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.
And what the f#ck is a paradigm shock anyway?!
so, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy.
the book says: "another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29".
there is a small appendix which ties this up to wether artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie.
Leolai, Narkissos: Thanks!. So let me modulate the question - as i understand it now, the interpretation of Daniels 9 is horribly complicated and dangerous ground. If the temple was rebuilt in 455 - not so dangerous ground, but a lot of religiously biased sourced outside the wt support is (as opposed to 607). So to rephrase:
If I only consider the appendix in Insight on persian chronology, and in perticular the issues raised by Johnson (herein the quotation I had in my previous post), is that relatively 'safe?'. I mean, my point is not to disprove the bible - something i want to really emphatize (also because i believe it personally) is that my doubts on the wt has nothing to do with my belief in god or the bible, so if he think this part of the bible can be interpreted as the wt says is can I have no problem with that.
However, if Insight give the reader a proper understanding and does not eg. take quotes out of context is something i think is very interesting and something i want to return to later on when we reach more important subjects such as false prophesies, gods selection, 'signs of the end', etc.
so, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy.
the book says: "another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29".
there is a small appendix which ties this up to wether artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie.
Btw, the 20th year of Artaxerxes (by Nehemiah 2:1) has nothing to do with the reconstruction of the temple nor the city (which is what the "word" starting the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 is about) but the walls of Jerusalem. The temple had already been rebuilt 70 years before that.
(reads the bible, slap hand on forehead). By now I should know that I should ALLWAYS check it when the WT says the bible says something, no matter how trivial and impossible to misread it seems.
so, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy.
the book says: "another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29".
there is a small appendix which ties this up to wether artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie.
Narkissos: Thanks for your input (AGAIN!)!. I think from what you say i will wait for 607 to go into depth with one of those prophesies. However, there is a point which i feel is quite strong and i think i will draw forth: When i read "Insights" on persian chronology i found this quote:
There is solid evidence for a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius . The Greek historian Herodotus (VII, 3) says: “Darius judged his [Xerxes’] plea [for kingship] to be just and declared him king. But to my thinking Xerxes would have been made king even without this advice.” This indicates that Xerxes was made king during the reign of his father Darius
To support the idea that Darious and Xerxes ruled together [background information for lurkers: The WT fix the chronology by postulating Darius and Xerxes ruled together for 10 years, so they can move Artaxerxes reign back 10 years and get the 455 date.]. Now, on this site
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/artaxerxes.htm
by Carl Olaf i found the following quote:
"If we look up Herodotus’ statement, however, we will discover that he, in the very next few sentences, directly contradicts the Watch Tower Society's claim that there was a ten year long coregency of Xerxes with Darius by stating that Darius died one year after this appointment of Xerxes as his successor. Herodotus says:
"Xerxes, then, was publicly proclaimed as next in succession to the crown, and Darius was free to turn his attention to the war. Death, however, cut him off before his preparations were complete; he died in the year following this incident and the Egyptian rebellion, after a reign of thirtysix years, and so was robbed of his chance to punish either Egypt or the Athenians. After his death the crown passed to his son Xerxes." "
The way i see it, thats one of the worst cases of quoting out of context in a WT puplication, and i point i feel should be made.. perhaps searching on that quote can bring up something so i can verify that its accurate.
telegraph uk: charles darwin film 'too controversial for religious america'.
a british film about charles darwin has failed to find a us distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for american audiences, according to its producer.
creation, starring paul bettany, details darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote on the origin of species.
I think you guys are really great people, but how the f#ck did you guys ever go to the moon??? ;-) .
ps: The evolution of the eye is a very interesting story in science, and something you will hear brought up from time to time. My advice: Try to get them to commit to something quantitative, like 'evolutionists have no idea how the eye evolved", then bet a bottle of beer they are wrong. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
so, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy.
the book says: "another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29".
there is a small appendix which ties this up to wether artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie.
ps: yah, im aware of that - the 'dating' part of this particular beuaty is that the temple was rebuild in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, and was completed by jesus baptism. Then the usual thing happends - the events in history does not fit the interpretation so they are changed, in this case the wt want the 20th year of artaxerxes to fall in 455 instead of 445. I think thats pretty clear.
What i wonder about is if this question is as rotten as the 607 issue, where its completely impossible to find 'proof' outside a special reading of the bible, or if there somewhere exist 'real' historians (not the celebrated type!) who actually support this date. The reason that i ask is that i dont have a full overview of the avaliable evidence, and i hope that someone would weight in on the issue so i know if i am on 'safe ground'.
by the way, i love the phrase "buffet reasoning", though i think that the behavious of the wt at the buffet is like the ovio-lacto vegetarian who is only interested in the imaginary cabbage ;-) .
so, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy.
the book says: "another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29".
there is a small appendix which ties this up to wether artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie.
So, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy. The book says: "Another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29". There is a small appendix which ties this up to wether Artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie. 483years = 29ac). When i read that i thought that was pretty funny in a slightly creapy way, so i desided to look it up on wikipedia an lo and behold, the historians who all agree Artaxerxes 20th year was in 455 does not really agree at all, and it have to be supported by the same method of quote-mining and data-picking that gave 607. hmm. So we have:
"The bible is true because its prophetic, since it correctly predicts the birth of Jesus in 29!"
"We know 455bc is correct because while this may not be what the historians say, we trust the bible since we know its true and it gives the year".
[actually i didnt know about this problem untill today!]
So now im thinking what i should use this little gem for. Clearly its a lot of work to get into another aspect of chronology, and since i only got a very brief overview of the historical aspects on this year im not sure its worth it to really research it - 607 is the real target. On the other hand, well, its a chance to point out errors in Insights (which some seem to regard as the ultimate reference), and particularly poor scholarship and misinformation which is the angle i have desided to take on this study. I feel this question boils down to how easy it is to argue, ie. is there a lot of complicated, contradictory information that makes the topic hard to debate [like trinity], or is it relatively straight forward [like blood]. So thats my question:
Compared to 607, is the date 455 less or more insane?
ps. This is not a thread about 607. If someone wants to convince me of 607, please start a new thread and post a link to the thread here, and i will read what you write there.
you know this article is going to be quoted in some watchtower rag as showing that religion is going to be eliminated soooon.. .
http://online.wsj.com/article/sb10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html.
karen armstrong says we need god to grasp the wonder of our existence.
the mind control in this latest oct.15th is amazing.
our lurking jw friend sent us this and it basically tellls witnesses that their opinions don't matter and only god is good .
it belittles independent thinking and explains that each rank and file jw is owned by the alleged " faithful and discreet slave " .
pdf's would be really good!
her son, jesse, is in serious condition.. my son is in surgery and may lose his hand and arm.. jesse got an infection in a cut on his finger.
his finger and hand swelled to the size of an arm .. .
they have to do surgery on his hand and arm.
I hope he makes a full recovery...
