Posts by hooberus

25

Evolution is a Fact #15 - Robinson Crusoe

by cofty in

there are two sorts of islands.

one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.

these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.

hooberus

How is Hawaii having “60 endemic species of honeycreepers” an “impossible dilemma for creationism”?

What is the “impossible dilemma” that you claim?

25

Evolution is a Fact #15 - Robinson Crusoe

by cofty in

there are two sorts of islands.

one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.

these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.

hooberus

Cofty you claim that it is an “impossible dilemma” for creationists?

What is the impossible dilemma?

I have asked this several times now.

Just telling people that they don’t “understand” and that they need to re-read the topic isn’t much of a support for your claim of “impossible dilemma.”

25

Evolution is a Fact #15 - Robinson Crusoe

by cofty in

there are two sorts of islands.

one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.

these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.

hooberus

Migration (from nearby mainland) is part of your scenarios.

What is the “impossible dilemma” for creationists?

25

Evolution is a Fact #15 - Robinson Crusoe

by cofty in

there are two sorts of islands.

one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.

these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.

hooberus

Cofty on another (summary) thread you wrote:

#15 Robinson Crusoe

The biogeography of oceanic islands presents an impossible dilemma for creationism.

So what is the “impossible dilemma”?

Does the “dilemma” assume that creationists don’t believe in or can’t use migration as a possible explanation?

25

Evolution is a Fact #15 - Robinson Crusoe

by cofty in

there are two sorts of islands.

one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.

these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.

hooberus

These facts about biogeography is exactly what evolution would predict. It is down to chance which species make it to an oceanic island. Having arrived these Robinson Crusoe species thrive and evolve to fill many different ecological niches, and finally we will find their closest relatives on the nearest mainland.

The challenge for creationists is to explain how all the species of birds, insects and plants came to be in the same place. Did god choose to create 60 similar species of honeycreepers and put them all on the same island?

So are you saying that evolutionists can claim migration (from a nearby mainland) as an explanation for certain things, but creationists can’t use the same explanation?

28

Jesus as 'The mighty + almighty God'

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses refuse to believe that jesus is the almighty god.

they would state that jesus is 'mighty', but not almighty.. below is a 30 minute video proving from the word of god that the lord jesus christ is both mighty and almighty, separate from the father but equal too.. the verses used from scripture show without a doubt that christ is mighty (isaiah 9:6) and almighty (rev 1:7-8)..

hooberus

Slimboyfat,

Do you disagree with the Watchtower on any point on their teachings on Jesus?

28

Jesus as 'The mighty + almighty God'

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses refuse to believe that jesus is the almighty god.

they would state that jesus is 'mighty', but not almighty.. below is a 30 minute video proving from the word of god that the lord jesus christ is both mighty and almighty, separate from the father but equal too.. the verses used from scripture show without a doubt that christ is mighty (isaiah 9:6) and almighty (rev 1:7-8)..

hooberus

slimboyfat,

Do you believe that Jesus is a man now?

13

Acts 20:28

by Fisherman in

acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.

nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.

nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..

hooberus

Since Christ is God (John 20:28) and man, this verse (as translated in the KJV) makes perfect sense.

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

hooberus

True, but these versions have been done by different individuals or entities throughout the last few centuries, not by ONE single religious entity during a timeframe of 7 decades, as is the case with the NWT.

The WT Society wants people to use (as much as possible) ONLY their publications when it comes to religion (WT, Awake, NWT, etc.). So they have a need to produce their own “Bible translation” in the hundreds of languages that they may have followers.

28

An interesting Observation of some Bibles

by Blotty in

first of all, hi, i go by blotty on this website :) i am someone who has a passion for the bible and like to get a as balanced view as i can from the trinitarian and the jw (or unitarian) side - even though i come off as leaning towards one or the other at times, in my opinion they both have merits in certain cases..if this is in the wrong section i apologise - this is just something i found interesting.iv seen online a lot that say the watchtower and tract society "invented" the link between proverbs 8:22 - 30 and jesus (the word).

yet interestingly some "mainstream" "trinitarian- aimed" translations are cross referencing the following:source:https://www.biblegateway.comprov 8:22 cr rev 3:14niv, gnt,esv, nasb, nasb1995, nasbre, cevprov 8:30 cr john 1:1,2 esv nasbprov 8:30 cr john 1:3esvnasb1995nasb(this list is by no means complete)if this is simply wisdom, why is it referenced with jesus (or the word)?.

hooberus

Verses 30 and 31 of Proverbs 8 are so apt as description of Jesus that, if you believe in Jesus and believe in the Bible, then it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is meant (inspired) to be taken as a reference to Jesus.
30 then I was beside him, like a master worker; (or little child)
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the human race.

No, it's not difficult to not apply this passage to Jesus.

1.) This passage is never directly quoted and referenced to Jesus in the New Testament.

and

2.) It is easily and naturally explained simply as a personification of an attribute of God in its original context.

Do you interpret Proverbs 1:20-21 as a reference to Jesus?

20 Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:

21 She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,

22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

How about 8:1-12?

1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.

3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

4 Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.

5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.

6 Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.

7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

10 Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.

11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.