Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,803 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  29

  Newly discovered Dead Sea Scrolls with the tetragrammaton within the Greek text

  by dropoffyourkeylee in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  big news from israel, some previously undiscovered dead sea scrolls have been found with portions of the ot in greek.

  it says the name of god is included in hebrew letters within the greek text.. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/world/middleeast/dead-sea-scrolls.html.

  "the new fragments contain verses from zechariah 8:16-17, including part of the name of god written in ancient hebrew, and verses from nahum 1:5-6, both from the biblical book of the twelve minor prophets.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  HowTheBibleWasCreated:

  BTW the chart of Jeremiah can be explained away as two traditions Hellenistic periods.

  Yes, variations in texts can be explained in various ways. But none of them justify superstitious claims of 'inspiration'.
  
• 
  29

  Newly discovered Dead Sea Scrolls with the tetragrammaton within the Greek text

  by dropoffyourkeylee in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  big news from israel, some previously undiscovered dead sea scrolls have been found with portions of the ot in greek.

  it says the name of god is included in hebrew letters within the greek text.. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/world/middleeast/dead-sea-scrolls.html.

  "the new fragments contain verses from zechariah 8:16-17, including part of the name of god written in ancient hebrew, and verses from nahum 1:5-6, both from the biblical book of the twelve minor prophets.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  dozy:

  This doesn't sound especially encouraging , bearing in mind the Society claims that there is very little change in the bible texts over the centuries.

  Yes, that's a bit of a myth. Though there is fair consistency between copies made by the Masoretes (5th to 10th centuries CE), there is a great deal of difference between versions closer to the original writing.

  For example, look at what happens to the order when comparing the modern and Septuagint (LXX) versions of the book of Jeremiah (with the older Septuagint version likely reflecting something closer to the original version). And, yes, there are quite a few differences in the actual text apart from just the changed order too.

  
• 
  21

  Where do JWs stand on sex toys?

  by mickbobcat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i think we all know that if they are used alone it would be a no no, but what about in a marriage?

  are there limits such as vibrators ok but torso with dildo not ok?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  mickbobcat:

  Where do JWs stand on sex toys?

  Whether to stand or to remain seated on sex toys is a conscience matter.

  I'm sorry, I'll see myself out.
• 
  38

  Watchtower Change On Origins from 42,000 Years to the "Day Age" Theory

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  does anyone know when and how the change took place?

  is the "day age" theory still the current position of watchtower?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Sea Breeze:

  I believe that the existence of WT is best explained as a carefully planned deception designed to teach adherents to reject the sin-atoning value of his blood and Mediatorship.

  🤦‍♂️ At best, you're giving them too much credit. Though this getting into tinfoil hat territory.
  
• 
  38

  Watchtower Change On Origins from 42,000 Years to the "Day Age" Theory

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  does anyone know when and how the change took place?

  is the "day age" theory still the current position of watchtower?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Sea Breeze:

  You may be technically right, but I think with their latest comments they are leaving open the possibility of millions and billions of years of creation time periods (days) for plants and animals.

  It is certainly possible, and it is in their interests to be generally vague in view of undeniable science on the matter, as well as a desire to distance themselves from other 'creationists'.

  However, their end-times beliefs also require that 'God's day of rest' - the 7th 'day' of the 'creative week' - is a relatively short period of time, which implicitly restricts the length of the other 'creative days'.

  They have also made statements since 2010 that continue to refer to the 'creative days' as only thousands of years.

  Awake!, January 2014, page 12:
  

  Evidently, these “days” of creation lasted many thousands of years.

  Awake!, March 2014, page 5:
  

  • In the Bible account, each of the six creative days could have lasted for thousands of years.

  Insight (2018 revision), volume 1, page 919:

  After Genesis 1:1, 2 (relating to the creation of the heavens and the earth), the book evidently covers a span of thousands of years involved in the preparation of the earth for human habitation
  

  The only exception is that the entries for Creation and Day in the latest printing of Insight say the duration of the 'creative days' was "at least thousands of years" (formatting added).

  The only certainty at this point is they will continue to be vague about it.
  
