Posts by johnnyprc

6

Need help!

by johnnyprc in

hello - i was talking recently with my family on the 607/587 topic, and my mother asked me to read the latest defense from the wt through their 2 part article this past year.

anyway, i remember seeing something on the site that i thought did a great job refuting that, more specifically, one of the professors used by the wt who had wrote an email or something stating the wt misquoted her - does this ring a bell???.

i made light mention of this, and of course my parents said that was impossible - but this time they left the door open to re-discuss the issue in that they told me if i could find such a reference they would let me show them.. i really hope someone knows where this is..

johnnyprc

What everyone gave me was great, but there is actually 1 particular Dr. who I thought someone had an email from - Eilat Mazar, from the Hebrew University. I actually emailed the school today seeking her email address...maybe she is open to answering a direct question.

Dr. Mazar had a PBS documentary that contained specific information related to a royal seal the WT used info from, while making a statement that would leave the reader believing Mazar found this new piece of evidence that certainly supported 607CE. I mean, it was a real "piece of work" (i could use another word) the WT wrote in a quasi quote.

Has anyone considered starting a "class-action" lawsuit against the WT for these people used in their writings - not a lawsuit for money - but to have a judge sign a judgment placing an injunction barring them from future journalistic malpractice? What they are doing is illegal, since these people would seriously be discredited in their respective fields if their colleges read the WT and thought people like Dr. Mazar supported a date like 607CE. This really crosses a line into flat out defamation.

6

Need help!

by johnnyprc in

hello - i was talking recently with my family on the 607/587 topic, and my mother asked me to read the latest defense from the wt through their 2 part article this past year.

anyway, i remember seeing something on the site that i thought did a great job refuting that, more specifically, one of the professors used by the wt who had wrote an email or something stating the wt misquoted her - does this ring a bell???.

i made light mention of this, and of course my parents said that was impossible - but this time they left the door open to re-discuss the issue in that they told me if i could find such a reference they would let me show them.. i really hope someone knows where this is..

johnnyprc

Thank you everyone!

6

Need help!

by johnnyprc in

hello - i was talking recently with my family on the 607/587 topic, and my mother asked me to read the latest defense from the wt through their 2 part article this past year.

anyway, i remember seeing something on the site that i thought did a great job refuting that, more specifically, one of the professors used by the wt who had wrote an email or something stating the wt misquoted her - does this ring a bell???.

i made light mention of this, and of course my parents said that was impossible - but this time they left the door open to re-discuss the issue in that they told me if i could find such a reference they would let me show them.. i really hope someone knows where this is..

johnnyprc

Hello - I was talking recently with my family on the 607/587 topic, and my mother asked me to read the latest defense from the WT through their 2 part article this past year. Anyway, I remember seeing something on the site that I thought did a great job refuting that, more specifically, one of the professors used by the WT who had wrote an email or something stating the WT misquoted her - does this ring a bell???

I made light mention of this, and of course my parents said that was impossible - but this time they left the door open to re-discuss the issue in that they told me if I could find such a reference they would let me show them.

I really hope someone knows where this is.

114

The Bible-- Full of Errors And Inconsistencies?

by Recovery in

i noticed in the "magic" thread many former jw's no longer adhere to the bible as the unerring and accurate word of god.

if you feel this way, can you please list any specific reasons/arguments as to why not.

this thread isn't for debating purposes, but simply for listing.

johnnyprc

still thinking

Thats what some people say, but you cannot prove anything you just wrote. Plus, in a relative way, scientists do think life sprung back very quickly following the cataclysmic event. You are confusing evolution from the beginning with what happened after the extinction event (AKA FLOOD).

MrFreeze

There may not be history proof, but there are circumstantial facts that can lead to that thought. One of the big ones is that the Hittites dominated Palestine during this time with their cities and fortress. The way Israel sprung (yes, same word) from seemingly nowhere as a major force is something history has a hard time answering.

Also, many cities in the area had been shown to have destruction lines in the historic soils correlating exactly with biblical timeframes.

KEEP IN MIND - most scholars said Pontius Pilate was fictitious and made up (as proof the bible was wrong about Jesus), until a few years back when they discovered 1 article that showed he did exist in the same station as the bible said.

114

The Bible-- