we already know how jws will respond ( on a pole).
but i found an article that talks about jws views on how jesus died.
i didn't know that there was a time when jws accepted the cross unlike now.
Leo's answer reminded me of my regular complaint that Jesus was not "impaled". Justsus Lipsius illustrates impalement, with the pole entering the anus and exiting the mouth.
Have they dropped the term "impale"? I guess theirs is more like pole dancing than impalement.
Doug
we already know how jws will respond ( on a pole).
but i found an article that talks about jws views on how jesus died.
i didn't know that there was a time when jws accepted the cross unlike now.
They don't worship a cross?
But do they worship a pole?
Surely it was the death that mattered, not the implement.
The early NWT NT had pictures from Justus Lipsius showing a stake being used. I have a 1950 edition and it's on page 770.
They did not tell its readers that the book by Justus Lipsius has pictures of several methods (Andrews Cross, upside down, etc., etc.) and that Lipsius "preferred" the conventional cross.
Doug
i am preparing a critique that looks at the 51 instances the wts's brochure "the origin of life" uses scientists.. without preempting what i am looking for, i will appreciate your thoughts on the following endnotes: 7, 12, 17, 21, 23.. i need you to read what the brochure's author wrote and then compare that with the source.. thanks,.
doug.
I apologise, but I had not wanted to force the direction of any research.
I need to make myself less obscure.
I will appreciate being able to verify whether my findings are correct. Perhaps I have missed something, and I need to make certain I am correct regarding these Endnotes to “The Origin of Life”.
Doug
======
Endnote 7
The link provided at Endnote 7 brings up the article by Steven Schultz. Not one of the brochure’s reference words, including: cells, bone, blood, or trillion, appears in the article.
======
Endnote 12
Neither the expression “several hundred thousand different kinds” or anything like it, or parts of it, appears in the 7-page article referenced as Endnote 12. The word “million” appears only once.
======
Endnote 17
Key word attributed by the brochure at Endnote 17 that do not appear in the Berkeley Lab article include: carries, chance, coded, design, evidence, instructions, transmits, and undirected.
https://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/LSD-molecular-DNA.html
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2006/07/17/molecular-dna-switch-found-to-be-the-same-for-all-life/
======
Endnote 21
The following words do not appear in this article listed as Endnote 21: dense, information, teaspoonful, instructions, building, 350, humans, alive, today, seven, billion, people, living, earth, barely, make, film, teaspoon.
======
Endnote 23:
The passage attributed to Alberts does not mention the “origin of life” or identifying life’s origin.
I could only locate the Third Edition (2009) so I cannot vouch with precision whether the claimed passage appears in the Second Edition. Page 201 of the online Third Edition does not contain the claimed text.
The sole appearance of the word “rungs” is at page 234: “Bases in other configurations are indicated by broken rungs”.
Possibly the closest I could find to the passage in the brochure is:
DNA replication in bacterial and eucaryotic chromosomes is therefore termed bidirectional. The forks move very rapidly—at about 1000 nucleotide pairs per second in bacteria and 100 nucleotide pairs per second in humans. The slower rate of fork movement in humans (indeed, in all eucaryotes) may be due to the difficulties in replicating DNA through the more complex chromatin structure found in these organisms. (Alberts, Bruce (2004). Essential Cell Biology: Third Edition, page 203, online edition)
I could not locate the expression: “enzyme machinery”. Any assistance with locating the passages in Alberts’ books that are presented by the brochure will be greatly appreciated.
i do not want this to develop into another discussion on "607 bce date is wrong".. when the a-e section of "aid to bible understanding" was published, i was able to show that the article on "chronology" employed deceptive techniques when it cited its sources.
whenever i provided jws the evidence in print, it was like water off a duck's back.
"the brothers in brooklyn have done all the research, write to them", they would tell me.. i soon recognised that the jws followed the wts because of who it claimed to be.. it became clear that another, stronger force existed--the impact of shunning with the loss of close friendships and with the impact on their family relationships.. one could only stand by with concern thinking of the impact of the cognitive dissonance and observing the regular changes requiring lock-step obedience.
I do not want this to develop into another discussion on "607 BCE date is wrong".
