Posts by Jeffro

53

1975 on the back burner

by Fisherman in

“1975” still marks 6000 years from the creation of adam in wt calendar.

according to “all scriptures inspired” book, there is a gap between the creation of adam and the creation of eve and her marriage to adam.

it was at that point in time when eve was created that marked the end of the 6th creative day and the beginning of god’s rest, the 7th day as recorded in genesis.

Jeffro

Fisherman:

On the other hand,it is hard to believe that God waited so long to create Eve.

Yeah, that's the only part that's hard to believe. 🙄🤦‍♂️

38

“Lazarus, come out!”

by Fisherman in

many people here have expressed faith in evolution and in other theories—but in all honesty, do you have any hope whatsoever in your heart or in the back of your mind ?

truthfully..

Jeffro

Fisherman:

Many people here have expressed faith in evolution and in other theories—but in all honesty, do you have any hope whatsoever in your heart or in the back of your mind ? Truthfully.

Fallacy: false equivalence. 🤦‍♂️

92

Chance or intelligent design?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

cofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.

i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.

Jeffro

Worse still, the creationist argument always boils down to tedious special pleading about how their magical infinitely complex sky friend just always existed.

92

Chance or intelligent design?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

cofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.

i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.

Jeffro

Creationists love this tedious false dichotomy. It isn’t ‘chance’ that crystals or snowflakes or amino acids form the way they do. It’s chemistry.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Jeffro

That’s a list of source types, basically in order of least reliable to most reliable, not a methodology. Thought I’d move WT publications to the top of the list and theses above chronological works.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Jeffro

Wow 🤦‍♂️

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Jeffro

Fisherman:

That is what I conclude when I read. Even if I wasn’t a JW ( which I am 100 percent ) I would believe that without doubt as I read the texts

So, when it says, ““‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’” your most reasonable interpretation ‘even if you weren’t a JW’ would be that 70 years ends two years after Babylon’s king is called to account. 🤦‍♂️ What a farce.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

How can you be definite that a definite or precise date such as 607 BCE is wrong when you cannot offer up any other precise alternative?

Argument from ignorance. Even if the exact year were not known it doesn’t mean that whatever nonsense is offered instead must be correct.

But the exact year is known anyway. It was 587 BCE. No study of the subject in the last 60 years has offered any basis for 586 BCE as the correct year and various studies have specified 587 BCE as the correct year. The fact that some sources simply repeat Thiele’s dating from the 1940s (based on Ussher’s even earlier work) is irrelevant misdirection.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Jeffro

Funny how all the evidence ‘must’ be wrong because of an interpretation that isn’t directly stated anywhere. 🤦‍♂️

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Jeffro

Fisherman:

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6597071495233536/how-debunk-1914-calculus-only-using-jw-publications#6304936434860032

[The Bible] does [mention 70 years of exile].

Wow. Even more of an outright liar than ‘scholar’.