didn't the philistines possess bow and arrows during the time of samson?
samson was unbeatable in hand to hand combat.
he wiped out an entire army using only the jawbone of an ass, so why didn't the philistines simply get 20 or more archers, have them surround samson, and then simultaneously let loose a volley of arrows?
Apparently, the Philistines wanted to capture Samson alive, not dead. This is shown by the fact that when they finally did capture him they didn't kill him.So - get the 20 archers to all shoot him in the leg.
Would shooting Samson in a leg with several arrows render him weak and helpless? Even after the Philistines bored his eyes out it is reported: "the dead that he put to death in his own death came to be more than those he had put to death during his lifetime."
-
didn't the philistines possess bow and arrows during the time of samson?
samson was unbeatable in hand to hand combat.
he wiped out an entire army using only the jawbone of an ass, so why didn't the philistines simply get 20 or more archers, have them surround samson, and then simultaneously let loose a volley of arrows?
I find this to be an interesting topic. Anybody else out there care to share their thoughts? Hey, VM44, What do you think about my comment above?
-
didn't the philistines possess bow and arrows during the time of samson?
samson was unbeatable in hand to hand combat.
he wiped out an entire army using only the jawbone of an ass, so why didn't the philistines simply get 20 or more archers, have them surround samson, and then simultaneously let loose a volley of arrows?
The questions were asked:
Why didn't the Philistines surround Samson with a firing squad of 20 archers who would shoot their arrows into Samson at the same instant.
Or, Why didn't they simply drive a spike through his shaved-head after he had fallen asleep in Delilah's lap?
Apparently, the Philistines wanted to capture Samson alive, not dead. This is shown by the fact that when they finally did capture him they didn't kill him.
-
for me it was the fact that god is allowing all these innocent people to get killed to prove a point ,i mean it was a big bet he had with satan.. i explained it to my wife this way if i had our children killed in the most horriable way just to show they couldn't live without me how does that make me look?.
That animals would continue to die in the Paradise. I couldn't understand why God would create something with the intention that it should die. I still held onto the belief that if I was good enough Jehovah would let my pets live forever, if I was extra good, I prayed for them every night...I always felt guilty cause I thought if I wasn't good enough they would die too . Don't laugh...
I also find it unreasonable to think that animals were originally created to live for a little while and then die, or serve as food for man or other animals. I think that when paradise is restored to the earth, death will be no more for both man AND the animals. Then when the earth is comfortably full of man and animals God would see to it that there would be no more births, at least here on earth.
here's a link to the bittorrent file:.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5ysohsvy.
file is 311mb in size and .rar format, extract the files using a program like winrar then either burn the contents to cd or install it directly to your hard drive.. uploading file itself to megaupload, will post link when availible.
The 2007 Watchtower Library system requirements are as follows:
Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/Vista or higher
sorry its not a real good scan.
hope it does the job.. http://www.sendspace.com/file/35cacx.
Here ya go, Pallbearer. Enjoy. Bourne http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/150231/1.ashxMuch appreciated, Bourne!
sorry its not a real good scan.
hope it does the job.. http://www.sendspace.com/file/35cacx.
Thank you for the scan. Also, I somehow missed the March issue of the Study Edition. Has anyone scanned that? If so, would someone please point me to it, so I can download it.
never believing that a foreskin was a birth defect, i left my sons intact...( called genital integrity in some circles).
what, if anything, makes circumcision less of a mutilation than fgm?.
dont kill the questioner!!
Can't believe I read all three pages of this...note to self...get a life...
LMAO!!!!
I remember when my first son was born, and being faced with the question of circumcision. We rejected the offer, and am now glad that we did. A year later, when his brother came along, he wasn't circumcised either. They're now in their 40s, and were taught from youth the importance of keeping themselves clean. My father was not circumcised, and neither am I. Keeping hygienically clean requires discipline ... but then again so does washing behind the ears.
1. bethel in ny suspect high level apostate, cant identify it but know its there.
2. major organizational changes about to start rolling out, one is changes to the "service committee" and titles, po to be done away with, thats all i know for now.
was told that if you are the sort of person that cant handle changes, you wont stay in the org for long.
Attorn said:
There is a kind of "civil war" going on at the top but not open yet. It's more a war of manipulation currently than of works. Ted is ruling with an iron fist but there are two other powers in the GB. One power is moderate trying to modernize and think ahead for a "no-show scenario" and then there is the power of this group.
I wanted to ask: Do you know if certain doctrines are at issue with regards to this "civil war" that's going on? If so, is the 1914 doctrine one of those issues? How about the blood issue?
________________________________________________________________________
thank you alan feuerbacher!!http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/some-prophetic-speculations.html.
some prophetic speculationsalan feuerbacher.
1831: william miller begins preaching christ's return in the fall of 1843.. 1842: miller and followers begin publishing a journal, the midnight cry.. 1843, late: miller and followers disappointed; fix christ's return in the spring of 1844.. 1844, spring: miller and followers disappointed; fix christ's return on october 22, 1844.. 1844, late: miller and followers anticipate disappointment.. 1844, october 21: miller says: "i told some of my brethren christ would not come on the morrow" because the second coming would be "in an hour they think not".
1980: The Society admits to having had some share in the disappointment.
Could someone comment on how this was done? By what means did the Society do this? Was it by means of word of mouth, or was it in a publication? Exactly how was it worded?
