Posts by inkling

120

calling all firearm freaks...............

by primitivegenius in

looking at the gopher thread............. we got us some good old fashioned redneck gun afficiandos................ just curious......... whats your top ten wish list.... pairs dont count as two.

) a pair of les baer srp's built on a para ordinace p 14.45 frame......... all stainless but with baer coat im thinking olive and i want the light rail.

) a pair of consecutive sn ruger vaqueros in .45 colt w/ extra .45 acp cylinders rebuilt by gary reeder or doug turnbull..........4.5 barrel.

inkling

1.) a pair of

What exactly does a normal person do with a PAIR of handguns? Besides shoot a place up Matrix style?

I'm I missing something here?

[inkling]

22

A JW Nuclear Scientist

by inkling in

i ran across this article of the official jw website today.i vaguely remember reading it when it was first printed inthe wt.

the nuclear physicist (with a doctorate from a unnamed school)telling his story unabashedly defends the witness world view and stand on scientific fact and recorded history.http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htmit was articles like these that successfully kept my doubtssubmerged for many years.

here are some of the more interesting quotes:when my wife informed me of this arrangement, i immediately opposed her.

inkling

After reading that I am positive he meant to say he was a Nucular Scientist . . .

Lol! I missed the joke the first time I read it...

22

A JW Nuclear Scientist

by inkling in

i ran across this article of the official jw website today.i vaguely remember reading it when it was first printed inthe wt.

the nuclear physicist (with a doctorate from a unnamed school)telling his story unabashedly defends the witness world view and stand on scientific fact and recorded history.http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htmit was articles like these that successfully kept my doubtssubmerged for many years.

here are some of the more interesting quotes:when my wife informed me of this arrangement, i immediately opposed her.

inkling

Thanks for the other links.

[inkling]

4

Rebuttal needed for brand new JW apolagetic

by inkling in

ok, this comes from p15 of the feb 2008 wt:----what was the size of the molten sea at solomon's temple?.

the account at 1 kings 7: 26 refers to the sea as containing.

"two thousand bath measures" of water used by the priests, whereas the parallel account at 2 chronicles 4:5 speaks of it as containing "three thousand bath measures.

inkling

thank you, this is helpful.

[inkling]

22

A JW Nuclear Scientist

by inkling in

i ran across this article of the official jw website today.i vaguely remember reading it when it was first printed inthe wt.

the nuclear physicist (with a doctorate from a unnamed school)telling his story unabashedly defends the witness world view and stand on scientific fact and recorded history.http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htmit was articles like these that successfully kept my doubtssubmerged for many years.

here are some of the more interesting quotes:when my wife informed me of this arrangement, i immediately opposed her.

inkling

Ok, there was an older thread about this:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/79900/1.ashx

22

A JW Nuclear Scientist

by inkling in

i ran across this article of the official jw website today.i vaguely remember reading it when it was first printed inthe wt.

the nuclear physicist (with a doctorate from a unnamed school)telling his story unabashedly defends the witness world view and stand on scientific fact and recorded history.http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htmit was articles like these that successfully kept my doubtssubmerged for many years.

here are some of the more interesting quotes:when my wife informed me of this arrangement, i immediately opposed her.

inkling

The fact is you don't have to be super intelligent to be a scientist and many of them have rather mundane and mind numbing jobs.

excelent point.

4

Rebuttal needed for brand new JW apolagetic

by inkling in

ok, this comes from p15 of the feb 2008 wt:----what was the size of the molten sea at solomon's temple?.

the account at 1 kings 7: 26 refers to the sea as containing.

"two thousand bath measures" of water used by the priests, whereas the parallel account at 2 chronicles 4:5 speaks of it as containing "three thousand bath measures.

inkling

Ok, this comes from p15 of the feb 2008 WT: ---- What was the size of the molten sea at Solomon's temple? The account at 1 Kings 7: 26 refers to the sea as containing
"two thousand bath measures" of water used by the priests, whereas the parallel account at 2 Chronicles 4:5 speaks of it as containing "three thousand bath measures." This has led to the claim that the difference is the result of a scribal error in the Chronicles account. However, the New World Translation helps us understand how these two texts can be harmonized. First Kings 7:26 reads: "Two thousand bath measures were what it would contain." Notice that 2 Chronicles 4:5 says: "As a receptacle, three thousand bath measures were what it could contain." So 2 Chronicles 4:5 refers to the maximum capacity of the temple basin, what it could contain, whereas 1 Kings 7:26 states the quantity of water that was usually put into the temple basin. In other words, it was never filled to maximum capacity. It appears that it was customarily filled to only two thirds of its capacity. ---- This just seems dodgy to me.... Any resident Hebrew scholars? Here are the relevant verses in the Hebrew interlinear: alt

22

A JW Nuclear Scientist

by inkling in

i ran across this article of the official jw website today.i vaguely remember reading it when it was first printed inthe wt.

the nuclear physicist (with a doctorate from a unnamed school)telling his story unabashedly defends the witness world view and stand on scientific fact and recorded history.http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htmit was articles like these that successfully kept my doubtssubmerged for many years.

here are some of the more interesting quotes:when my wife informed me of this arrangement, i immediately opposed her.

inkling

come to think of it, why are there never any Witness BIOLOGISTS?

