Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,803 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  27

  Why is chalk white?

  by Qcmbr in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was reading some pro flood info and i came across an intriguing point regarding chalk - the fact that it is composed almost entirely of shells.

  now i have no desire to start a pro flood blah blah debate.

  this is a sincere non religious question for our marine biologists / geologists - why is chalk white and not layered with silt and sand?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Evanescence,
  Chalk may appear red, green, blue, or some other colour other than white when one or both of the two conditions I stated are not met.
  Specifically, if the light is not composed of the full visible spectrum (and is therefore coloured), or if the pigments in the chalk absorb part of the light spectrum, it will not appear white.
• 
  27

  Why is chalk white?

  by Qcmbr in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was reading some pro flood info and i came across an intriguing point regarding chalk - the fact that it is composed almost entirely of shells.

  now i have no desire to start a pro flood blah blah debate.

  this is a sincere non religious question for our marine biologists / geologists - why is chalk white and not layered with silt and sand?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Chalk (or any other 'white' substance) appears white (or whitish) when two conditions are true:

  1. Light in the full range of the visible spectrum is present
  2. The substance reflects all or most of that light.

  The real question is, 'is the chalk still white when the lights are off?'
• 
  763

  Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

  by Little Bo Peep in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

  i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

  i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Narkissos wrote:

  As the aforementioned examples show, the use of the singular (adverbial?) zeh points to a past period, even if the action goes on (that is, on a longer period). This is very similar, I feel, to the English present perfect. I have been doing that for x years (=> the x years are understood to be "down to now" -- even if I go on doing the same thing afterwards for y years).

  You have here queried the use of the word adverbial, but on May 25 you said:

  Strictly speaking, this sounds rather like an adverbial use (in temporal sentences, roughly equivalent to now with present perfect, with the very same kind of emphasis) than an adjectival one ("these seventy years").

  Can you clarify this? (I know the word is not an adverb but you had previously suggested that in the context it may function similarly to one.) I understand the usage you have given but is it the only usage? I posed a question in a previous post:

  Say for example that I was to complain about there not being anything worth watching on television this month (I was going to say week, but because it's not part-way through the week, it could confuse my point):
  "How long do I have to put up with there being nothing worth watching on TV this month?" (This hypothetical question is asked in the same sense as almost every "How long...?" question in the bible - frustation with the circumstances, not a request for a reply stating a period of time.)
  Could I validly use zeh chodesh to refer to 'this month' which is temporally present, but has not yet finished? If so, and if the 70 years can be seen as a collective noun, then the period need not be finished, and my interpretation can be seen as valid.

  If not, how would it be phrased instead?

  But the question is, is it strict speech? (That's what I was aiming at with my dinosaur joke.) In 2005 a European official might refer to the 60-year post-war period, and in 2007 still refer to the fact that we have been mourning the dead of WWII for 60 years -- who would correct him?

  It has already been agreed that the 70 years could also be used as a round period.
• 
  763

  Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

  by Little Bo Peep in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

  i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

  i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  But I have to tell you that my antenna are quivering over the way you've taken hold of my comparing it to a "collective noun." I am not at all sure I feel comfortable with that. I only meant to explain (away) the singular form of the demonstrative and I fear that I have unwittingly emphasized the noun. Narkissos's explanations are far superior to mine. I hope he'll jump in.

  Are you now saying that it is not a collective noun? If it is a collective noun, there is no harm in emphasizing that.

  As I said a couple of days ago, you should try reading two times through the list of verses I posted. Read them with "these" and then read them with "now."

  Reading through once was enough. I got the point. I have already read Narkissos' post about the adverbial use of the pronoun and substituting 'these' for 'now'. However no-one has confirmed whether it is the only valid interpretation of the use of the pronoun in a temporal form.
  Say for example that I was to complain about there not being anything worth watching on television this month (I was going to say week, but because it's not part-way through the week, it could confuse my point):
  "How long do I have to put up with there being nothing worth watching on TV this month?" (This hypothetical question is asked in the same sense as almost every "How long...?" question in the bible - frustation with the circumstances, not a request for a reply stating a period of time.)
  Could I validly use zeh chodesh to refer to 'this month' which is temporally present, but has not yet finished? If so, and if the 70 years can be seen as a collective noun, then the period need not be finished, and my interpretation can be seen as valid.

  Incidentally, I did want to point out that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of verses with the demonstratives. If you add up all of the masc. and fem. singular and the common plural occurrences, there is a vast number. I wasn't sure if you understood that? I was culling the ones which had to do with time, but I left out all of the general time expressions and focused on the ones with exact numerical units.

