pi and the bible has been the subject of debate before.
however, i had not seen this information which clear up the 1 kings 7:23 issue before so i am posting here.
also, the two constants, pi and e encoded in the first verse of the ot and nt respectively, see second article.. full details in the url at the start of each topic.. the value of pi.
The recent discovery that the speed of light is not a constant has created quite a stir - and rethinking - in both physics and cosmology.
Well, except it is not a discovery, it is a conjecture, and there is plenty of proof that is has not changed in measureable way. Its something usually promoted by creationists because it somehow (i dont know how) indicated a young universe.
pi and the bible has been the subject of debate before.
however, i had not seen this information which clear up the 1 kings 7:23 issue before so i am posting here.
also, the two constants, pi and e encoded in the first verse of the ot and nt respectively, see second article.. full details in the url at the start of each topic.. the value of pi.
The question here is a statistical one: "could this has happened by chance?", and quoting Einstein does not change that. One has to give a statistical answer to that, even the guys with the bible code tried to do that (but failed to convince anybody but themselves).
The problem is that we are not geared to understand statistical questions, or questions where we have to weight large numbers (the amount of combinations/interpretations of alphanumerical numbers in the bible vs. the low propabiblity of each "hit").. i have this problem every day, statistical modelling is a large part of my studies :-) .
pi and the bible has been the subject of debate before.
however, i had not seen this information which clear up the 1 kings 7:23 issue before so i am posting here.
also, the two constants, pi and e encoded in the first verse of the ot and nt respectively, see second article.. full details in the url at the start of each topic.. the value of pi.
...and when we are at it, the thing about using letters as numbers, that was invented 400 years AFTER that particular verse about the circumference was written...
pi and the bible has been the subject of debate before.
however, i had not seen this information which clear up the 1 kings 7:23 issue before so i am posting here.
also, the two constants, pi and e encoded in the first verse of the ot and nt respectively, see second article.. full details in the url at the start of each topic.. the value of pi.
Oh dear... What one must keep in mind with these speculations is, that there are no clear rules what formulas, interpretation, etc. that should apply. Basically by using the "alphanumeric" rule, you turn the whole bible into a large collection of numbers, you then choose arbitrary subsets of these numbers, use arbitrary rules on them, and get other numbers and some of them happends to approximate known constants.
after the thread on the gay prom queen.... so many things in the modern world are issues because they are in the holy books of a certain stone age nomadic tribe, who like most desert wanderers cut off the skin of the penis.. why can nobody ever quote something from the sanscrit books or any of the other holy writings when they want to justify hating and or killing somebody whose life is different.. think of all the trees wasted printing "proofs" of noahs global flood - we all know that if it were in any other holy book it would have been dismissed as trash without a second thought.. hb.
I think a policy of censoring hate-speech would be a good idea. 1/10-1/20 of all men are gay, thats quite a lot of users here. I cant believe anybody want them to come here and see such hate and bigotry as sam and others displayed on that threat, quite frankly i find it disgusting. This site is here to help others, not promote hate, there are plenty of other places on the internet where they can do that.
i need some help anti witnessing.
she is "on the fence" as it were, i am well on the side , at least mentally.
how do i slowly but surely nudge her off the fence?.
Hey! (sorry if this answer seem very basic - i dont know how much you have read :-) )
First off, your wife has been under mind control for long time - she is not completely rational with respect to the religion. I would very much recommend you first read litterature such as Stephen Hassans "Releasing the Bonds" to understand how that work, what the signs are, and what can be done. Then you need to "know your shit" about WT... Crisis of Consciousnes is a must here, because you will be able to demystify the Board and the faitfull and discrete slave.
After this, i would also recommend you to read up on the historical background. There is a lot of good information out there, but the best book i have read is "Apocalypse Delayed"; the author is a historian and has been in jehovas witnesses for very long time.
It is not as "sensational" as much other litterature, but i think that just make the punches that more effective: it is very, very difficult to find good counterarguments.
Now, simply ask her why she believe... why she think they are right. Talk about spiritual things.Talk about mindcontrol... you have to be carefull(the book will tell you how to do it), and search the net for information on how to apply it to JW (the book is general, which IMHO is a *good* thing!). Choose your battles wisely. In my experience its not good to talk about the NWT, because well, none of you really know enough greek anyway, or the cross/stake for the same reason. Besides, these things are not so important when you think about it!. If she is technically minded, read critisism on "Life - how did it get here?". Its a GOLDMINE on interlectual dishonesty, lying and misquoting.
Invite her to bring out litterature to counter-argue. if she does, read it very, very throughoutly so she see you take your time. Underline the weighted language, the bad arguments, the name-calling, the appeal to authority, the slandering of you, the generalisations - basically everything that has to do with mind control. Do it with a marker and take your time. give her examples from eg. the mormons.
Last, take your time. Show her what real love is. Show her life outside the WT is. Mind control cannot erase her real personality, she is in there, and she will come out.
Love...
hey!
i stumbled on something on jwfacts.com.
on this page (http://jwfacts.com/index_files/1800s.htm) it says: (my emphasis).
Thanks a lot for the response!
JWFacts: Thanks for the scans! You got to love the talk of the sword from the all-loving God. I say the poor devil should have been removed as a child, only child with such a violent dad..., no wonder he turned out the way he is! :-) .
StoneWall: Good story... this is actually also the one change in the chronology that surpriced me the most... it just seem so arbitrary to change this one sentence and still leave so many strange things in the other magazines. Its my impression most witnesses know that now and then there are a lot of new light (or perhaps rather, things that can be interpreted that way by people who dont have the full picture..), but they believe the magazines are reprinted as they were.
stillajwexelder: I know that its possible to come up with explanations like "but they quickly realised this was an human error made by the guy who wrote the article, not actual 'light'" (and lets face it, that is actually a reasonable explanation), but it leaves a lot of questions, like: "if they realised so quickly this was changed, and it had such a simple explanation, why was it not written in the subsequent edition of the watchtower? wouldnt they be in the FDS's interest that everybody has the proper light at all times?" or "i believe jehovas witnesses are very proud that they admit errors when they are made as opposed to the catholic church? Do you believe having a transparent policy with regard to changes in doctrine is important? (etc.).
I want to make a small thought experiment. Suppose that the catholic church printed a book with what appeared to be verbatim copies of older puplications the vatican had printed. Suppose they realised that one of the articles was wrong shortly after it was printed, but did not puplish an errandum at the time. Now, suppose that the reprint of the article contained that change... and it was quite an important change, i mean, assume it was the most important part of the article and something the catholics had talked about amongst themselves at the time... but nothing indicated that a change had been made.
Do you believe this would indicate a transparent politic with regards to changes in previous puplications? Suppose that the only way a catholic could find out about this change was to actually go to a library or something and find an actualy copy of the magazine from the time it was printed, which was decades ago, do you believe that is an easy/honest/transparent way of letting the catholic have acess to the churchs history?. Would you advice him to spend at least a night or two searching for information on his church to see if other changes had been made, so he could put his mind at ease that his church did not handle its own past in a dishonest way, and that this change was just a one time error?"
Well, i think i will try it out on a witness if i get a chance. im quite interested in seing how one can rationalise these things.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227103.800-religions-owe-their-success-to-suffering-martyrs.html.
it is interesting that as the watchtower has reduced the burden on its followers that its growth has fallen.over recent years the following things has eased up;.
number of pioneer hoursnumber of weekly meetingslength of meetings and assembliesacceptable blood products.
thanks for the post, its quite an interesting perspective. If anybody is interested the actual article can be found here: http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Henrich_Evolution_of_Costly_Displays_accepted.pdf .(a preprint anyway)
I guess that managing a mind-control cult is quite a delicate thing - on one hand the leadership has to be crazy to make unreasonable demands and spew out arbitrary crazy laws, on the other hand, to much and you get something like 1914, 1925, 1975 and alienate everybody but the core believers. It puts a new light on who weather one should hope for a more or less strict line from the FDS.
Wonder if this would indicate that its hard for a cult to implode - when people start to leave, the hardliners may become paranoid (after all, it must be the works of the devil!), and instate a lot of crazy new rules...
hey!
i stumbled on something on jwfacts.com.
on this page (http://jwfacts.com/index_files/1800s.htm) it says: (my emphasis).
Hey! I stumbled on something on jwfacts.com. On this page (http://jwfacts.com/index_files/1800s.htm) it says: (my emphasis)
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century." Watchtower 1989 January 1 p.12 This is as written in the originally printed 1989 article, not as contained in the bound volume or the version on the CD library. I pioneered during the late 1980's and was strongly influenced by the statements in the 1980's articles. I told my Bible studies and many people when preaching that it would be almost impossible that the end would not have arrived by the year 2000.
Thats quite new to me, i thought the articles contained on the CD was in their original versions. Does anybody know if this is true and if so, to what extend this is happening? Is alterations on material on the cdrom systematic? What is the version of the quote on the CD?
in the ble book "life - how did it get here?
by evolution or by creation?
" on page 203 you can see a picture of a mamooth with a note: frozen mamooth found in siberia ... still had grass in his mouth and in his stomach .... was frozen immediately ....".
The thing is here, if you were to tell that to a JW, they would say that quite possibly the WT did make a mistake. However, I'm sure they would jump on the fact that it drowned and quite possibly from the flood! Followed by ice being formed after the weather changed...It would fit the agenda.
Well, I suppose i would ask if i understand it correctly that the mammoth in question was drowned in rain, it then lay there a couple of weeks (this is how long they guess the decomposition took!) whily fluids from its corpse went into the ground around it (as described by those who found it) where the heaviest downpour in history didnt remove it, then, a couple of weeks into the flood, and supposedly beneath quite a lot of water, the corpse frooze solid, and remained frozen untill it was found?. I think i would ask why the mammoth didnt float away but remained in place, if they have an idea of the process that suddenly caused the temperature to be lowered locally around the mammoth, and i think i would ask why and where the WTC got its version of the story from (having material from creationists ready to show that that was the actual source).
The key is to keep recapping his version of the arguments, saying things like "okay, let me see if i understand you correctly now", repeat the silly thing he said, and then ask small questions to keep them thinking of it and dont change the subject (which they are very prone to! the key is to get them to think of the subject and not just argue with soundbites!). After a while the explanation will become so long and winded that they will realise:
a) the froozen mammoth isnt, perhaps, such a solid proof after all because the whole story about a mammoth suddenly freezing on the bottom of the ocean sounds kind of silly. b) how come this guy was able to poke gabing holes in such sure proof? why did i get in such a mess when the argument in the creation book sounded so convincing?
The point here is not to convince him in one go, but to make him do additional research on himself. Since the WT publish so little on the flood and evolution, that could be quite dangerous...
fun flood fact: who on the ark had syfilis, and was it the same person who had gonnoreah? (i know, it evolved/was created spontaniously after the flood, but its properly something they havent thought about before, and its allways interesting to ask if he feel that is a scientific explanation).
