SimonSays

Joined

• started 1 topics
• posted 252 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by SimonSays

• 
  19

  607 BC Discussion - JW Podcast

  by God_Delusion in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  hi guys & gals,.

  we finally get to tackle the 607 bc debate in our last show of the season.. please leave any comments here and let us know if you agree or disagree with any of the points we brought up about 607 bc.. http://www.jwpodcast.org/2015/05/24/s01e14-607-bc/.

  love,jaymes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  SIMON, first off, I am being very respectful of others opinions. I have in no way orchestrated or denounced anyone to get the negative response from this person FINKELSTEIN just so you understand the tone people say they don’t have.

  However continuing with my hypothetical.

  Weren’t the Babylonians using the solar-lunar calendar?

  It wasn’t until the Meton’s cycle came into play to adapt the means to the 365 day.

  There are some astronomical data that does suggest and point to this hypothesis.

  And indeed, it is hereby suggested directly that such a back-transformation does reveal the state of the earth as was once manifest at some remote point in history, wherein there truly was an exacting harmonic correspondence between the value of its orbital period in days, and the value ascribed to the equatorial circumference of the earth in Ideal Geographical Miles; both of which conformed to the basic numeric sequence of the Babylonian measures: 360 & 21600, via a x60 multiplier.

  The important to mention however, is that the numerical value of 360, nominally taken to be representative of a 360 degree circle (in geometry), does in fact represent 360 days of an ideal earth year, with the value 21600, actively representing the measure of the earth equator in ideal geographical miles.
• 
  19

  607 BC Discussion - JW Podcast

  by God_Delusion in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  hi guys & gals,.

  we finally get to tackle the 607 bc debate in our last show of the season.. please leave any comments here and let us know if you agree or disagree with any of the points we brought up about 607 bc.. http://www.jwpodcast.org/2015/05/24/s01e14-607-bc/.

  love,jaymes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  Doesn’t that become mutually exclusive, or symbolic? Without holding the hypothetical to a double standard, then it would simply imply that proving 607BC would auto redeem 1914, wouldn’t it.

  However, I'm still on the fence on the information and comments made here.
  
• 
  19

  607 BC Discussion - JW Podcast

  by God_Delusion in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  hi guys & gals,.

  we finally get to tackle the 607 bc debate in our last show of the season.. please leave any comments here and let us know if you agree or disagree with any of the points we brought up about 607 bc.. http://www.jwpodcast.org/2015/05/24/s01e14-607-bc/.

  love,jaymes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  I have a hypothetical question. What if someone proved 607BC to be a viable date through secular history, what then.
• 
  26

  Is it possible that you were raised in a false religion?

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  do you believe in islam?

  there are 1.6 billion muslims.

  do you accept the pope as gods representative on earth?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  I have no such influence.

  Then who is this that this person is writing about. Is there another Magnum in this forum?
  

  Example:Magnum, for all you pompous and arrogant comments, do you really think I care if I get kicked out of this forum? Please get a life. The only idiot here just commented. By the way, what happened to the right and freedom to speak? Isn’t that what all you people are saying, or is it censored so only you can speak?

  You came on this thread and made general accusations. I think you now realize you can't back them up. If so, please just go ahead and admit it. If you do, I will commend you for it.

  So please, don’t attempt to use reverse physiology. If there are elders in this forum, may god have mercy on their souls?
• 
  26

  Is it possible that you were raised in a false religion?

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  do you believe in islam?

  there are 1.6 billion muslims.

  do you accept the pope as gods representative on earth?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  Since you introduced the LUCA hypothesis that is cumbersome in its self, then you would have to go beyond your understanding to view all relevancy to it. The miller experiment is one, however just like everything scientific, it can be disproved by your own science, as in this case.

  Previously my own, now this is Copy/Past so, not to have your audience think that my hypothesis is one sided as it has become the norm in this thread. What has this to do with the original question posted? Nothing, this goes beyond simple intellect and the posted question.

  One textbook, edited by Soper (“Biological Science 1 and 2”; 3rd edition; Cambridge University Press) summarizes the situation well (p. 883):

  Despite the simplified account given above, the problem of the origin(s) of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. … Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.

  
  This conclusion is echoed by those who have spent many years researching in this field of biochemistry. Dr D E Hull wrote,

  The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation.

  
  Prof Francis Crick, who was a great believer in the accidental origin of life on Earth, said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.” Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.

  
  Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, 26-29) wrote,

  You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public.
• 
  26

  Is it possible that you were raised in a false religion?

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  do you believe in islam?

  there are 1.6 billion muslims.

  do you accept the pope as gods representative on earth?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  Ah yes...Eisenhower. The WTS sure tried to get mileage out of that man. I think of "Ike" as the WTS' Michael Jackson of the 50s - celebrity status with a JW connection. The WTS did not view Ike as an apostate - not by any stretch of the imagination - apostates don't get favourable articles written about them in WT literature.

  So what does the Awake imply? That is was giving people reading it NEWS of that time. There was not political agenda. The only political agenda is in the mindset of ignorant people that try to make one or their ignorant enough NOT to know how to read a Watchtower magazine.
• 
  26

  Is it possible that you were raised in a false religion?

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  do you believe in islam?

  there are 1.6 billion muslims.

  do you accept the pope as gods representative on earth?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  Come on Magnum, I've seen threads where you tell Simon to delete a person, be honest with yourself.

  Are you Awake SimonSays ??? Here's a little theological history of what was happening in the East Coast of the United States in the 19th century where William Miller and many other Christian preachers predominantly preached and the second advent or dispositional era leading up to the return of Christ , Nelson Barbour was another who C T Russell a had a close relationship with who were both involved in this diversely unique theology. In examining these numerous preachers and their doctrinal teachings, one can see that the possibility of the return of Christ was an engaging theology at the time and fostered the development of many religions that still exist today such as the Second Day Adventists, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons.

  Hey! I’m glad you know how to use Wiki. Just because it’s written doesn’t make it factual. If you really want the truth, I suggest you read all of Russell’s publicans. Don’t just look at the dates, but understand the parallels. Just maybe you’ll learn something, especially The differences in understanding he had with Barbour, a business acquaintance not a real good friend as you state, and that’s why they had that big fallout in 1878 because Russell l’s refused to accept Barbour’s Ideology. I’d tell the history but it seems redundant.
• 
  26

  Is it possible that you were raised in a false religion?

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  do you believe in islam?

  there are 1.6 billion muslims.

  do you accept the pope as gods representative on earth?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  I would simply say, I’m not attacking anyone’s character but simply stating the obvious. Since you have the influence to ban people from this forum, I will simply say, I disagree with your assessment.
• 
  26

  Is it possible that you were raised in a false religion?

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  do you believe in islam?

  there are 1.6 billion muslims.

  do you accept the pope as gods representative on earth?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  
  
• 
  88

  Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

  by FusionTheism in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i see an attitude among some people here which is not very helpful.

  i can understand it, but still, it's not constructive or helpful.. if you condemn the society for not changing, but then you also condemn them when they do change in a positive way, what incentive or motive does that provide for the people at the society to ever want to change for the better?.

  also, what does that attitude look like to current witnesses who are having doubts?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays