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.
Rattigan350:
"Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE"
That is not what starts the Gentile times so why does that even matter?
Well of course it isn't (though I suspect your interpretation is equally wrong).
The 'gentile times' (Luke 21:24; Revelation 11:2) began in 66 and ended in 70. The 'gentile times' has nothing at all to do with the Neo-Babylonian period.
The JW (Adventist) interpretation of the 'gentile times' is a complete mess.
of the 213 moons in our solar system, only ours provides a total solar eclipse.. coincidence?.
Of the 8 planets in our solar system, only Venus has retrograde rotation. coincidence? Clearly the universe was made just for Venus.
it took 117 days in 1914 from when uranus and jupiter met on march 4, till the start of ww i on june 28,1914.. another conjunction today; 117 days from today is aug.16, 2024.. .
https://www.astropro.com/features/tables/geo/ju-ur/ju-000-ur/ju000ur6.html.
https://avoidjw.org/archive/magazines/1900-1909/.
TonusOH:
So... is this 117-day thing reliable? Can we go back 117 days of any other significant world event and find an astrological warning?
Nah, a single data point is surely good enough for this totally reliable conclusion. đđ¤Śââď¸
the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetleââwas 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'.
Vidiot;
I donât recall them ever saying that.
They donât use that specific term but it is implicit in their assertion that there were just a relatively few âkindsâ needed in the mythical ark. And at a rate much faster than actually occurs in nature.
i read a comment somewhere that having a beard ( before such was allowed) was never a disfellowshippable offence.
but does that mean that no-one who grew a beard was ever eventually disfellowshipped?.
growing a beard when such was frowned upon would surely attract the attention of those with nothing better to do, and possibly lead to sniffing around to try and find things that the "disobedient" one was up to.
Having a beard was regarded as âfollowing the styles of the worldâ and would result in âloss of privilegesâ but not shunning.
the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetleââwas 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'.
budbayview:
you need to explain
You need to explain specifically what God is without deferring to vague undefined terms such as âspiritâ, and provide verifiable details about how it interacts with the physical universe (not lame poetry about God being love or similar claptrap, actual science). Remember, no âsophomoricâ responses.
the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetleââwas 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'.
I really donât need to explain that at all. I provided the principle involved. Iâm under no obligation to explain it in detail. Itâs funny how creationists just assert that âgod did a magic thingâ, but they expect everyone else to be an expert in genetics. đ¤Ł
the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetleââwas 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'.
budbayview:
I am unable to generate a suitable argument for how this would have âevolvedâ in the absence of a Creator or how this parasitic behavior could be developed without an intentional design.
The short version is that toxoplasmosis (genus Toxoplasma) affects many types of cells, but once a variant (T.gondii) happened to adapt that affected rat behaviour in a way that makes that variation spread more, it inherently makes that variation of toxoplasmosis much more successful. No âknowledge of species behaviourâ is necessary at all.
Conversely, arguing that it was intentionally designed by a âcreatorâ is all kinds of messed up.
the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetleââwas 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'.
Diogenesister:
Watchtower has always believed in micro evolution. They accept "kinds" can adapt to different environments - they just get flaky when it comes to speciation.
Yes, but that doesnât help them when they say that very specific species that are necessarily the result of evolution âeven so-called âmicro-evolution âmust instead have been specifically designed rather than just adapted to their environments. âKindâ has no meaning in taxonomy, and some unique feature in a specific species that isnât generally present in that âkindâ obviously wasnât âdesignedâ if it instead arose through adaptation to a particular environment.
the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetleââwas 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'.
slimboyfat:
The Bible doesnât say snakes could talk. It says a snake talked to Eve and later it clarified that it was Satan the Devil that spoke by the snake.
I think your autocorrect changed âclaimedâ to âclarifiedâ. 𤣠Though itâs barely even a claim. The Bible never directly states that Satan was the snake in Eden or that it controlled the snake. The closest it gets is suggesting that Satan is a serpent in Revelation (a retcon at best rather than a âclarificationâ) but doesnât say he was the snake in the Eden myth. The concept of the devil was a pagan Persian concept introduced into Judaism.
