Fair enough Old hippie, it's just a shame that the one example you picked on to demonstrate Anderson's alleged 'vast exaggeration' is actually no exaggeration at all, as attested to by people here, from Watchtower documents, and from from my own personal experience.
BarefootServant
JoinedPosts by BarefootServant
-
60
Why it's Dangerous to Associate w/ Jehovah's Witnesses-Barbara Anderson
by flipper inbarbara wanted me to post this info she shared recently at a speech she gave at a seminar.
all comments welcome.
peace out .. .
-
-
-
60
Why it's Dangerous to Associate w/ Jehovah's Witnesses-Barbara Anderson
by flipper inbarbara wanted me to post this info she shared recently at a speech she gave at a seminar.
all comments welcome.
peace out .. .
-
-
BarefootServant
OldHippie, I applaud your call for balance, but when it comes to Lies that life is black and white, don't forget that it's the Watchtower Society that insists on seeing life in vivid monochrome. I've just read through Barbara's article again and, bitter or not, I find very little in there that is exaggerated although it is certainly critical. Maybe shining a light on 'the truth' is just too painful.
-
60
Why it's Dangerous to Associate w/ Jehovah's Witnesses-Barbara Anderson
by flipper inbarbara wanted me to post this info she shared recently at a speech she gave at a seminar.
all comments welcome.
peace out .. .
-
-
BarefootServant
OldHippie, Barbara Anderson's version is much closer to the truth than yours. Not that long ago I had to sit through a circuit assembly talk aimed directly at the youngsters which stressed that they shouldn't be seeking 'the falsely called knowledge'. Disgusting, if only for taking that scripture completely out of context. In our (quite affluent) area almost nobody chooses to go to university - it is absolutely frowned upon. You may be lucky where you are, but the pressure to avoid advanced education is not locally originated, it comes right from the top.
-
40
"One of" Jehovah's Witnesses
by NeonMadman inany thoughts on that particular phrasing?
personally, i think the wts uses it as another form of mind control.
by calling the individual "one of jehovah's witnesses," it lends a generic feel to the wording.
-
-
BarefootServant
I'll think of that the next time I see a Craigslist ad, oops I mean, one of the ads from Craigslist.
I'm very pleased to hear that, although I think I prefer the more succinct, one of Craigslist's ads.
-
40
"One of" Jehovah's Witnesses
by NeonMadman inany thoughts on that particular phrasing?
personally, i think the wts uses it as another form of mind control.
by calling the individual "one of jehovah's witnesses," it lends a generic feel to the wording.
-
-
BarefootServant
Hi Leolaia,
Yes, of course, if you make 'Jehovah's Witness' a noun then 'a jehovahs-witness', or even 'a jehovah-witness' is correct. But 'Jehovah' is not a thing, it's the name of a person who (allegedly) has, or posesses, witnesses or followers. Making the term into the noun 'Jehovahs-witness' results in a catastrophic loss of meaning of both of the individual words (what does jehovah-witness mean?). So 'one of Jehovah's witnesses' or 'one of Jehovah's followers' or 'a witness of Jehovah', is the only correct form in English (and is the way the society uses it, in print anyway) if meaning is to be retained. People get this wrong either due to ignorance of the fact that Jehovah is a name, ignorance of English grammar, or laziness. IMO witnesses themselves are inexcusable when they use the term as a noun or title because it disrespects the very name that they claim to hold sacred.
Thank you for your hideous examples. Apart from 'I don't give a rat's ass' (which seems reasonable to me since rat isn't a name and he certainly posesses an ass, although maybe 'I wouldn't give you a rat's ass' would be better), the rest demonstrate what happens when you let things slide.
-
40
"One of" Jehovah's Witnesses
by NeonMadman inany thoughts on that particular phrasing?
personally, i think the wts uses it as another form of mind control.
by calling the individual "one of jehovah's witnesses," it lends a generic feel to the wording.
-
-
BarefootServant
huh? What's the matter with you people? It's nothing to do with plural or belonging. "I'm a Jehovah's witness" is simply bad grammar. If I was a witness at a trial for my friend Brian, I wouldn't say "I'm a Brian's witness" - I'm Brian's witness or one of Brian's witnesses. The 's stands for his.
When I was in, I used correct people whenever they said "I'm a Jehovah's witness" (I'm a pedantic bugger about that sort of thing), not that they ever took any notice.
Hello?
