Good thing I've presented plenty of evidence.
Posts by Jeffro
-
224Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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.
-
-
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso 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.
-
-
Jeffro
abiather:
You agreed in principle that Atheism is a means to theism.
You only want beach to be replaced with fairy-land.No. Don't be dense.
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso 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.
-
-
Jeffro
abiather:
It is like someone asking you the way to the beach.
It's more like someone asking you the way to fairyland.
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso 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.
-
-
Jeffro
KateWild:
Yes, many atheist lurkers will draw that conclusion. Believing lurkers will not, they will see that when a person's religious beleifs are attacked they should not take it personally and defend the right to believe what they wish.
Religious affiliation (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with inane guessing games.
They will also learn by this thread, that a few atheists (just a small minority), make personal attacks and are very dogmatic, believers will get to know who this minority are and be able to cope with them once they start posting.
A Christian saying atheists are dogmatic. Hilarious.
Atheists are actually in the minority in the world, possibly on this forum, but on God vs Atheist threads, this is not always evident.
argumentum ad populum
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
de·bat·a·ble
cop·out
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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.
-
-
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 inthe 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.
-
-
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 inso 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.
-
-
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 inso 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.
-
-
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 ini 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.
-
-
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.