Andrew was surely quacking in his boots.
The phrase is "quaking in his boots" but I honestly prefer your version! 😅
nicolaou
JoinedPosts by nicolaou
-
2912
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)
by Simon inuh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.
-
-
nicolaou
-
2912
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)
by Simon inuh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.
-
-
nicolaou
LMSA, please check your email as soon as possible. Look for an email from [email protected]
-
47
SECRET RECORDING 14TH APRIL:RALPH WALLS: MORE CHANGES ARE COMING!
by raymond frantz insecret recording 14th april:ralph walls: more changes are coming!.
( broadcasted to all british congregations today).
https://youtu.be/owg4bqj7pd0?si=yvfpkkos_qoy9u10.
-
-
nicolaou
Halcon: I suppose JW can interpret scriptures any way they want, but sometimes they really stretch it and go out on a limb.
It's not the JW's fault, it's the source material. Taking several steps back and observing Christians debating and disagreeing on interpretations of scripture you soon realise what the real problem is. No-one is rooted in reality, it's all a house of cards, sandcastles, pie in the sky.
-
12
First Half of the Book of Hebrews (Study Edition) Now Available Online
by Wonderment inapril 11, 2024 (source: jw.org) .
first half of the book of hebrews (study edition) now available online.
the first half of the bible book of hebrews (chapters 1-7) is now available in the study edition of the new world translation of the holy scriptures on jw.org and in jw library.
-
-
nicolaou
In other words, God NOW speaks through his Son
Couldn't ask him to speak up a bit could you?
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.
in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?
" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.
-
-
nicolaou
Jeffro: Where do people get this incorrect notion that it’s not taught anymore??
I don't think anyone is denying that it is taught (like a hoop to jump through or a box to tick) but I think the consensus is that no-one cares about it.
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.
in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?
" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.
-
-
nicolaou
Scholar JW: The fact is that despite the numerous charts, books on chronology, and academic journal articles no scholar today knows the precise date for the fall except Jehovah's Witnesses by means of those 'celebrated' WT scholars.
Total bellend. Deserves to be ignored.
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.
in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?
" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.
-
-
nicolaou
Serious consideration was presented to the Jehovah's Witnesses in the form of C.O.J's well researched book. It's been discussed here ad-nauseum. The KISS method by Alleymom (use the search function) absolutely killed 607.
There's no excuse for indulging your wilful ignorance 'Scholar'.
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.
in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?
" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.
-
-
nicolaou
Scholar JW: all that you have done is pushed your agenda on 587 without giving any serious consideration to the alternative - 586 BCE.
So should we give serious consideration to homeopathy as an alternative to real medicine? Should creationists be invited into biology classes to present the alternative to established evolutionary principles?
You're an idiot.
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.
in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?
" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.
-
-
nicolaou
scholar JW: it is far better to rely on the ancient inspired historical record of the Holy Bible
And there we have it folks. If anyone was wondering if our resident 'scholar' might actually be onto something you can be assured that his ramblings are based on nothing but faith. Rational enquiry has nothing to do with it.
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.
in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?
" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.
-
-
nicolaou
Witness 007: This would be a massive blow worse then 1975 where a milliion left the org
With respect, no. Difference being that dates and chronology mattered to the bulk of JW's in the 70s. Not anymore. As Gorb said it's just a lifestyle movement now.