Posts by Hoping4Change

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.

Hoping4Change

3w said of my question: "Do I really need to comment on that.....again."

3W - I simply asked for some foundation, your premises. Your arrogance is noted.

ringo5 - Thanks for the supporting comment. I'm always leary of throwing my two cents into these huge discussions becuase I feel like a flyweight in a heavy weight bout, and typically expect to be ignored/tossed off as 3w has done. As much as I have tried to remain and approach JW material/claims with an open mind (I am neither a current or past jw, simply an interested 3rd party who does have, however, some connection with jw's of which i cant speak), I am constantly challenged (and sometimes fail) to remain calm when time after time all I see and hear from so many JWs and their material is an arrogance that appears so simply 'un-christian', at least so far as my understanding of Christianity goes. (lol, even now as I type, I can hear the JW claim that i have simply been decieved by satan the devil and the rest of christendom). I listen with open heart and open mind to what JW's offer yet continually find that it isnt Christendom which 'stumbles' me from 'being in the truth', JW's do it well enough by themselves.

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.

Hoping4Change

3W - You state that this proof is ".....according to the irrefutable evidence presented in God's word the Bible" Can you please explain the following: Fact: There are no dates in the bible. Therefore: In order to use the "irrefutable evidence presented in God's word the Bible", one must use SOME piece of secular/archaelogical/worldly evidence to establish AT LEAST ONE date from which to begin deriving any other chronological claims based upon "the irrefutable evidence presented in God's word the Bible." Please, can you give us what date and established from what "secular/archaelogical/worldly evidence" is used to do the rest of the derivation. I find that in order for your presented proof to begin merit investigation, you must present your "accepted" premises along with "why" it is accepted. Then and only then, is it possible to proceed with the proof offered. And one more thing, please do not just provide a link to some other site, or long winded thread. I just would like to know the foundational assumptions upon which this proof is based. Thanks.

2

Adam/Sin - Free will or Satan

by Hoping4Change in

just a quick question:

the new "what does the bible really teach?

" book says that "satan caused adam to sin".

Hoping4Change

Just a quick question: The new "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" book says that "Satan caused Adam to sin". (book not with me at the moment to provide page #) If Satan CAUSED Adam to sin, how was it that Adam was acting out of FREE WILL when he sinned. Surely Adam had no CHOICE if Satan CAUSED him to sin. ?? Can someone explain? Thanks.

142

539 BCE

by Zico in

jw
friends

a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

so, it is called an absolute date.

Hoping4Change

More questions from a simple person: Scholar: Please can you tell me: 1) Who and where are the celebrated WT scholars? You see, the reason I ask is that it seems a reasonable thing that for someone sincerely interested in such matters, one should be able to ascertain (to some degree) the 'qualifications' of those presenting/representing certain theories and ideas. Much in the same way that people check out (and are assured of) the credentials of their doctors and surgeons, think of this whole relgious arena as people seeking out doctors and surgeons for their spirituality. Surely people should investigate and find out the qualifications of those offering spiritual services and likewise, those offering themselves as being qualified to make such offerings have some kind of obligation and duty to show that they are indeed qualified to assist the individual seeking 'spiritual assistance'. Is there any part of this that doesnt make sense, or have I misunderstood something? Is there anyone else besides Furuli that you can give as an example of a WT scholar? And can you also describe in what way one may properly consider Furuli a "celebrated" scholar? 2) Again (as I have asked in other threads) can you please tell me what "biblical chronology" is? From everything I have read to date, it would appear as though the WT chronology relies just as much upon "secular chronology" as anyone else; i.e, WT chronology IS every bit as much SECULAR chronology as any other line of chronological reasoning. There is not a single date in the bible, hence all chronology absolutely must be secular based, correct? Truly trying to understand...

11

Do Kingdom Halls ever do the following?

by Hoping4Change in

i am assuming that the sunday and tuesday services are open to the general public.

do the kingdom halls ever stop someone from coming to these services simply becuase it is known that they dont agree with what is being taught (i.e an 'unbeliever')?

how about if a known 'unbeliever' joins a 'believing' spouse for all the meetings?

Hoping4Change

Thanks for all the responses! I dont need their library; I have Freeminds, ebay, this site and reexaminer for all the stuff I would ever need.

17

BoE letters up (1977-2001), plus public talk outlines

by Jourles in

jw
friends

it looks like the 1977-2001 letters are up!

the '01-'06 letters will be forthcoming shortly i hear.. http://www.reexamine.org/boe/.

i would suggest downloading the index (3.8mb) first, then you can view/download a particular letter referenced from the index.

Hoping4Change

Here's a download manager:

http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/

11

Do Kingdom Halls ever do the following?

by Hoping4Change in

i am assuming that the sunday and tuesday services are open to the general public.

do the kingdom halls ever stop someone from coming to these services simply becuase it is known that they dont agree with what is being taught (i.e an 'unbeliever')?

how about if a known 'unbeliever' joins a 'believing' spouse for all the meetings?

Hoping4Change

I would go to join/support spouse and research. Also so that it can not be said that my knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses only comes from 'apostate' material. If I ever want my spouse to listen to what I might have to say about things, the least I can do is listen/read what she is listening to (and reading) and be able to provide perspective, when possible. I would/could NEVER join; conscience and beliefs would never allow it. I have no spiritual hunger which their 'food' could possibly feed. Until they 1) honestly address all the issues that have been rightfully brought to bear against them, 2)change the disfellowshipping policy, 3) stop persectuing other religions, 4) stop the coersion used to prevent/curtail free/critical thought, 5) change the blood policy and 6) allow honest discussion and debate without fear of reprimand, they remain naught but an intellectual curiosity to me.(I'm sure there are a lot of other things in the list that just arent coming to mind at the moment)

11

Do Kingdom Halls ever do the following?

by Hoping4Change in

i am assuming that the sunday and tuesday services are open to the general public.

do the kingdom halls ever stop someone from coming to these services simply becuase it is known that they dont agree with what is being taught (i.e an 'unbeliever')?

how about if a known 'unbeliever' joins a 'believing' spouse for all the meetings?

Hoping4Change

I am assuming that the Sunday and Tuesday services are open to the general public. Do the Kingdom Halls ever stop someone from coming to these services simply becuase it is known that they dont agree with what is being taught (i.e an 'unbeliever')? How about if a known 'unbeliever' joins a 'believing' spouse for all the meetings? Will the believing spouse be told to tell the unbeliever 'not' to come if they're 'not going to join'? I understand that it wouldnt happen at first or immediately, but would/could it happen over time? Of the unbeliever, assume that that one always goes properly dressed, is always polite, never questions anyone's faith or attempts to 'stumble' anyone in anyway, but simply sits, listens and follows along. Thanks

28

The missing 20 years and Jehoiachin's exile

by AuldSoul in

in my attempt to make this issue as simplified as possible, i have set out to determine exactly wherein the wts' missing 20 years must be found (607 bc versus 587/86 bc).

i think i have done it, and i would like some confirmation/correction from alleymom, leolaia, narkissos and any others who consider themselves scholarly types.. first, using the kiss method alleymom posted some time back i regressed the accession years of the kings.

since the hillah stele astronomically confirms the first regnal year of nabonidus in 555 bc, and since the wts unqualifiedly agrees with this date (although they neglect to inform why they agree), nabonidus' accession year was 556 bc.

Hoping4Change

ummm....Josephus and the 537 calculation are "Secular" calculations, are they not? (Still wondering what "biblical chronology" is. Why? Because I am a simple person and it seems to me pertinent that in order to understand (which I am trying to do)the root cause of any disagreement, one must first establish if there is anything that opposing sides DO agree to; i.e. build up the list of 'agreed to' assumptions/beliefs, and THEN proceed to show how/why one derives the conclusions one does.)

28

The missing 20 years and Jehoiachin's exile

by AuldSoul in

in my attempt to make this issue as simplified as possible, i have set out to determine exactly wherein the wts' missing 20 years must be found (607 bc versus 587/86 bc).

i think i have done it, and i would like some confirmation/correction from alleymom, leolaia, narkissos and any others who consider themselves scholarly types.. first, using the kiss method alleymom posted some time back i regressed the accession years of the kings.

since the hillah stele astronomically confirms the first regnal year of nabonidus in 555 bc, and since the wts unqualifiedly agrees with this date (although they neglect to inform why they agree), nabonidus' accession year was 556 bc.

Hoping4Change

Scholar, Given that there are no dates in the bible, can you please explain what you mean by "biblical chronology"? thx