  
• 
  38

  Watchtower Change On Origins from 42,000 Years to the "Day Age" Theory

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  does anyone know when and how the change took place?

  is the "day age" theory still the current position of watchtower?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Sea Breeze:

  Don't you see that, like I said, the Wt. already bought into the "billions of years" paradigm. The earth was clearly created BEFORE the other heavenly bodies according to Genesis.

  Sigh. It's not clear why you're disagreeing with what I said. Yes, they've always (or for at least the last 80 years or so) said that the universe and the earth may be billions of years old. And they have only ever said that the 'creative days' are thousands of years but never millions or billions of years. The latter point makes their belief a form of day-age creationism.

  They believe that the 'third' and 'fourth' days refer to separate activities after the initial billions of years. For example, they claim in Insight (volume 1, page 528):

  It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba·raʼʹ, meaning “create,” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb ʽa·sahʹ, meaning “make,” is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.—Ge 1:14.
  

  So... what they say about Genesis 1:16 is nonsense, but it confirms what I have already told you about their belief.
  
• 
  38

  Watchtower Change On Origins from 42,000 Years to the "Day Age" Theory

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  does anyone know when and how the change took place?

  is the "day age" theory still the current position of watchtower?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Sea Breeze:

  Jeffro, The quotes provided by others above appear to prove otherwise:

  Incorrect. If you pay attention to what I said: “they say that the creation of the universe ‘in the beginning’ up until the initial formation of earth before the ‘creative days’ was "evidently" billions of years, with unconvincing apologetics regarding the contradiction this creates with Genesis 1:16.”

  Formation of the universe as well as the referenced geological formations come before what they call the ‘creative days’. They only refer to the ‘creative days’ in terms of thousands of years.
• 
  38

  Watchtower Change On Origins from 42,000 Years to the "Day Age" Theory

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  does anyone know when and how the change took place?

  is the "day age" theory still the current position of watchtower?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  They have never expressly changed the view that the ‘creative days’ are 7000 years each. They just don’t mention a specific period anymore. When they do refer to the total length of the ‘creative days’, they say they could have been “many thousands” of years, but never millions or billions. (However, they say that the creation of the universe ‘in the beginning’ up until the initial formation of earth before the ‘creative days’ was "evidently" billions of years, with unconvincing apologetics regarding the contradiction this creates with Genesis 1:16.) Their view remains a form of day-age creationism.

  It seems that 1987 was the last time they explicitly said the 'creative days' were each 7000 years. The Watchtower, 1 January 1987, p. 30:
  

  Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long.
  
• 
  56

  Do You Get Easily Offended By What People Do or Don’t Do?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  does using uncle ben’s food products offend you?.

  are you offended if you see a flag?

  what about a confederate flag?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  minimus:

  They probably do? You’re a phony

  That's the best you've got? My casual use of the word 'probably' is 'problematic' for you? But you're the one who keeps posting things - from Murdoch sources - that you're 'offended' about (which often includes misinformation). I'm just responding to the nonsense you've provided. Unlike you, I don't seek out this nonsense.
  

  snare&racket:

  If you feel offended by the feelings or speech or actions of someone with differing view to your own.... that is for you to deal with, not the other party.

  Exactly. The people who complain that they're 'offended' are just as tedious as the tendentious responses to such nonsense. But that doesn't mean some commercial entity is intrinsically 'wrong' for rebranding something that is supposedly offensive if they figure they'll make more money by changing (though this often backfires). Some people seem to think that for-profit companies are providing a public service. 🤦‍♂️

  It is particularly odd that some people suddenly become so attached to some cartoon character or product mascot when it is 'attacked' for being 'offensive' when they otherwise would have been completely ambivalent about it.
  
• 
  56

  Do You Get Easily Offended By What People Do or Don’t Do?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  does using uncle ben’s food products offend you?.

  are you offended if you see a flag?

  what about a confederate flag?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  minimus:

  CNN has derisive rhetoric. MSNBC. The New York Times. The Daily News. The Washington Post.

  They probably do. And if I see a thread on here using their divisive nonsense I’ll say so. But the majority of recent divisive threads of this nature on this forum seem to be yours, and they are primarily (if not totally) drawn from the Murdoch press.