Ha

[ink]

22

A JW Nuclear Scientist

by inkling in

i ran across this article of the official jw website today.i vaguely remember reading it when it was first printed inthe wt.

the nuclear physicist (with a doctorate from a unnamed school)telling his story unabashedly defends the witness world view and stand on scientific fact and recorded history.http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htmit was articles like these that successfully kept my doubtssubmerged for many years.

here are some of the more interesting quotes:when my wife informed me of this arrangement, i immediately opposed her.

inkling

I ran across this article of the official JW website today. I vaguely remember reading it when it was first printed in the WT.

The Nuclear Physicist (with a doctorate from a unnamed school) telling his story unabashedly defends the witness world view and stand on scientific fact and recorded history. http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htm It was articles like these that successfully kept my doubts submerged for many years. Here are some of the more interesting quotes:

When my wife informed me of this arrangement, I immediately opposed her. I didn't mind that she wanted to join a religion—but not Jehovah's Witnesses! Actually, I did not know much about the Witnesses, but I had a preconceived idea that they were a strange group that used the Bible to deceive people. So, in an effort to free my wife from what I considered to be the grasp of the Witnesses, I thought that I would use my scientific knowledge to discredit their teachings.

One week I took a break from my research work at the university and went home to be present during my wife's Bible study. However, I arrived home later than I had planned, and the woman conducting the Bible study was about to leave. She gave me a book entitled Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation?* Also, she told my wife that during the Bible study scheduled for the following week, they would consider a Bible prophecy showing that 1914 was a significant year. That was exactly the opening I needed! I told the Witness that I would be at home for the next Bible discussion. I wanted to check the mathematical accuracy of what she was going to discuss about the year 1914.

That same night I began reading the book that the Witness had left. Frankly, the contents impressed me. It was written in a logical manner, and it contained numerous scientific references concerning the subject of evolution. To my surprise, I learned that the Bible contains much more exact information regarding creation than I had previously realized. I finished examining the book in a few days and had to admit that what the Bible actually states about creation does not contradict the known scientific facts concerning life on earth.

"Determined to Find Inconsistencies"

Nevertheless, I was still skeptical about the teachings of the Witnesses, and I was looking forward to doing a mathematical check of the Bible prophecy concerning the year 1914. I thought that this approach would no doubt intimidate the Witness and, hopefully, help my wife to see the error of the beliefs taught by the Witnesses.

The following week the Witness returned accompanied by a man who was one of the elders in the local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. The elder conducted the Bible study. He considered the prophecies found in chapters 4 and 9 of the Bible book of Daniel, concerning the appearance of Jesus as Messiah and King. My mind was set on finding mathematical inconsistencies in the presentation, but I found none. On the contrary, I was again impressed by the logic of the information contained in the Bible.

Up to that point, I thought that faith in God was based more on emotion than on reason. How wrong I was!

....

In my years of doing scientific research, I have never encountered a conflict between a proved scientific fact and a teaching of the Bible. Often, seeming conflicts are caused by a lack of knowledge—either of a scientific teaching or of what the Bible really says. For example, some scientists and others erroneously think that the Bible teaches that plants, animals, and humans all developed on earth within six literal 24-hour days. This would be in conflict with known scientific facts. But the Bible does not teach that. Rather, it reveals that the creative "days" encompass thousands of years.%

I have never encountered a conflict between a proved scientific fact and a teaching of the Bible

Confusion also arises from the mistaken idea that faith in God is merely an emotional experience. Far from that, faith in God and the Bible is based on facts that can be verified. As defined in the Bible, "faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration [or, "convincing evidence," footnote] of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) Yes, faith is based on evidence.Hundreds of prophecies have been fulfilled in the past and in our day. Thus, even applying the scientific method used by all scientists to establish a scientific theory, we can have complete confidence in the fulfillment of Bible prophecies that pertain to future events.

------

The article continues, but I will spare you the mawkish plug for paradise at the end.

For a young man fascinated by science but largely unexposed to good examples of it, articles like this one had a significant bolstering effect on my faith growing up. I mean here was an ACTUAL scientist telling me that everything was ok, that the Watchtower would never mislead me when it commented on scientific matters. Now I read this article slack-jawed in disbelief. How does this sort of thing HAPPEN to someone with a lifetime of science education???? How can he possible whore himself out like this and claim bible prophecy is defended with the "scientific method"??? [inkling]

4

now where did I put my hypocrite bell...

by inkling in

ok, this is officially my favorite part of the meeting.

that i barely survived sitting through tuesday:.

be book, p224.

inkling

Ok, this is officially my favorite part of the meeting
that I barely survived sitting through Tuesday:

BE book, p224

On the subject: "Checking the Accuracy of Information"

---

HOW TO DO IT

Resist pressure to give an answer when you are unsure.

Base your comments on “the pattern of healthful words” in the Bible.

Do research on your subject.

Check the accuracy of statistics, quotes, and experiences, and use them without exaggerating. Avoid guessing at details that you do not clearly remember.

---

In addition to checking the reliability of the sources, consider carefully how you plan to use the information. Make sure that your use of quotations and statistics harmonizes with the context from which they are taken. In an effort to express yourself forcefully, be careful that “some people” does not become “the majority of people,” that “many people” does not become “everyone,” and that “in some cases” does not become “always.” Overstating matters or exaggerating reports involving number, extent, or seriousness raises questions of credibility.

When you are consistently accurate in what you say, you will come to be known as a person who respects truth.This reflects well on Jehovah’s Witnesses as a group. More important, it honors “Jehovah the God of truth.”—Ps. 31:5.

---

say it with me now... ARRRRGGGG!!!!

[inkling]