  Yes, I did understand that. You stated in the post that quoted the verses, and I had figured that out anyway.
  
  Anyway, I hope you are feeling better soon. Hopefully someone else can help out with answering my question in this post while you get some rest.
• 
  763

  Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

  by Little Bo Peep in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

  i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

  i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  scholar said:
  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

  Seems scholar has been a bit quiet these past couple few days actually. He hasn't said anything in reply to my posts http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1580169/post.ashx#1580169 and http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1581789/post.ashx#1581789 so I've had to resort to sparring with AlanF just to keep on my toes.
  Have to say I'm starting to miss scholar's 'logic' though.
• 
  30

  LOVE is the sign

  by LouBelle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in my jc meeting i kept on at the elders about love.

  that there was no love being shown in the congregations & even toward me on how they were dealing with the whole situation & towards my mother.

  i mentioned that there were only 2 commandments given to us - 1. to love god & 2. to love our neighbour.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  In my JC meeting I kept on at the elders about Love. That there was no love being shown in the congregations & even toward me on how they were dealing with the whole situation & towards my mother. I mentioned that there were only 2 commandments given to us - 1. to love God & 2. to love our neighbour.

  When I had my meeting (one of several) with the elders about them being wrong about 607, they said that I shouldn't be focussing on details, and I should be more loving.
  'Love' is a drawcard they play when it suits them.
• 
  46

  Need clarification on communication with a disfellowshipped person

  by jostes in

  1. social
  2. family

  was wondering the clarification of a relationship someone can have with their mother if they have been disfellowshipped and the daughter is in good standing with the congregation?

  the daughter was baptised after the disfellowship.

  does this mean the daughter is not to have a relationship with the mother.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  CinemaBlend,
  The standard JW announcement for either disfellowshipping or disassociating is now simply "[Name] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses". As such, members of the congregation are not made aware whether the elders are 'disfellowshipping' the person, or they have 'disassociated'. There is no distinction in how they are to be treated.
• 
  27

  Why is chalk white?

  by Qcmbr in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was reading some pro flood info and i came across an intriguing point regarding chalk - the fact that it is composed almost entirely of shells.

  now i have no desire to start a pro flood blah blah debate.

  this is a sincere non religious question for our marine biologists / geologists - why is chalk white and not layered with silt and sand?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  EF

  Good god no I am not that smart folks!!!! Scully & Jeffro both of you quoted 2 sources. I got my "cut and paste" from a 3rd source you didn't mention.

  You could have simply mentioned the source that you did get it from. We can't have everyone thinking you're smarter than you really are, can we? :)
  Jeffro - of the overly (ex)cited class.
• 
  763

  Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

  by Little Bo Peep in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

  i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

  i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Alleymom (Marjorie),
  Thanks for the information. It does help to clarify things a little.
  

  Anyway, I was a little surpised to see that you have made a rapid leap from stating that the word "these" doesn't even appear in the text to now saying that the singular form "can be validly interpreted in agreement with the assertion..." If I might, I'd just like to urge a little caution. Since you don't know Hebrew, you have to be extra careful about making assumptions about language use in the Biblical text which are based on your knowledge of how English works.

  To clarify my 'rapid leap', I had already understood from the context that a collective noun of 70 years was referred to. However, as I explained to AlanF, the source I had used for the Hebrew terms does not exhaustively list combining forms, and so there was no reference to zeh in the passage therein. However the inclusion of zeh does seem to suggest that the 70-year period does indeed serve as a collective noun.
  Are you able to confirm whether it is linguistially possible that the original text may refer to the 70 years referred to in Zechariah chapter 1 as a period of 70 years that had not yet ended, and that ran from 587 to 517? It certainly does seem acceptable that the demonstrative pronoun can refer to a point during a 70-year period. I have heard plenty about how it can be interpreted as a 70 year period elapsed up until that time, but I have not heard anything that explicitly excludes the interpretation I have given.
• 
  763

  Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

  by Little Bo Peep in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

  i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

  i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Leolaia...
  Thanks for the clarification. I'd like to clarify what I said though. I'm familiar with the basic background, the word stauros etc. But they seem to ignore the flaw in their reasoning that the Romans were pagans so it is not a great stretch of the imagination that they might use a pagan symbol. More historically though, I was under the impression that the Romans used trees to impale people on without going to the trouble of stripping them down to single poles.