Posts by Hellrider

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

Hellrider

ThirdWitness:

If you believe the Bible then 607 is the only date possible. If you put secular historians interpretations over the Bible then believe 587 or whatever year you want to believe because it doesn't matter since you make God's word invalid.

Again with the false dichotomies

So you are now reduced to one point and that point involves declaring the Bible to be wrong. You prove our point. 587 proponents must disregard the Bible to prove 587.

And again...

You are so programmed into witness-thought that you`re not even aware that you are doing it, are you. You think like this to save your own faith, not in God, but in the Watchtower Society! And you speak like this because you have been programmed into speaking like this, as an effort to persuade others (those on the brink of freedom from your mindcontrol-cult) to stay in the organisation and in the robot-like "life".

There are hundreds of millions of christians in the world who are christians, believing the Bible fully, without having to rewrite history into something that never happened to believe. This is because they never believed in your insane 1914-doctrine. I believe what you meant to say in your above post, was "If you believe in the Watchtower Societys calculations, then 607 is the right date, because it`s the only date that gets us to 1914, and never mind that the day-for-a-year-rule (which isn`t even a rule), is never mentioned about the 2520 days or in Daniel at all". I believe this is what you really meant to say. In fact, you, by this, spitting on the Bible itself, as you are by this equating the Bible with the Watchtower Society. And I don`t think God likes that you are doing that.

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

Hellrider

ThirdWitness:

To put it simply:

Do you believe God's word the Bible or the conclusions of secular historians based on Egyptian records?

Once you decide that then you can also decide do I believe the Bible based 607 or the conclusions made by secular historians that 587 is correct?

The only problem is: This is a false dichotomy. Of course, you want to belive that this dichotomy is correct, because it makes it so simple and oh-so-cosy for you, because then you can continue believing in the 607-lie. In addition to that, it is you agenda to make other jws browsing this forum believe the same. But the dichotomy is FALSE, as has been demonstrated by so many posters here that I hesitate to count them. I hope you get well soon.

6

Write and tell her!

by Gordy in

this is the item carol malone wrote in the sunday mirror.

time to eat your words..

if you're a regular of this column, you'll know i spit in the face of political correctness.

Hellrider

I wrote her this E-mail:

To Carol Malone

Hi there. First of all, let me introduce myself: My name is XXXXX XXXXXXX, I`m a norwegian, and I was born and raised a Jehovahs Witness. I left this "religion" at the age of 16, thank God. I read your column, in which you defend the people that were upset about the sign "Our dogs are fed on Jehovahs Witnesses" in New Hampshire. You claim to "spit on political correctness", but I wonder: Do you really? Is religion a "holy cow"? Why can you not ridicule religion? Is it allowed to think "hm, perhaps some religions really ARE shit!!!" (because, you know, some might actually be just that!). And if so, should it not be allowed to express this publicly, at least with a sign in ONES OWN back yard? I certainly think so. By the way, would you have been upset if the sign had said "Our dogs feed on salesmen"? I don`t think you would, you would probably see some humour in it. What then makes it wrong to have a sign like Jean Grove? Because the Jehovahs Witnesses are, whether you`ll believe it or not, SALESMEN! They are unpaid, brainwashed salesmen for a publishing company (sweet deal for the Watchtower Scoiety) that are out there trying to recruit MORE unpaid Salesmen for this book`n magazine-publishing company, posing as a religion. There is nothing wrong in having a sign that tells these people to sod off.
I was particularly upset by this part of your article:

"They don't hurt anyone and they sure as hell don't bomb anyone in and effort to convert them."

There is so much wrong about that statement, that I don`t even know where to begin. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Sincerely, XXXXX XXXXXXX

...not sure what good it will do, though. These politically correct people are usually pretty stubborn.

23

Panic Disorder/Agoraphobia?

by caligirl in

anyone out there have any personal experience with this?

just looking for input and suggestions.

Hellrider

I have panic disorder, and have had it, as well as depression, for years. You say your doctor has given you xanax. I think you should know that ok, if it`s a really bad attack, then take a xanax, but if you can, don`t take it! Xanax, valium, sobril, stesolid etc all have in common that when the drugs are leaving the body, the anxiety and panic just gets worse! And this is how to get addicted to these meds: You take one because you have anxiety, and then you feel fine. After a few hours, the effect stops, and after some additional hours, you start feeling anxious again, and it`s even worse than before. This is because as the drugs leave the body, they create abstinence, which just cause more anxiety/panic (in addition to the one you allready have). Then take another pill...and as this one also goes out of the body, take another one...etc. And there goes the whole ballgame...

If you can, don`t take them.

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

Hellrider

...and to ADD to Rasillons point:

The whole underlying basis for the idea about the 2520 (days of) years (although that these days are years, is not even mentioned in the text, and in both the two other instances in which days stand for years in the Bible, it is explicitly stated that they do!!!), culminating in that "momentous date of 1914", is that Babylons reign "never really ends". That`s right, Babylons reign changes from being literal after 70 years, into becoming "symbolic" (although there is nothing in the text that indicates that this is the case), and continuing until 1914, within the Societys view. This begs the question: Why can`t the 40 years of Egypt have been delayed into later on in that period (as in: after the 70 years of Babylon had ended)? It is NOT clear from the text that the 40 years are between the 580s and 54s, as the Soceity claims. But of course, as I pointed out in my previous post (which you of course will refuse to answer), it doesn`t make any difference at all...

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

Hellrider

ThirdWitness:

My response to you was the result of your comment to AlanF, in which you wrote:

40 years does not really mean 40 years. It is symbolic. Desolated with no inhabitant doesn't really mean NO inhabitant.

...and by pointing out that even within the WTS-interpretation of the events, some slack has to be given to the term "desolation", because at no point was there NO inhabitants in Judah during the 70 years. So when you attack AlanF because he mentioned that the 40 years of desolation of Egypt could be interpreted "symbolically", then you are wrong, a symbolic interpreation is a possibility, and AlanFs argument was valid, even within the Societys (and, consequently, yours) standards. As for the 40 years, and whenever they were, I don`t care, and I don`t care whether they were literal or symbolic (which they well could have been, as I showed in the previous post). They could even well have been (literally or symbolically) when the Society says they were (or there about), but that doesn`t change the fact that the 70 years do NOT start with the destruction of Jerusalem, and there is nothing in the prophecies that indicate that they do, on the contrary. Jeremiah makes it clear that the 70 years are FOR Babylon (and Nebuchadnezzar, which has been elevated to be Gods servant), and not 70 years FOR Judah. The focus here is on Babylon. Actually, the Society has painted itself into a corner with this 607-crap, and they never had to. The 70 years probably DO begin somewhere around 609 (609 when the initial attacks begin, while Nebs father is still in charge) and end somtime around 539. That`s all ok with me, it`s even close enough to 607 to be acceptable, but 2520 days do not mean 2520 years anyway, so the Society is full of sh#t. And consequently, the 40 years of Egypt (within this line of thinking) means absolutely nothing for the whole idiotic 1914-doctrine. But nice layout and pictures on the website, though, I`ll give you that.

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

Hellrider

ThirdWitness:

40 years does not really mean 40 years. It is symbolic. Desolated with no inhabitant doesn't really mean NO inhabitant.

No, it sure doesn`t, as the Bible makes perfectly clear. According to Jeremiah 52:30, there were captives taken away from Judah even in Nebuchadnezzars 23rd year. Even if we use the Societys own calculations, with Nebuchadnezzar becoming king in 625 bc, this means that the land was not desolate for more than 65 years (602 would be Nebucahdnezzars 23rd year withing the insane WTS-"chronology", and from 602-537 there is 65 years). So you, and the WTS are of course admitting that "no inhabitant doesn`t really mean NO inhabitant".

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

Hellrider

Alan F:

Now, if there exists in a Bible book an unambiguous prophecy whose fulfillment ("the city will never be rebuilt") can be directly observed today to be false (the city exists as a vibrant community), then other prophecies in that book that are contradicted by solid historical data are extremely likely to be false, or they were never intended to be fulfilled literally

Brilliant. You explained it so even a jw should be able to understand it.

Thirdwitness:

I would also like to hear how exactly the WTS placed the 40 years of desolation for Egypt into the 588-48 - time frame. What was their approach? Could the approach have been something like...: we know that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 because of the momentous date of 1914 and counting backwards 2520 years, prophetic or regular years, whatever, who cares, noone will ever notice the difference...and then we need to stick those 40 years of Egyptian desolation somewhere where it suits our "chronology", and 588-84 is as good as any...

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

Hellrider

This is what jws love:

You might as well say the bible is not accurate and true if you are going to say that.

To make it into a case of jws+the Bible against the ungodly, horrible apostates. This is ridicolous, of course. I would urge all those that bothers going up against yet another jw on this issue (which ahs been debated to death a 1000 times, and in which each and every "point" of the WTS has been disproved again and again and again) to be careful not to argue in a way that might look to be contradictory to the Bible. They just love it when "apostates" do that, then they can gloat over how we will all die in a blazing inferno at Armageddon, lol. It is so simple to disprove that 607-stupidity without arguing against the Bibles own accounts of the story. I`m sick of this issue, but you can look thru the threads on this issue, thirdwitness, and see if you might learn something (of course, once doubt arises in your soul, you will turn away from it, and disappear from here).

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/112819/1.ashx

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/115461/1.ashx

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/113704/1.ashx

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/114685/1.ashx

This whole cubject has been done to death a 1000 times. Do you dare read thru the threads, and check the information you get there? Read carefully all posts by Jeffro, Alan F and Leolaia. Do you dare? I don`t think so.

Sadly, the joke is on you, not us.

12

Proverbs 8:22

by Ade in

i would like to know if there are trinitarians here and please could you share with me your thoughts on proverbs 8:22 - 36

where it appears to be teaching of jesus being bought forth by yahweh, as the beginning of his way (however not the begging for god has none ).

alternately non trinitarians put your views forward.

Hellrider

Like Shazard says: The book is about wisdom, not the messiah. But of course, christians will interpret it that way, especially the JWs, who just loves the part about the speaker here as being created.. But that makes it even more confusin, when the NT makes it clear that the Son was not created, but was with God in the beginning. The best solution is to be cautious, and accept what the NT says about the Son as not being created, and see Proverbs for what it is, a text about wisdom, and not originally Messianic at all.