-
121
Documentary About The Flood and Noah's Ark
by Blue Grass inabout a week or two ago i watched a documentary about the flood in noah's day entitled "in search of noah's ark".
two things i found very interesting in this program is a theory that one person had about how they believed the flood was caused due to a meteor hitting the ocean creating a tsunami that flooded the entire earth.
scientist were unanimous in their view that this is a very plausible scenario and that there is no way to rule this possibility out.
-
-
BarefootServant
@ Psychotic Parrot:
Yup, I agree. From Wiki:
Schweitzer was the first researcher to identify and isolate soft tissues from a 68 million year old fossil bone. The soft tissues are collagen, a connective protein. Amino acid sequencing of several samples have shown matches with the known collagens of chickens, frogs, newts and other animals. Prior to Schweitzer’s discovery, the oldest soft tissue recovered from a fossil was less than one million years old. [8] Schweitzer has also isolated organic compounds and antigenic structures in sauropod egg shells. [9] With respect to the significance of her work, Kevin Padian, Curator of Paleontology, University of California Museum of Paleontology, has stated "it's time to readjust our thinking." [8]
The claim of discovering soft tissues in a 68 million year old fossil was disputed by molecular biologists for 15 years after Schweitzer's announcement. The authenticity of her discovery, however, is now generally accepted in the scientific community although the mechanism of the preservation is not well understood.
Young Earth Creationists have cited Schweitzer's work as evidence that the earth is only a few thousand years old. [10] Schweitzer, however, who describes herself as a "complete and total Christian," has nonetheless condemned this interpretation of her work. [7]
So, the preservation mechanism needs work but we're not here talking about actual dinosaur flesh that's survived for 65 million years.
-
121
Documentary About The Flood and Noah's Ark
by Blue Grass inabout a week or two ago i watched a documentary about the flood in noah's day entitled "in search of noah's ark".
two things i found very interesting in this program is a theory that one person had about how they believed the flood was caused due to a meteor hitting the ocean creating a tsunami that flooded the entire earth.
scientist were unanimous in their view that this is a very plausible scenario and that there is no way to rule this possibility out.
-
-
BarefootServant
Bohm, I'd be surprised if you could find a single orthodox scientist who would not be incredulous that intact organic remains of 65 million year old dinosaurs can be found just by digging around a bit in the ground. On the other hand, if you are correct and this is not at all controversial and quite ordinary and expected, then we can expect that teams of scientists worldwide are even now working tirelessly to be the first to sequence dinosaur DNA, and claim their Nobel prize.
Whether or not this has any bearing at all on 'the flood' I don't know. I thought I had made clear that what interested me was this claim about the dinosaur remans, and the implications for the accuracy of the dating of fossils if it is true. Personally, I do not find it credible that any animal cells can routinely (if at all) exist for 65 million years.
-
121
Documentary About The Flood and Noah's Ark
by Blue Grass inabout a week or two ago i watched a documentary about the flood in noah's day entitled "in search of noah's ark".
two things i found very interesting in this program is a theory that one person had about how they believed the flood was caused due to a meteor hitting the ocean creating a tsunami that flooded the entire earth.
scientist were unanimous in their view that this is a very plausible scenario and that there is no way to rule this possibility out.
-
-
BarefootServant
I remember reading an article years ago where there was an image of (i believe) remains of muscle fiber from a dinosaur. i just dont see why its such a shocking idea to find organic material from more than 65 mio. years ago. The gassoline in your car is older than that, and thats organic- or how about insects in amber? some of them are more than 100 mio. years old and very well preserved.
How long will the gas in your car last out in the open air? And insects in amber are insulated from the air, that's the only reason they're protected from decay.
-
121
Documentary About The Flood and Noah's Ark
by Blue Grass inabout a week or two ago i watched a documentary about the flood in noah's day entitled "in search of noah's ark".
two things i found very interesting in this program is a theory that one person had about how they believed the flood was caused due to a meteor hitting the ocean creating a tsunami that flooded the entire earth.
scientist were unanimous in their view that this is a very plausible scenario and that there is no way to rule this possibility out.
-
-
BarefootServant
Surely it is pointless arguing over the word 'rotting'. The fact is, the agreed evidence is that there are organic remains of dinosaurs that are allegedly millions of years old. Also, it is a fact that most scientists regard this possibility as preposterous. So either Dr. Schweitzer is wrong (and possibly incompetent), or she is right and the scientific community has a paradigm shock on its hands. It will then be for them to determine whether the organic remains of dinosaurs can indeed survive for millions of years, or whether the best explanation is that they are much younger. However, and I share Perry's cynicism here, there's not much incentive to rock the boat.
Fascinating stuff.