Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,804 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  224

  Another problem for JW apologists

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

  in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

  in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Fisherman:

  de·bat·a·ble

  cop·out
• 
  224

  Another problem for JW apologists

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

  in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

  in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Fisherman:

  Jeff, listen to what you say. You are only stating your personal conclusion, what you believe you have done. Can you say "It is a fact that JW interpretation contradicts the Bible?" Even if you did say that, you would still be stating something that you believe. Your interpretaion and JW interpretaion are beliefs. Beliefs do not always turn out to be true.

  Instead of making the same kind of vague rebuttals as 'scholar', feel free to comment on the specific scriptures I've already raised.

  For a start, read Jeremiah chapter 27. Then say here what it says about exile and about serving Babylon.

  My 'interpretation' is completely consistent with secular sources regarding the Neo-Babylonian period and the records of all the nations contemporaneous with ancient Judah and is not hinged on magical thinking or 'end times' beliefs.
• 
  224

  Another problem for JW apologists

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

  in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

  in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Fisherman:

  Interesting debate expressing opposing views. WTS chronology is produced with interpretaion (yes or no?); but so what? so is the opposing view (yes or no?). Which view is the correct one? As far as I view it, interpretation is a conclusion, and therefore we dont know for a fact at this time until there are more real facts to consider. I do know that now a WTS creative yom is no longer 1000 years in length. -Not, that it has anything to do with chronology, but 1914 is never going to go away until it validates or invalidates WTS chronology. I think that you are beating a dead horse and that is the botton line.

  I've shown quite definitely that the JW interpretation contradicts the Bible, which is supposed to be their source material. There's no point 'interpreting' the text so far from what it actually says to be unrecognisable. As shown in detail by myself and others, the WTS chronology is entirely dishonest.

  But you are right in that because there are many gullible JWs who are too afraid to honestly consider their own beliefs for fear of being shunned that the group will probably be around for some time to come. The doggedness of victims like 'scholar' to claim the Bible says exactly the opposite of what it actually says demonstrates well the power of sectarian brainwashing.
• 
  112

  Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

  it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

  if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  notsurewheretogo:

  It's like saying OFF is a TV Channel

  I'd be willing to go a step further and say it's probably the best TV channel.
• 
  112

  Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

  it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

  if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  KateWild:

  jeffro, I was talking to besty.

  So? It still should have been obvious that I had responded to your comment about atheists allegedly being 'angry at God'.

  but you have shown all the believing lurkers the exact same thing. Which is what? Do you know jeffro?

  That inane guessing games are tedious?
• 
  25

  Naughtiness in my bathroom

  by usualusername in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have some guests coming over to spend xmas with me for a couple of days.

  they are my friends family and i have a larger place than them and am playing host.. dilemma.

  they are christians and i have some postcards in my bathroom that are slightly naughty.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  If you're having trouble deciding, just err on the side of caution and take them down. (And 'papering over them' is just inviting curiosity.) It's not as though taking them down means permanently destroying them.
• 
  224

  Another problem for JW apologists

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

  in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

  in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  scholiar:

  Your table is simply a contrivance designed to mislead the gullible and further it is not scholarship because it is simply a copy of others chronology.

  You keep jumping between saying my chart is not consistent with other scholars and saying it's a copy of others' work. As usual, you don't make sense.

  Our computation of the Ezekiel's 390 years is simply taken from the year for the beginning of the Divided Monarchy in 997 BCE adding up all of the regnal years of the respective kings of Judah which ammounts to 390 years thus reaching the end at 607 BCE. No manufacturing or manipulation is required for the numbers simply fall into place.

  Again, you keep saying 'our', but you are just a Watch Tower crony with no original thought of your own. The Watch Tower Society's chronology is full of "manufacturing and manipulation". The overarching manipulation is to 'force' a fit of superstitious JW numerology regarding 607 and 1914. However, there are various aspects of manipulation.

  • Spurious periods added before Zechariah and Hoshea.
  • Generally denying co-regencies, but allowing one co-regency for the entire period.
  • Shifting reigns for Egypt, Assyria & Babylon to fit JW chronology (but with no specific years provided), saying every secular source on the subject 'must be wrong'.
  • Redistribution of a spurious period prior to Uzziah (from 1944 JW chronology) into smaller less noticable discrepancies of a year each.
  • Randomly switching between dating systems to 'explain' various inconsistencies.
  • Counting years of reign from the point of 'vassalage', with no support from any source.
  • Beyond one-year differences due to inconsistent use of dating systems, inability to reconcile 2 Kings 3:1, 2 Kings 15:1, 2 Kings 17:1.
  • Distorted order and placement of events involving Daniel.
  • Distorted placement of events of Nebuchadnezzar's early reign.
  • Ignoring context of Jeremiah chapters 25-29.

  There's a lot more that could be said, but that's sufficient for now.

  Stern's article was straightforward and so was the specific reference chosen by the WT writers. Stern does not endorse WT chronology but certainly does agree that during the Babylonian period the land was desolated.

  The only correct parts of your statements there is that Stern's article was straightforward and that Stern does not endorse WT chronology.

  The only difference apart from the dates is that Stern finds no evidence for the complete dehabitation but you would not expect any other result from archaeology.

  Basically, the 'only' difference is that what Stern said is fundamentally different to what the Watch Tower Society claims.
• 
  112

  Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

  it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

  if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  KateWild:

  No, it was your point ealier you said atheists cant be angry with God. I just keep reminding you of your point.

  O... K... It's not really clear why you feel the need to 'remind' me of the point I made earlier in response to your illogical claim about atheists ("This anger towards God can, in MANY, atheists stop enquiry in science with religion"), which has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
• 
  112

  Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

  it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

  if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  KateWild:

  I cannot be an atheist can I?

  I am not an atheist as you quite rightly pointed out

  To attempt to stirck up a dialogue, infers I am not an atheist.

  You keep saying you're not an atheist. Did someone suggest otherwise??
• 
  112

  Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

  it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

  if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  KateWild:

  hahahaha, I said I strike up dialogue, I did not say there was two way conversing.

  You might want to look up the word dialogue.