What commands did Moses ever give that were wrong? He was imperfect and messed up but he never told the nation God said something then later said, opps he didn't tell me that, I am just imperfect.
EndofMysteries
JoinedPosts by EndofMysteries
-
37
Chat with Elder, how would you reply?
by awakening inhad a sit down chat with an elder who is aware of my doubts.
we were on the subject of new light, i was saying that if the org changes a teaching then the old teaching was wrong and cannot qualify as truth at the time it was taught, so where did the falsehood come from?.
his response was the gb is imperfect!!
-
-
-
37
Chat with Elder, how would you reply?
by awakening inhad a sit down chat with an elder who is aware of my doubts.
we were on the subject of new light, i was saying that if the org changes a teaching then the old teaching was wrong and cannot qualify as truth at the time it was taught, so where did the falsehood come from?.
his response was the gb is imperfect!!
-
-
EndofMysteries
Even though the WT teaches otherwise, the bible teaches some are predestined. Judas was predestined to do that.
Romans the entire chapter of 9 goes into much depth about this subject in vs 10-13 it brings out how before Jacob and Esau were born it was foretold/predestined what would happen to them, in vs 16-18 how Pharoh was to be obstinate so that God may show his power, vs 19 to 25 how God is the potter and how he has the right to make vessels(people) for honorable use and some for dishonorable use.
-
16
A question about the accuracy of dating the Earth and fossils.....
by EndofMysteries ini have done some research into radiometric and carbon dating but i have been unable to find an answer or explanation to my challenge on that.
i wonder if anybody here can point me in the right direction or possibly answer it.. the first is that it seems most if not all of these dating methods rely on measuring decay.
unless i am mistaken, decay is not equal everywhere.
-
-
EndofMysteries
cofty - as I said in my first post " I would think these questions have already been addressed but can't find the answers." Thanks for that article, i'm checking it out.
jgnat - high school level education in some parts of the USA means a teacher tells you to read a chapter in a book then take a test. The science courses never do any lab work nor do they really teach. Take that and + 10/15 years, you won't remember a thing.
Anyway I'm back in college now, in the fall I'll probably be fullfilling the GE requirement for physical science, I may or may not chose physics for that.
-
16
A question about the accuracy of dating the Earth and fossils.....
by EndofMysteries ini have done some research into radiometric and carbon dating but i have been unable to find an answer or explanation to my challenge on that.
i wonder if anybody here can point me in the right direction or possibly answer it.. the first is that it seems most if not all of these dating methods rely on measuring decay.
unless i am mistaken, decay is not equal everywhere.
-
-
EndofMysteries
Okay, so things up to 50k or 60k years may be covered from your answers.
The dating of the Earth still hasn't been addressed much. If they are dating the Earth at 4.5 billion years because of a rock or element, and the dating of meteors is the same, then whats to say that was the beginning of Earth vs the age of a meteor that struck the Earth much later on?
jgnat - elements are elements forever? So copper was always there, it was never formed? Unless I am misunderstanding, I wonder how people can accept the concept of elements being eternal, no beginning or end, yet the concept of God having no beginning or end is impossible to understand. To me they would both be equally hard to comprehend.
-
16
A question about the accuracy of dating the Earth and fossils.....
by EndofMysteries ini have done some research into radiometric and carbon dating but i have been unable to find an answer or explanation to my challenge on that.
i wonder if anybody here can point me in the right direction or possibly answer it.. the first is that it seems most if not all of these dating methods rely on measuring decay.
unless i am mistaken, decay is not equal everywhere.
-
-
EndofMysteries
jgnats answer on carbon dating may address the first question I had.
The 2nd part is still there though. Let's just say for arguments sake that copper was the rock dated to 4.5 billion years ago, hence the age of the Earth. If you take copper and melt it, when it solidifies is it still it's original age or is it brand new? If a meteor contains copper that is 4.5 billion years old that lands on the Earth that doesn't make the Earth 4.5 billion years old does it?
What if the 'stellar matter' as Vidiot mentioned was 4.5 billion years old, does it change when it becomes part of the Earth?
If this statement is true, "Matter cannot be created or destroyed, but it's form can change", what is actually being measured to date the Earth at 4.5 billion years and if the measurement is a 'change' in matter, how do they know whether that change occured before the Earth was formed or after?
-
16
A question about the accuracy of dating the Earth and fossils.....
by EndofMysteries ini have done some research into radiometric and carbon dating but i have been unable to find an answer or explanation to my challenge on that.
i wonder if anybody here can point me in the right direction or possibly answer it.. the first is that it seems most if not all of these dating methods rely on measuring decay.
unless i am mistaken, decay is not equal everywhere.
-
-
EndofMysteries
I have done some research into radiometric and carbon dating but I have been unable to find an answer or explanation to my challenge on that. I wonder if anybody here can point me in the right direction or possibly answer it.
