any 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.
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?
about 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.
@ 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.
about 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.
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.
about 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.
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.
about 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.
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.
imputation is the concept that we are all sinners because of the original sin of adam.
and our only redemption is found in the sacrifice of christ on the cross/stake.
imputation implies that guilt passes from person to person from generation to generation, and redemption is passed from christ to us.
er, LuckyC... which research group has been looking for 'genetic sin markers'? Do they know what these markers look like? Do they know what every single byte of DNA codes for? Do they even know what most of the DNA codes for? I don't think so.... Printing out the machine code for Windows operating system doesn't mean you understand how it does what it does.
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
I do things this way because my intent is not to convince or convert you but simply to provide an alternative to the specious claims of devious apostates who have no love of truth or 'The Truth'.
Scholar, it is ironic that you should attack the integrity of posters here who have debated fairly and honestly with you and not been accorded the same courtesy in return. Sorry, did I say ironic? I meant sickening. Even this last nasty little comment is a self serving lie from start to finish. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have demonstrated not the slightest bit of interest in learning any truth, and I'm pretty sure the good people here only put up with you because they perceive just how deep is the dark well of delusion which you inhabit.
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
Scholar said:
537 BCE is not guesswork but a defined date calculated with the secular and biblical evidence if you have a better date then please put it up. No one suggests that the trek back to Jerusalem took two years but rather 4 months would be reasonable depending on what route the exiles took.
538 BCE IS A BETTER DATE AS HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED.
charles taze russell (ctr) was aware of difficulties with his dates.
while he was not prepared to move his babylonian dates of 538 (babylons fall), 536 (jews return), and 606 (destruction of jerusalem), he was quite prepared to move the 1914 terminus by a full year to 1915.. later, with its fixation at maintaining the new significance being given to 1914, the wts shifted ctrs babylonian dates back by one year, to 537 and 607 respectively.
but russell was not so concerned with the accuracy of 1914 and was quite prepared to move the terminus to 1915. he wrote the following in 1912:.
Interesting.
So it seems Russell's (and “chronologers Scalinger, Petavius, Usher, Prideaux, Jackson") pivotal date was the year 605/606 BCE.
Why was this year "indispensably necessary to reconcile the Canon to Holy Writ" ? Because of the understanding that there were 70 years of desolation of Jerusalem?
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
so this is all built on the Wt claiming (with no support) the decree was issued too late for the return to be in 538BCE
Absolutely brilliant, isn't it? You've got to hand it to those unknown celebrated scholars, they sure know how to knit a good story so they can pull the wool over your eyes.
