scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Jorden:
Say what you will, I have told you what will happen.
Good grief. š¤¦āāļø But as already stated, even if such a war took place it wouldnāt be evidence of God. And the claim that something after that would be evidence of God is just begging the question anyway.
WW3/collapse of this system>>>brings about empowering the UN>>>42-months later Jesus will come.
Youāre about 1,957 years too late for the start of the 42 months. Jesus didnāt show up when the period ended.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
āscholarā:
Prove it. How can something stated decades later such as the time of writing Revelation as prophecy be now considered to be historical in 66-70 CE?
Itās not my problem that you donāt understand the genre of Revelation. š¤¦āāļø (So much for JWs being such great Bible teachers. š) Jesus was expected to return within a generation of his death, after the great tribulation. He didnāt. They were wrong.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Jorden:
You will see at the end of the 42-months, and you will believe then.
The 42 months already happened in 66-70CE. Christian expectations for what would follow were simply wrong, and theyāve been making up alternatives ever since.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
āscholarā:
The simple fact is that all of the universal flood stories are similar or identical to the world wide not local Flood of Noah.
š¤¦āāļø Stories written by people who survive floods contain details about people surviving floods. Amazing. The claim that they are āidenticalā Is simply a lie though.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
āscholarā:
Equally, the said scholar can apply the same line of reasoning to all of your propositions including your claims about Chronology, VAT 4956, Neb's regnal years in the Chronicles etc. as you have no firm position with the exception of your atheism which only leads to scepticism. For sceptics, there is no proof for any proposition.
Yeah, direct analysis of evidence is just like words in a story attributed to someone decades after their death. š¤¦āāļø You donāt need to keep demonstrating the extent of your delusion. Itās already obvious. And it sounds like you donāt understand what atheism is too.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Jorden:
For those that do not believe now, I will tell you that when WW3 breaks out and this current system collapses and as a result the UN is given authority for 42-months, many will certainly start to believe at that time.
Fallacy: appeal to fear, begging the question, non sequitur.
Even if such a war were to break out, it would not be evidence of God, or that it happened specifically because of āpropheciesā, though it is plausible that people in positions of authority could deliberately try to influence events to āfulfilā it.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Fisherman:
Jesus refers to them as real: ā Male and female he created them.ā So does the rest of the Bible refers to them as historical and not allegory.
Aside from the fact that thereās no way of knowing that Jesus said anything attributed to him decades after his death, Jesus also purportedly said that Abraham was up in heaven able to deliver drops of water to people suffering in hell. But you donāt believe thatās literal, and you have no evidence that Jesus wasnāt just referencing elements of a story to make a point. (A point that demonstrates ignorance of various intersex conditions, but a point nonetheless.) And if Jesus did literally believe Adam and Eve were real people, then he was wrong.
for newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?
he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books donāt agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.
the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.
Fisherman:
And you can believe that if thatās what you like to choose. But scholar has shown that it is reasonable to conclude that based on solid -539 and 70 year desolation based on JW valid Bible interpretation is is not nonsense because you donāt like JW. You say it is nonsense but it makes sense and prophetic sense also.
Fallacy: Straw man attack. I have provided a great deal of information specifically indicating why the JW position is incorrect. The claim that I simply ādonāt like JWā is therefore an obvious lie.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
āscholarā:
If a person does not stand for something then where is the credibility?
It seems that you are using āstand for somethingā as a placeholder for āmaintain some kind of religious superstitionā, which is, of course, ridiculous. Credibility, on the other hand, is derived from not appealing to arbitrary interpretations.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Just for fun, hereās what ChatGPT thought of Fishermanās last bit of drivel:
There are several fallacies and poor reasoning in the provided passage:And yes, I know, AI bad, ChatGPT leftist, yadda yadda. š
1. False dichotomy: The passage presents a false dichotomy between only two options - either experiencing God physically or only having a belief that He doesn't exist. There are other possibilities, such as making an inference based on evidence or lack thereof.
2. Appeal to ignorance: The passage suggests that since there is no way to disprove the existence of God, it is plausible that He exists. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and lack of evidence for the existence of God does not make it more likely that He exists.
3. Special pleading: The passage argues that the reality of God does not depend on proof, which is a form of special pleading - offering an exception to a general rule without justification.
4. Ad hoc reasoning: The passage uses ad hoc reasoning to explain away any evidence that contradicts its claims, such as the parting of the Red Sea or the resurrection of someone from the cemetery, by suggesting that such evidence can be rejected.
5. Circular reasoning: The passage cites the Bible to support its claims, which is an example of circular reasoning - using the conclusion to support the premise.
Overall, the passage presents several fallacies and poor reasoning, which weaken its argument and make it less persuasive.
