Fisherman:
Do you think wt is going risk getting sued by copying somebody else’s work?
Perish the thought. You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, page 93.
Posts by Jeffro
-
44
Need help - the Revelation Climax book
by ozziepost inis it an original from the graphics department?.
anyone know?.
-
-
Jeffro
-
63
Leaked. Nov 6th Secret Boxes
by Beth Sarim inself-aware npc has an upload that the ""top-secret"' elders only secret boxes is a drum roll here......a new brochure.....ta dahhhh🤪.
i mean how more dramatic can we get..
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
Today is 6/9 (june 9) box dates are (Nov 6 ) 9/6
🤦♂️
But the implication is 911 again.
No. That (dis)connection was made up entirely in your mind.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Jeffro
Indeed. Even if it could not be demonstrated that scientific dating methods are reliable, or if it could be demonstrated that scientific dating methods are not reliable, neither would constitute evidence that ‘Bible chronology’ is correct.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
Obliviously cofty doesn’t have to believe JC or the Bible but in order to debunk the belief of those that do, you need to prove that humans existed before when Bible chronology says so and that has not been done. So the belief stands.
Fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. Also a false dichotomy.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
It takes a half million papers and philosophical appeals to christian thinkers to try to prove an argument?
No. There are half a million (and likely more) papers that demonstrate that 'Bible chronology' is wrong, but it isn't necessary to consider all of them. But cofty aptly demonstrated that there is a preponderance of evidence against your position.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
The tension here is not your favorite version of Bible chronology compared to wt interpretation but that scientific dating is much older than Bible chronology challenging the Bible.
There is no challenge. The chronology offered by the Bible is plainly wrong. Rejection of the facts in favour of the stories in Genesis is just confirmation bias.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman would like it to be true that scientific dating methods are just too unreliable. The usual target for claims of inaccuracy is carbon-dating, though scientists actually use various methods, and carbon-dating is only used for samples within a certain timeframe.
However, the Watch Tower Society says carbon-dating is reliable as far back as about 3,500 years ago (Awake!, 22 November 1981, p. 15). Well within that period is the earthquake that occurred during Amos' time. And, naturally, the facts of that event also show JW chronology to be wrong. See Amos' earthquake.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
A genealogy is not allegory.
The two spurious genealogies in Matthew and Luke are not even attributed to Jesus. And just because they aren't allegory, that doesn't mean they are correct (which would be a false dichotomy). So it's not clear what your point is there.
See also “The One Who Has the Legal Right”.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Jeffro
🤦♂️ He just keeps further demonstrating why the whole belief system is wrong.
-
57
Is Bible chronology true?
by Fisherman inaccording to jw interpretation of bible chronology, the earliest human, adam, came into existence some 6,048 years ago compared to scientific dating of human fossils believed to be much older.
since jesus validated the creation of adam and eve as historical people and jc’s own lineage is traced all the way back to adam, bible chronology is certified as true and there must be something wrong with scientific dating.
what proves scientific dating as accurate that humans are much older than what bible chronology says?.
-
-
Jeffro
Notice the apologist’s inconsistent standards of evidence. Jesus purportedly once referring to the Jewish creation myth - without naming the characters - is described as ‘validation’, ‘verification’ and ‘certification’ that the characters were real. But literally hundreds of thousands of scientific papers about verified dating methods are dismissed because they contradict the apologist’s religious superstitions.