Posts by shepherdless

36

The sky is falling- maybe

by joey jojo in

i am actually not a 'sky is falling' guy, but i wanted to comment on the australian bushfires.. you may or may not believe the science behind global warming, however i personally put more faith in verified, scientific data than the words of fat cat, self-serving politicians.

climate science has predicted, based on data, that we will see more prolonged, extreme weather events, higher average temperatures, rising sea levels due to ocean expansion and glacial melting.

and this is exactly whats happening.

shepherdless

There have been something like 180 cases of arson...

I saw that (or something similar) on Fox News’ website:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/australia-brush-fire-24-charged-new-south-wales

Here is a link to an ABC (the national broadcaster in Australia) article today, debunking that claim:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/fires-misinformation-being-spread-through-social-media/11846434

The article refers to the above claim and says the actual number of people charged is 24, and not all of those charged “...managed to spark large blazes”.

Many fires were started by dry lightning, and that is not unusual in Aust, and for some reason common in my particular area. A fire near where I have property (burnt 40,000 hectares) was definitely lightning. There are other things that trigger bushfires as well, and whenever you have hot windy conditions over a large area, especially when everything is tinder dry from a long drought, something somewhere often starts a fire, whether sparks from a power line or transformer, vehicle exhaust in long grass, overheating bearings in agricultural machinery, etc.

Of course it is not just Fox News giving false info. Progressive news sites have been just as bad, if not worse, with their garbage maps:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/misleading-fire-maps-go-viral-during-australian-bushfire-crisis/11850948

It is annoying, because the truth is very bad, so why undermine it with falsehood and exaggeration.

78

What The Fossils Say

by cofty in

the old creation book had a lot to say about the fossil record.

if i remember correctly it was some lie about all the fossils ever found would fit on a single table.

the reality is that there is an embarrassment of riches illustrating the evolution of life.

shepherdless

Sea breeze, by chance, the following cartoon specifically deals with the evolution of whales in considerable detail:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

46

Canadians and Europeans, what do you think of your national health care ?

by RubaDub in

jw
friends

we have been in a battle over health care for so long here in the us regarding public, private, gov't subsidized, obama care, medicare for all, and just about every permutation of the above.. we hear the horror stories here that people wait 20 years for a check-up (ok, bit of an exaggeration), but you get the point.

one side tells us that canadians flock across the border when they are sick and need to see a doctor.

the other side says that is simply not the case.. so tell us, if you live under one of the government systems would you replace it?

shepherdless

Healthcare in USA is ridiculously expensive in relation to the rest of the Western World, and people often argued that it was because there was no government healthcare system. However, from what I understand, a major reason for the additional cost is the litigious environment and the propensity for US civil juries to award huge amounts in punitive damages for medical malpractice.

In Aust (which has what has been described as a hybrid public private healthcare scheme), due to various reasons, and various laws applying in various circumstances, there are no punitive damages, it is almost impossible to get damages for lottery ticket type numbers. Even negligence that kills someone might lead to an award in the order of $100,000 or so. Instead, a lot of effort is taken to ensure underperforming medical practitioners lose their right to practice. As a result, it seems healthcare is way cheaper.

49

A deeper examination of The New World Translation

by Terry in

shorturl.at/ouakr.

shepherdless

Hi scholar,

Anathasius was asking about your knowledge of “New Testament Greek”.

So you have a B.A. from Deakin and a M.A. (or M.Phill) from Sydney Uni. I checked the syllabus for Deakin, and it appears you don’t need any knowledge of Koine Greek to get in, nor do you get taught in any language. Just lots of nebulous subjects such as “Religion and Social Change”, “Gender and Sexuality in Islam”, and “Cyborg Anthropology”. (I am not making this up.) The Sydney Uni Masters course seems to be pretty much pick your own area of interest and write your own paper.

I don’t see how that helps you evaluate the quality of translation in the NWT.

Someone I know did study Koine Greek in Italy, and she told me it differs from modern Greek. As far as I am aware, I think the only Uni in Aust where you can study Koine Greek as an undergraduate is ACU, and I doubt you went there.

32

Another Professor Renounces Darwinism

by Sea Breeze in

david gelernter, a famed yale university professor, has publicly renounced his belief in charles darwin’s theory of evolution, calling it a “beautiful idea” that has been effectively disproven.. article.

shepherdless

Actually SBF, the problem with classical physics was not that it could not explain the orbit of Mercury (being a slowly rotating elipse instead of a stationary elipse). That was a relatively minor issue. A far bigger mystery in the 19th century was where the sun got its energy. But it was only the result of the Michaelson-Morley experiment (proving there was no “ether” or stationary point in the universe) that brought an end to classical physics.