The first is that it seems most if not all of these dating methods rely on measuring decay. Unless I am mistaken, decay is not equal everywhere. If I leave meat outside will it decay at the same rate as if it's frozen? Or if there is no air and oxygen available?
I went to the catacombs in France and saw many bones that were practically dust, after only 200 years, there is no way they will last millions of years. It seems there are so many variables that will accelerrate or slow decay that it would be far too unreliable as a means of dating the age of something.
That is the first part of the question, the 2nd part is this.....
Try to take this concept and apply it on a grander scale. Rocks are made of minerals, elements, etc, and so are we. If copper that I ate becomes a part of my body, does that change the age of the copper or do I become as old as that copper is?
It's also claimed the oldest rock/elements found on the Earth are 4.5 billion years old, so that is how old the Earth is. Does that mean that out of thin air the Earth appeared? What if those rocks and elements were floating in space from 4.5 billion years ago yet they clustered and gathered and formed the Earth only 1 billion or 1 million years ago? Is there more to the dating techique that specifies when they became part of the Earth?
I would think these questions have already been addressed but can't find the answers.
-
20
Are you as critical of higher education and science as you are of religion?
by EndofMysteries ini am beginning to see a complete unbalanced shift from one end of the spectrum to the other.
i'll use jw's as the example but this would apply to any religion and any person.
if you just accepted the jw teachings unquestionably from the governing body because you felt they were the highest authority on the matter and 'trusted' them before waking up to ttatt you may shift to the other end of the spectrum.
-
-
EndofMysteries
I am beginning to see a complete unbalanced shift from one end of the spectrum to the other. I'll use JW's as the example but this would apply to any religion and any person.
If you just accepted the JW teachings unquestionably from the governing body because you felt they were the highest authority on the matter and 'trusted' them before waking up to TTATT you may shift to the other end of the spectrum. You blindly just accept as fact things relating to religion and science from other books and 'experts' without ever seeing the physical evidence with your own eyes.
You may read about discoveries, or the origin of things, etc, but these are also books, written by man, yet you are quick to accept them as fact. You have 'faith' in these so called experts and you have faith that whatever they are claiming to have discovered from their experiments if scientific or archaeological evidence if related to ancient history is absolutely correct.
What is the difference then from where you started? I am not speaking about any specific topic, this is just a general observation. Here is one example, if you read that scientists have determined that a bone they found is 200,000 years old, are you going to believe it just because 'scientists' have claimed it and it's published in books? Have you physically watched the test? Have you physically investigated and learned about the test? Have you learned yourself without a doubt that all the variables in the test have been considered and whether it may be in error or not?
Chances are, you won't have access nor the ability to do those tests yourselves, so you are putting faith in them.
-
7
JW encounters.... How about you?
by dazed but not confused inlooking back, were there witnesses that you secretly hoped would never learn ttatt, never wake up?.
i had two polar opposite encounters this weekend.
the first was a sweet sister that saw me and my wife at the grocery store and gave us both big hugs and asked how we were doing.
-
-
EndofMysteries
I know a person who would probably be dangerous if they were not a believing JW. They've made many comments over the years about things they would do and have done if they were not a JW. (homicidal) Add to the fact how their JW decisions have made their life extremely hard, his JW beliefs may be keeping the beast caged.
-
5
Ex-jws embracing 'apostate' like blacks embrace nig$$$
by EndofMysteries indo you agree?
as a jw 'apostate' was the absolute worst name somebody could be called.
they can never be forgiven, etc.
-
-
EndofMysteries
Do you agree? As a JW 'apostate' was the absolute worst name somebody could be called. They can never be forgiven, etc. It's a degrogatory and hate name for those who leave JW's, yet many enjoy calling themselves that. I am kind of thinking the psychology on that is similar to how many blacks have taken a degrogatory name to them and say it among each other.
-
29
If the Watchtower Represents Jehovah, How Come They Don't Share In Public Forums Like St. Paul?
by RottenRiley inother apostles of the bible were not afraid to engage in religious discussions (peter in the temple court yard), paul before festus, king agrippa and bernice, paul before the emperors of rome and his religious consorts or experts.. .
i don't see the watchtower's scholars of fame engaging with the world's religions or metaphysical discussions, why?
if fundamental christians, catholic and anglican church apologist are not afraid to debate topics with scientist, how come the people who claim to be "jehovah's only" don't share in the "thought of public ideas"?
-
-
EndofMysteries
Yup Russell used to debate, but he wasn't trying to debate things like he is the fullment of the faithful slave, etc. Can you imagine the GB debating and they are asked to address how the faithful slave is not a parable and how it applies to themselves alone? I'd even pay admission to watch that.