Posts by done4good

done4good again ask about the day for a year. Do you want me to copy and paste what I said again. I thought that was unnecessary and repetitive so I didn't.

I won't comment anymore about this subject, or any other that you post, because obviously you cannot understand that being "repetitive" is not the issue here. YOUR EXPLAINATION USES CIRCULAR REASONING. It is ASSERTION and ASSUMPTION only. Just like all WT literature.

done4good.

14

The Bible is NOT the word of God

by sinis in

after reflecting on the article i have come to the conclusion of the author as well, in that the bible is not the word of almighty god.

perhaps some tribal demi-god but not god almighty.

good read:.

done4good

Good article, sinis.

j

27

WTBS Special Campaign -October 2006.

by architect in

jw
friends

not sure if this was posted already:.

starting oct 16- nov 12 there will be a special distribution of kingdom news #37 "the end of false religion is near".

don't understand the dates of this distribution.

done4good

Maybe they will bring back the old sandwich boards that read 'Religion is a snare and a racket'

LOL, If they do that, maybe I'll join them!

j

55

for atheists/agnostics

by BlackSwan of Memphis in

jw
friends

how did you get to the point where you are at now?

was it primarily new information that made you rethink religion and god?

learning about the ice age, the universe, the fossils out there?

done4good

Black Swan,

It, (my Atheism), really came from examining religion openly after leaving the WTBTS. I tried very hard to "accept" the bible, and attempted to reason for it, but the more I researched, the more questions I found had no answer. It became apparent to me that religion was merely the product of man, attempting to explain the unexplainable. I no longer concern myself with things I cannot "know", such as whether god exists or not, and prefer to focus on things I can better myself, and others with.

j

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

done4good

If a day for a year is not applied then that means that the 7 times lasted from 607 to 600. Did a ruler of God's Kingdom come forth then? Logical reasoning will lead a person to believe that the day for a year rule must apply otherwise the prophecy is meaningless. We have as an example the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel chapter 9. The day for a year rule must apply in Daniel chapter 9 or the prophecy is meaningless and is of no value.
As we have already shown Daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years. Therefore it must mean more than 7 years. Otherwise he would have said 7 years not 7 times. Do you think that Jehovah was trying to trick us by using the terminology of 7 times and then explaining the length of 3.5 times in Revelation only to merely mean that the 7 times that pass over are 7 years and that is all? AT the same time he supplied the rule ' a day for a year ' when Ezekiel laid on his side for so many days (which by the way pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem in 607). He also supplied the prophecy of the 70 weeks which also needs the rule of 'a day for a year' for it to have value. The 70 weeks from 455 brings us to 453.5. Nothing happened. So surely it must be a day for a year.
With that said, is there any other reason to apply the day for a year rule to the dream? For a moment lets reason why God wanted us to know exactly how long 3 1/2 times are. In one place he calls it 42 months, in another place he calls it 1260 days. If it only meant 42 regular months then why be so specific about it. What difference does a few days here or there make? Why not just 3½ years or 42 lunar or solar months? The only time a few days does make a big difference is when you are dealing with a prophecy that has a day for a year rule applied. In this case every day makes a big difference. When you combine this with the fact that every prophecy of Daniel either concludes with Jesus arriving in God's Kingdom or with the arrival of the Messiah who is the King of God's Kingdom, then you have a pretty strong reason to apply the day for a year rule.

I really fail to see anything conclusive here. Just assumption. Just beacuse "nothing happened", dosen't make it OK to just arbitrarily apply this rule. And what does "The only time a few days does make a big difference is when you are dealing with a prophecy that has a day for a year rule applied", mean? I'm not trying to be smug here, but there does not appear to be any obvious connection. Can you please clarify without using weak assumptions.

j

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

done4good

Clearly we can readily see that 3.5 times = 1260 days. By doubling both figures we can easily conclude that 7 times = 2520 days. Then by applying the day for a year rule we deduct that 7 times = 2520 years. Amazing as it may seem, it is 2520 years from 607BCE to 1914CE. Are the seven times of Daniel chapter 4 to be applied in connection with the Gentile Times and God's rulership?

First of all Thirdwitness, the very use of "a year for a day" rule is arbitrary here. Can you possibly shed some light on why the WTS chooses to apply this principle to this scripture but not others???

j

p.s. Your dogmatism is really growing old.

17

Hiding from the reality

by KW13 in

jw
friends

.

as a dub, were the days you doubted it was the truth, maybe even for a split second?.

i remember, i was always thinking about something related to that, wondering 'what if its not the truth'..

done4good

I would say the "seeds" of doubt were planted years ago, but I never really doubted until recently. When that fianlly happened, I began to research, and it did not take long for the tower to fall after that.

-No pun intended.

j

18

The "Fade" - Evaluating A New Phenomenon

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

to what extent has the growth of the "fade" been facilitated by internet forums such as this?

sure there were people who chose to fade in the pre-internet era, simply by withdrawing themselves, gradually involving themselves with non-witnesses to a greater extent, or getting in touch with other ex-witnesses covertly through the convention system/telephone and mailing support network that used to be more important before the advent of the internet.

so the "fade" is not an invention of the internet era, not en entirely "new phenomenon".

done4good

I have a good friend of mine, (still a jw), who was inactive back in the '80s, for about 8 years. Even after returning to the org, he still had many ideas that did not agree with the society, to say the least. I was relatively new to the org, (recently baptized), at the time, and I remember finding much of his beliefs at the time to be a bit "off" compared with the jws. Anyway, if we fast forward about 20 years, he's an elder, and I'm out of the org. Much of the seeds of doubt were planted in me during those days. If he had the internet available to him at the time, I am 100% certain, he would not be in the org today.

j

31

It seems.......

by agapa37 in

jw
friends

that despite my sincere efforts of sincerity and honesty that most who interacted with me were rather uptight and rude.

i really dont understand it.

forgive my babbling.

done4good

Welcome, Agapa.

In fairness guys, there may be good reason why she is evading the "are you an active witness" question. Many jws that lurk, (and post), here know they can get into trouble if they were found out. Chilling out needs to go both ways buds.

j