wizzstick

Joined

• started 36 topics
• posted 716 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by wizzstick

• 
  31

  why Jehovah's witnesses? not yaweh witnesses?

  by purrpurr in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this i never understood, the publications say that gods name translated from hebrew is yaweh.

  why add a whole bunch of letters and vowels that change the sound of the name completely?

  i've often thought surely we would gain greater respect on the ministry if we used a name that is historically and verbally accurate?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Why not Yehoshua instead of Jesus.

  Jesus is not two words joined together at a later time - the consonants of "Yahweh" and pronounced with the vowels of "Adonai".

  So it's different.
• 
  30

  Dissoi logoi - Jehovah's Witnesses do have the Truth! My Story Part 3

  by objectivetruth in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i stopped attending meetings over one year ago, and i have thoroughly made it clear to all friends & family that i am opposed to the teachings of jehovah's witnesses, and i cannot support a religion that teaches lies.. i have systematically examined each teaching & practice of the jehovah's witnesses.

  concluding that many are not scriptural or logical.. after a year i have very unexpectedly arrived at another conclusion.

  the jehovah's witnesses do have the truth.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Men love to control one another, and they all teach False Doctrine.

  Or you could do this.

  Say to your God: "What a bloody mess religion is. Sort it out and I'll worship you. Don't and I won't."

  If God cares he'll sort out religion.

  If he doesn't he won't (or maybe he doesn't exist...)
• 
  29

  Exodus 24:10 - The Israelites saw Jehovah? Has this scripture ever been explained?

  by truthseeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone really pondered what this means?

  jehovah said that no man can see god and live, and here at least 70 people saw jehovah standing on a bright blue pavement.

  24 then the lord said to moses, come up to the lord , you and aaron, nadab and abihu, and seventy of the elders of israel.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  This rendering "saw a vision of" is permissible according to what I saw from other usages of the Hebrew word that's used there,

  Really?

  And which Hebrew word is that?

  http://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/24-11.htm
• 
  59

  BBC Radio 4 reference to 607 Babylonian conquest?

  by 88JM in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  was listening to bbc radio 4 late sunday night, and in a programme about migration, they referenced the "babylonian conquest of jerusalem in 607 b.c.

  " which caught my attention.. did they not mean 587 b.c., or did i understand it wrong?.

  the link to the programme is below - sorry if you're not in the u.k. as you probably won't be able to listen to bbc programmes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Any more news on this?

  The guy from the production company didn't call back.

  There wasn't a mention on today's Feedback programme, so I've e-mailed the guy that called me (he e-mailed before he rang) and will get back with an update.
• 
  59

  BBC Radio 4 reference to 607 Babylonian conquest?

  by 88JM in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  was listening to bbc radio 4 late sunday night, and in a programme about migration, they referenced the "babylonian conquest of jerusalem in 607 b.c.

  " which caught my attention.. did they not mean 587 b.c., or did i understand it wrong?.

  the link to the programme is below - sorry if you're not in the u.k. as you probably won't be able to listen to bbc programmes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  If anyone gets a response (assuming it is not a form letter), it would be great if you post it here. Thanks!

  I did - just now!

  Just had a call from a very nice chap at the production company that made the programme.

  He wanted to know whether I would do a voice interview over a land line tomorrow morning. As my wife and I are fading I explained why I couldn't and he said he understood. I think he was trying to understand why this was an issue, so I briefly explained how the Neo-Babylonian period was a very well documented period and that there is no question of when Jerusalem fell. I also said that for Jehovah's Witnesses this is a important point, and the BBC broadcasting this date could result in them using it (in a publication).

  He could see my point and is going to call me back tomorrow. He doesn't know at this point whether it would be included in this weeks Feedback programme.

  He said (if I remember correctly) 3 or 4 complaints were received, so thanks to those that did.

  Good to know they have responded. And I'll let you know how the follow up call goes.

  (If anyone who did fill in the BBC complaint form, and I guess are in the UK, who would like to be interviewed then drop me a PM with your contact details on and I'll pass them on to the production company).
• 

  British PM hints at reporting abuse law change

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  mandatory reporting of child abuse?.

  www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28231675.

  be interesting to see how the wt applies the 'two witness rule' to this....

• 

  wizzstick

  Mandatory reporting of child abuse?

  www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28231675

  Be interesting to see how the WT applies the 'two witness rule' to this...
• 
  5

  Video - Brooklyn Eagle Bethel Tour

  by wizzstick in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  awful presenter, but worth watching if only for the jw.org badge on the jw pr guy.

  note his tie is the same colour... :.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eob8cirbaw.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Awful presenter, but worth watching if only for the JW.Org badge on the JW PR guy. Note his tie is the same colour... :

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EoB8CirBAw

  People saved for years for this? How very, very sad.
• 
  59

  BBC Radio 4 reference to 607 Babylonian conquest?

  by 88JM in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  was listening to bbc radio 4 late sunday night, and in a programme about migration, they referenced the "babylonian conquest of jerusalem in 607 b.c.

  " which caught my attention.. did they not mean 587 b.c., or did i understand it wrong?.

  the link to the programme is below - sorry if you're not in the u.k. as you probably won't be able to listen to bbc programmes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  on Google there are about 100,000 references each to Jerusalem and 586 or 587

  there are about 2,000,000 references to 607

  Gah!
• 
  59

  BBC Radio 4 reference to 607 Babylonian conquest?

  by 88JM in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  was listening to bbc radio 4 late sunday night, and in a programme about migration, they referenced the "babylonian conquest of jerusalem in 607 b.c.

  " which caught my attention.. did they not mean 587 b.c., or did i understand it wrong?.

  the link to the programme is below - sorry if you're not in the u.k. as you probably won't be able to listen to bbc programmes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  I doubt they looked at an old source, why would they? We'd be talking about a book from the 19th century!

  Either someone got it from JW literature or from a pro-JW site. No one else talks about 607.

  All historians site 586/587BC or 587BC as the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem. And all historical/Wiki websites do the same.
• 
  59

  BBC Radio 4 reference to 607 Babylonian conquest?

  by 88JM in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  was listening to bbc radio 4 late sunday night, and in a programme about migration, they referenced the "babylonian conquest of jerusalem in 607 b.c.

  " which caught my attention.. did they not mean 587 b.c., or did i understand it wrong?.

  the link to the programme is below - sorry if you're not in the u.k. as you probably won't be able to listen to bbc programmes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Thanks Searcher.

  Have posted that link on JWR (credited to your good self) on a thread I've started there on this nonsense.