Stupid dumb ass changes yet blood and 1914 no change???wtfge???

by Witness 007 in

yeah wow women can finally wear pants and men beards...but 1914 is still a date not accepted since charles russell times and blood fractions are evil!!.

are they crazy!!!

!.

Jeffro

Praotes1914:

I don’t have a problem with 1914. It is a fact that World War I started then. Just think where Russell would’ve been if nothing happened in 1914? He would’ve been totally washed up. All they’re going to do is drop the numerology and keep the date 1914 and I don’t have a problem with that because World War I started and it was the start of the last days. what’s wrong with keeping that theology?

Texas sharp shooter fallacy. If WWI began in a different year, one of the other nutter groups promoting a different nutter chronology would latch on to it as ‘proof’ of their slightly different nutter views. There’s barely a year in the late 19th or early 20th centuries that some nutter group didn’t say was ‘the year’. What Russell said would happen didn’t happen anyway, and Russell didn’t believe Satan was cast to earth in 1914. The fact is that apart from the Adventist core, they have completely changed the theology from what Russell believed about 1914.

Just a few of the things Russell believed that were later changed, mostly by Rutherford:

The Great Pyramid of Giza confirms biblical chronology
Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 BCE
The ‘time of the end’ began in 1799
Christ’s presence began in 1874
Jesus was made king in 1878
‘Sleeping saints’ were resurrected to heaven in 1878

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

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.

Jeffro

Rattigan350:

Jesus didn't choose a Governing body or a board of directors. He observed people back in the early 1800s that were searching for truth in the scriptures. They searched chronology. Brown, Clinton, Bowen, Elliott, Barbour and Russell, Jesus saw them going in the right direction and observed and aided them.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤦‍♂️

the start of the gentile times is not based on the destruction of Jerusalem, as that was in 587. It was 20 years prior, in around 607. We don't know the exact event or dated that triggered the banding of the tree,

starting your own nutty sect? you need to work on the head canon a bit more though methinks.

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

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.

Jeffro

Praotes1914:

but think about it. World War I it started then.

Texas sharp shooter fallacy. After the ‘great disappointment’ in 1844, various nutter groups posed almost every year in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as ‘the year’ (and the Bible Students weren’t even the first to suggest 1914). It is entirely unremarkable that something significant happened in one of those years. WWI didn’t just happen as some random unanticipated event in an otherwise utopian world. It isn’t a coincidence that the Watch Tower Society has not mentioned the Balkan Wars in 100 years.

But it is possible that the Watch Tower Society could try to rely more on those lies independent of the numerology anyway.

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

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.

Jeffro

Mikejw:

Many things yes but not this, there is no way they can ever get out of the 1914 seventy weeks from 607thing.

It is true that they can’t easily abandon 1914, but not for this reason. The ‘70 weeks’ (from Daniel chapter 9) has no direct bearing on the determination of 1914. The jw interpretation of the 70 weeks (as with various other Christian denominations, particularly other Adventists) is that it began during the reign of Artaxerxes and supposedly identified Jesus as the messiah. The JW interpretation is particularly wrong because their year for the supposed beginning of the period is 10 years out.

14

Is the 1000 year reign literal?

by gavindlt in

to all those on this students on this forum, i would love to know what your view is?.

Jeffro

(Some of the more astute readers might note that the thousand years begins when others also rule with Jesus rather than just Jesus himself becoming king. They might then argue for a protracted period between Jesus’ presence and the start of the thousand years. However, whilst the source material allows for some amount of time between those events, everything in the New Testament indicates that the imaginary destruction of Rome (‘Babylon the Great’) and establishment of God’s kingdom after the great tribulation were expected to occur in relatively quick succession. Additionally, because Matthew and Mark explicitly place Jesus’ presence after the great tribulation, the JW belief is in any case irreconcilable.)

Is the 1000 year reign literal?

by gavindlt in

to all those on this students on this forum, i would love to know what your view is?.