As to whether Newtonian physics is “true”, I would say for all practical purposes it still is. It will give you an extremely accurate approximation so long as you are not dealing with relative velocities close to the speed of light, extremely high gravitational fields, or objects (particles) so small that quantum mechanics comes into play.

Anyway, don’t mind me. Please carry on.

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

shepherdless

You have been misled and deceived by the false teachers.

Projecting, much.

The date 537 BCE is is the accepted date for the Return 0f the Jews to Judah thus officially ending the 70 years.

By nobody, except Watchtower. And based on nothing but a fudge. They want 607BC to be true so they make up an event in 537BC, on zero evidence. In any event, Jer 25:12 is absolutely clear that the 70 years ends at (or prior to) the fall of Babylon.

Jer. 25:12 only comes into effect after the 70 years had ended in 537 BCE and not 539 BCE at the Fall of Babylon for it begins as a qualifier "But when 70 years have been fulfilled"

Completely wrong. Re-read Jer 25:12

and Dan 9:1-2 refers to the ending of the 70 years after Babylon fell for Daniel observed the matter in 'the first year of Darius'.

Daniel only refers back to Jeremiah, and doesn’t change or add anything at all. Why do you refer to it?

Also, side point: this is the passage that incorrectly states Darius I was the father of (not the son of) Xerxes. Darius I was the Persian King at the Battle of Marathon. Xerxes was the Persian King at the later battle of Thermopylae. By the way, you do realise most scholars think that Daniel was written in about 167BC, there I no record of that Book existing before that date, the Jews don’t include him in their list of prophets, etc?

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

shepherdless

scholar, where do you get 537BC? The bible says (eg Jer 25:12) very clearly that when the 70 years end, Jehovah “will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error”. That is 539BC at the latest, based on the portion of secular history that Watchtower chooses to accept.

Watchtower adds a fudge and says well it probably would’ve taken another 2 years for the Jews to walk back to Jerusalem, but that is irrelevant. The bible is clear about the end of the 70 years, and the date is 539BC, irrespective of how long it takes to walk back.

Check it yourself!

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

shepherdless

scholar, so you still can’t dare name the sources Watchtower relies upon. Perhaps you know they show directly that Nebuchadnezzar came to power in 605BC. Perhaps you just can’t bear to let your mind reflect on the consequences.

I will add one further point. The sources (that Watchtower relies upon) also say Babylon fell to the Persians in 539BC. Applying Jeremiah 25:12 gives you 539 + 70 = 609BC. Absolutely nothing gets you to 607BC, whatever bits of information you chose to include or ignore.

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

shepherdless

scholar:

You know full well what are sources secular for establishing 539 BCE for the Fall of babylon as a pivotal date for this well-acknowledged by scholars.

Which are the exact same sources that say Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne in 605BC, the battle of Carchemish was fought in 605BC and the siege of Jerusalem in which King Jehoiakim died and King Jeconicah was deported to Babylon occurred in 597BC. The EXACT SAME sources!

Why can’t you state those sources that Watchtower relies upon? Too embarrassing for your position?

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

shepherdless

That is useful, Doug. When first reading up on this, I never bothered to go through the details of what type of “year“ is being referred to in each biblical passage and what the effect is. A lot of work to decide between 586 and 587. It was enough for me to see it was pretty clear that Watchtower chronology was hopelessly wrong, and CT Russell should have picked that up right at the start, because (for example) when writing “The Time is at Hand”, he refers to Ptolemys Canon.

Amongst the excellent and thoroughly researched articles I have seen (eg Gentile Times Reconsidered), there is one point I have not seen highlighted, as follows.

J-dubs like to say something like, “Well secular history might lead to 587BC, but the bible says 607BC.” Actually, secular history makes no mention whatsoever of the destruction of Jerusalem. There is, for example, a Babylonian tablet recording the siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC (recorded in both the Bible and Babylonian Chronicle), but the relevant Babylonian tablet for events of 587BC has never been found. We only presume the destruction of Jerusalem occurred because the Bible says so.

So my answer to “Well secular history might lead to 587BC, but the bible says 607BC”, is that there is no secular history, and the only date you can get from a literal reading of the bible is 587BC (or possibly 586BC).