Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,899 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  Your words not mine as an admission that there can be no certainty about 586 or 587 BCE.

  You can’t really be this stupid. If someone ignores the evidence that the earth is actually an oblate spheroid, then they might think the earth is flat. But acknowledging that some people think the earth is flat isn’t an ‘admission’ that the shape of the earth can’t be known.

  (In this analogy 587 BCE is the oblate spheroid supported by all the evidence, 586 BCE is a slightly incorrect alternative spheroid that doesn’t quite take in to account some evidence, and 607 BCE is the flat earth nonsense propounded by nutters who ignore all the inconvenient evidence.)

  The correct year is 587 BCE.
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Rattigan350:

  607 did not originate with the Watchtower or CT Russell. It started back in the 1820s.

  That is only ’accurate’ to the extent that it is entirely mundane. Adventists in the 19th century made stabs at dozens of years with convoluted calculations loosely based on Daniel. There’s scarcely a year of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that some nutty Adventist didn’t claim was ‘marked in scripture’. See also ‘Texas sharpshooter fallacy’.

  But you know who never said Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BCE? Russell. He said Jerusalem was destroyed in 606BCE. Because he didn’t know there was no ‘year 0’.
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  That is what you admit in your Blog.

  No such ‘admission’ exists. Either you’re just lying, or you are taking something out of context.

  All of the evidence indicates 587 BCE. It is only if a person does not accept the evidence at all that no precise date can be identified.
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣

  ’scholar’:

  I admire your confidence but you yourself on your Blog regarding this controversy admit that we cannot know the precise date of the Fall whether it is 587 or 586 BCE

  Not just delusional but an outright liar. Pathetic.
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  JWs were saying 606 BCE until 1943 when the finally realised there was no year zero. They refused to change 1914, so they ‘changed’ history instead. 🤣

  It really will be funny seeing how ‘scholar’ behaves if they do drop 1914.

  And the correct year consistent with all of the evidence is definitely 587 BCE. Publication of Babylonian records confirmed the correct year decades ago, but various sources continue to simply repeat Thiele’s outdated chronology. No analysis of the records has pointed to 586 BCE in the last half a century.
• 
  40

  Was it Designed?

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle​—was it designed?

  it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?

  ' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  TonusOH:

  I can't wait for the next episode: Necrotizing fasciitis -- was it designed?

  Silly you. ‘Nice things’ = ‘design’. ‘Nasty things’ = ‘imperfection’. Because reasons. Slam dunk, atheists. 🤣
• 
  40

  Was it Designed?

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle​—was it designed?

  it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?

  ' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  kinds as a proper zoological classification

  😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
  

  the DNA mechanism and other environmental factors led to the wondrous appearance of the diabolical ironclad beetle

  So… not designed, but just an adapted beetle due to selection pressures (there’s a word for that). The cognitive dissonance is indeed strong.
• 
  40

  Was it Designed?

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle​—was it designed?

  it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?

  ' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ThomasCovenant:

  What do you mean, 6000 years? The Flood, according to the Watchtower, happened 4,394 years ago in 2370BC.

  I was being generous by including their entire period (as a round figure) for speciation and potential for genetic diversity rather than the imaginary genetic bottleneck event.

  Incidentally, biblical chronology would actually place the fictitious event in 2512 BCE.
• 
  40

  Was it Designed?

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle​—was it designed?

  it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?

  ' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  slimboyfat:

  To me evolution and design are in harmony, because reality seems to be constructed in such a way that certain kinds of forms reliably result from natural processes. In particular consciousness seems to be a determined outcome. If that is the case, then isn’t it right to talk about the design of the various forms that evolution produces?

  No. Argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, naturalistic fallacy, equivocation fallacy.
• 
  23

  What exactly IS 1914 these days?

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it's no longer a year tying to the present (the old pre-1995 generation belief).

  realistically, that's the only reason why it mattered.

  and if it doesn't really matter what it is anymore, why would jw not do away with it?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  The Watch Tower Society is mentioning 1914 and 607 BCE less frequently than it did in decades past, but it still gets its own 'study lesson' (32) in their current 'study' publication, including their 'explanation' (if you'd call it that) of the '2,520 years'. That study lesson directs the reader to the Watch Tower Society's 2014 attempt to defend 1914 in the October and November issues of The Watchtower (rebuttal here).

  So it can't at all be said that it's just something that 'old timers' remember.