCE) Hoshea had reigned 9 years (his final year). This is consistent with 2 Kings 15:30, which states that Hoshea began to reign in the '20th' year of Jotham, which was in the late part of Ahaz' 4th year. (Israel used Nisan-based dating, whereas Judah used Tishri-based, which is confirmed by analysis of 2 Kings 18:1, 9 & 10.)

It should be noted that most Bible translations render the verse in a manner that implies that Hoshea's reign began in Ahaz' 12th year (though there is no "became" or "began" in the original text). However, rather than take the Watch Tower Society approach of creating an earlier spurious period, some Bible commentaries suggest that Hoshea's reign 'began' 'in some sense' in his ninth (and final) year, suggesting his reign became peaceful, even though that would be during a 3-year siege by Shalmaneser V.

Young's Literal Translation and the Douay-Rheims version translate the verse in a manner that is readily consistent with 2 Kings 15:30.

13

When did Jesus start ruling as king?

by DS211 in

cindy: o.k.

cindy, now read the next two verses 25 and 26.. cindy: for he must rule as king until [god] has put all enemies under his feet.

cindy: i never saw that before!.

Jeffro

DS211:

an interesting way to use the Bible to plant some seeds of doubt.

Why should getting something to think be described so deviously as "seeds of doubt"?!

28

Feb. 2014 WT , whats this all about???

by Crazyguy in

read this in another thread,,,,,,,,,feb 2014 wt.

there, they cast doubt on the application of daniel's 70 weeks prophecy to being fulfilled with christ.. "could the first-century jews have calculated the time of the messiahs arrival on the basis of the prophecy of the 70 weeks recorded at daniel 9:24-27 ?

while that possibility cannot be ruled out, it cannot be confirmed.

Jeffro

I think, unfortunately, that Oubliette is correct. I say 'unfortunately' because it is truly sad that the Watch Tower Society is that arrogant.

P.S. They're wrong. The 70 weeks has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. At all. Not even a little bit.