the 1997 wt, 4/15 page 26 is about weddings and more rules the wt tries to enforce to take the fun out of even weddings.
"while a disfellowshipped person could be allowed to attend the talk at the kingdom hall, the watchtower of april 15, 1984, said: it would be unfitting to have in the wedding party people who are disfellowshipped or whose scandalous life-style grossly conflicts with bible principles.
- isn't that funny?
EndofMysteries (quoting The Watchtower):
If a couple invite unbelieving relatives or acquaintances, these will no doubt be limited in number
Don't you just love the way it's phrased. Of course they don't want to say, "Don't invite unbelieving relatives!" But apparently there's no doubt that there wouldn't be many.
i had a lovely mirrored windchime in my house.
my study conductor told me it attracted deemunz and i threw it in the trash.
i've since bought another.. what's the reasoning behind that idiocy??
quellycatface:
My study conductor told me
Well there's the source of the problem. Stop 'studying' with those superstitious people. They do not have 'truth'. It's just another Adventist sect.
And why do you have a 'study conductor' when you said a month ago on this forum that you were about to write your "DA letter"??
this is the first message from the co:.
"william claire menninger, a co-founder of the menninger foundation in topeka, kansas, wrote 13 symptoms of mental illness.
one of them is: the attitude that i am always right and others always wrong.
abiather:
Now when you said: “All of them were coming from the same ISP,” now understand what may have happened. I was transferred to my Head-Office last month. And nature of my work also somewhat changed. To avoid virus problem, I put a requisition for a second computer exclusively for net-related work. Office gave me an old computer. I am posting from this computer as I have somewhat relaxed schedule. I don’t know who was using this computer before me in this company of over 3000 people!
You, sir, are a liar. (And not a very good one.)
amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.
" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).
i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.
Bart Belteshassur:
Geology can determine how,why, and what happened and suggest approximent time frames (by that I mean within X million years) and archeology then places that information into a historical context using the evidence specific to the strata.
Indeed. There must have been other factors in determining the period. Because the timing and margins for error indicated don't exactly align with the traditional dating for the 'expected' kings, it's evident that they made a determination beyond only saying it 'must have been when we think Jeroboam reigned'. Yadin also refers to styles of pottery at different sites as well. The margins for error given seem consistent with carbon dating error rates for the approximate age, but it doesn't say.
amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.
" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).
i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.
Bart Belteshassur:
Do the geologists make reference to any source of dating data apart from the date arrived at from Yadin's determination of the archeology that he unearthed?
Nothing clear, except that it was "stratigraphically" determined, which means it's based on layers.
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.
Finkelstein:
why didn't the WTS. include those extra days in their final calculation of 70 x 360 to reach to 1914 ?
(Presumably, you mean 7 x 360). It was already generally understood by people using the Babylonian calendar (from which the Hebrew calendar was derived) that years didn't actually have exactly 360 days, which was a convenient rounded figure. (But also note the slightly different Essene calendation indicated by Bart.) The ancient and modern calendars both incorporate methods of correcting for the additional days to compensate for seasonal 'drift', so that in both systems, spring always begins in March/April. As a result, in both systems, a year is a year is a year.
That said, there is no actual basis for applying the 'day for a year' 'rule' to the 'times' at Daniel 4:16 anyway, and the Watch Tower Society does not apply the same 'rule' to the 'times' at Daniel 7:25 or Daniel 12:7.
amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.
" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).
i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.
AnnOMaly:
To find out when they reigned, one needs to access other means to establish that.
The estimated years and margins for error given by the geologists aren't consistent with trying to assign specific years to the reigns (or to find out when they reigned). The suggested bounds aren't even entirely within the years generally attributed to those reigns.
That is what I'm curious about. Radiometric, for example?
Maybe. The article states that the period is stratigraphically confined, which doesn't directly indicate radiometric dating. But it doesn't preclude it either.
amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.
" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).
i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.
AnnOMaly:
Maybe I'm just not explaining myself well enough.
Your explanation was pretty clear. It just didn't sound right...
I'm saying 'Junk from such-a-stratum belongs to such-a-king's era. We know the dates when that king was around so the junk must also be such-a-date.'
That would mean they were saying, 'Junk from the earthquake stratum belongs to Jeroboam's era. We know Jeroboam was in the first half of the 8th century BCE, so the junk must be at the end of that period or some time later.' Your conclusion doesn't fit. The margin for error also doesn't have any relationship with the lengths of reigns involved. It is therefore evident that other factors were considered for dating their findings.
amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.
" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).
i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.
AnnOMaly:
No, you misunderstand
No. I just don't agree.
Geologists stating that an earthquake was within the range of 780BCE to 720BCE (750BCE ± 30 years [or 785BCE to 735BCE for the later estimates of 760BCE ± 25 years]) doesn't really sound anything like 'we know Jeroboam II was around from 793BCE to 753BCE so it must have been then', because their estimates cover only part of that period, and a significantly later period. If they were merely basing their findings on the expected years of a particular reign, they would more likely have said 'early 8th century BCE'.
how do they date strata independently, scientifically, without being influenced by historical chronologies?
I don't know the specific methods of chronostratigraphy involved.
i was always told it was satan and his demons making people think they exist.
not sure.
i always thought the guy that excavated king tutenkahmun had a curse on him though.. .
nicolaou:
Why exactly do the naughty demons want to do this?
To stop people learning about JWs of course. Silly nicolaou.