Jeffro

aqwsed12345:

The only correct and now almost universally accepted interpretation among Catholic exegetes sees the entire earthly life of the Church in the thousand-year reign of Christ and His saints, which essentially means the same as the forty-two months, one thousand two hundred and sixty days, and three and a half years mentioned in other visions (11:2; 12:6, 14).

Well that’s obviously wrong. At least it meant I didn’t need to read the rest of the rambling post. The 42 months, 1260 days and 3.5 years all allude to the period from 66-70CE constituting the Roman response to the Jewish revolt, and do not correspond to the imaginary future 1000 years.

The 1000 years could have been intended as literal but was more likely hyperbole. As a fictional trope, there’s not too much value in trying to assess whether it’s ‘actually’ a literal period.

The JW view is particularly broken, since the period is supposed to begin when Satan is bound but also when Jesus becomes king. So in their messed up chronology it would ostensibly have started over a hundred years ago, but also not started yet. This glaring error is largely because they have Jesus’ presence and the great tribulation explicitly in the wrong order.

For other JW errors about the 1000 years, see What does the Bible really teach about the 1000 years?

15

Crisis of Conscience

by Freeatlast2024 in

this is my first time posting to this forum.

let me start by saying i was born and raised as a jehovah’s witness.

i’m thankful that i was raised this way, because i feel it protected me in some ways, especially with regard to moral issues.

Jeffro

Freeatlast2024:

What really threw me over the edge was when the disfellowshipping changes came just two weeks after losing the Norway trial.

The changes were most likely planned months earlier (as is generally the case with content on ‘JW Broadcasting’) and possibly also filmed in advance (particularly given that they need time to translate into various languages), though it is possible it was planned to enact those changes only if they lost the Norway case.

However, the changes to the shunning policies do not fully address the issues raised by the Norwegian government. ‘Unrepentant’ individuals including minors are still shunned, and social contact is still not permitted with disfellowshipped individuals beyond awkward meeting invites and greetings at meetings. And that’s only if the person shows interest in returning, to the exclusion of ‘apostates’.

9

What is the Evidence for a Common Ancestor for Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells?

by Sea Breeze in

prokaryotes.

eukaryotes.

lysosomes and centrosomes are present.

Jeffro

Sea Breeze:

But do you know of any evolutionary biologists that has a theory how the unentanglement function of certain enzymes

Why would I? Why would I care? What makes you think that not being able to answer your questions about biology lends any weight to baseless supernatural claims? It’s all just an argument from ignorance. If you have questions about biology, ask a biologist.

Still waiting for you to provide any evidence for a deity, employing the same precision and academic rigour that you expect for your misplaced questions about biology.

9

What is the Evidence for a Common Ancestor for Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells?

by Sea Breeze in

prokaryotes.

eukaryotes.

lysosomes and centrosomes are present.

Jeffro

As usual, you’ve missed the point. I’m not a biologist, and I’m not interested in going down a rabbit hole on your pet topic. But I graciously provided a link in the general direction anyway. Conceptually, prokaryotes are more analogous to the nuclei of eukaryote cells rather than entirely different in the manner you claim, though it is more complex than that. There’s no reason why I or anyone on this forum should be expected to know the answers to the questions you raise about complex biology, and it remains an argument from ignorance. At the end of it, you’re still no closer to any evidence for even a starting point for belief in a magical deity (also a false dichotomy).

Vastly complicating this problem for atheists

If you imagine any of this is a ‘problem for atheists’, you are very confused about what ‘atheist’ means. If you have questions about biology, ask a biologist.

9

What is the Evidence for a Common Ancestor for Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells?

by Sea Breeze in

prokaryotes.

eukaryotes.

lysosomes and centrosomes are present.

Jeffro

What is the Evidence for Creation of Life by an Incorporeal 'Spirit Creature'?

Remember, you need to be just as precise as you would expect for answers to your question.

Jeffro

Posts by Jeffro

What is the Evidence for Creation of Life by an Incorporeal 'Spirit Creature'?