When the A-E section of "Aid to Bible Understanding" was published, I was able to show that the article on "Chronology" employed deceptive techniques when it cited its sources. Whenever I provided JWs the evidence in print, it was like water off a duck's back. "The brothers in Brooklyn have done all the research, write to them", they would tell me.
I soon recognised that the JWs followed the WTS because of who it claimed to be.
It became clear that another, stronger force existed--the impact of shunning with the loss of close friendships and with the impact on their family relationships.
One could only stand by with concern thinking of the impact of the cognitive dissonance and observing the regular changes requiring lock-step obedience. What was anathema one day became orthodoxy, only to become anathema once more
I now see a reason why the JWs I knew would look forward to changes, probably with the hope that their internal beliefs had become policy.
Today we see the same, with the WTS being deemed "celebrated scholars". The scenario has not changed.
I can only guess that those JWs who keep in contact with the WTS's "chronology guru" (RF) would be concerned at his personal opprobrium should any of his fans openly disavow him.
Doug
alex - thank you for your offer to have a conversation about evolution.. i accept the scientific evidence that all life - including humans - evolved from a common ancestor through unguided evolution over millions of years.
this isn't even a controversial position in the scientific community.. the evidence rests on the data from many interconnected fields including paleontology, comparative anatomy, geology and especially genetics.
it is no exaggeration to say that the evidence for your own non-human ancestry is contained in every cell in your body.. it is my experience that jws are generally quite ignorant (not in a pejorative sense) of the scientific case.
Alex,
How does creation "testify to Jehovah's eternal power?"
It could just as easily testify that dozens of gods were involved.
Is proof decided by subjective, emotive opinion?
So this "eternal power" spoke and suddenly there was "something" when previously there was nothing. Is that more reasonable than science?
Evolution is seen today in the constant changes in bacteria and viruses, causing science to constantly develop new tools to combat them. This is making mankind today's greatest influence on evolution.
Doug
i am preparing a critique that looks at the 51 instances the wts's brochure "the origin of life" uses scientists.. without preempting what i am looking for, i will appreciate your thoughts on the following endnotes: 7, 12, 17, 21, 23.. i need you to read what the brochure's author wrote and then compare that with the source.. thanks,.
doug.
Wow, LeeT, Thank you.
I have saved your information to my computer and I will go through it very carefully and meticulously..
Thank you!
Doug
https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-jerusalem-finds-are-evidence-of-babylonian-siege-archaeologists-say/ .
matthew 24:14 new international version (niv).
14 and this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.. only one teaching will lead to salvation and the other one will lead to death forever.
both teachings will be from verses in nwt and mainstream translation of christendom to compare both,before starting the reason both translations is the translators in many cases slanted the text to support the believe of that time,for example :.
Alex,
E. C. Colwell was no fan of the Textus Receptus, the text that the KJV is based on. He preferred the 19th century text by Westcott and Hort. And it was on that basis alone that he rated the NWT: not on its correct renderings but whether it was aligned with Westcott and Hort over Erasmus's Textus Receptus.
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#E.C.%20Colwell
Which of the translations that you listed are based on Erasmus, Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland, or on an eclectic mix?
Doug
matthew 24:14 new international version (niv).
14 and this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.. only one teaching will lead to salvation and the other one will lead to death forever.
both teachings will be from verses in nwt and mainstream translation of christendom to compare both,before starting the reason both translations is the translators in many cases slanted the text to support the believe of that time,for example :.
Yes Alex, all of these are Scriptures that are provided to you by the Protestant Church, as the list shows. So you are just another part of Protestant Christendom.
Do you prefer the Textus Receptus, Westcott-Hort, or the Nestle-Aland?
Why do you accept Eramus?
What are your thoughts on Rotherham? and on Moffat?
Of course, no one knows what was originally written, anyway.
matthew 24:14 new international version (niv).
14 and this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.. only one teaching will lead to salvation and the other one will lead to death forever.
both teachings will be from verses in nwt and mainstream translation of christendom to compare both,before starting the reason both translations is the translators in many cases slanted the text to support the believe of that time,for example :.
Alex,
Why do you accept the Protestant Church's scriptures?
Doug
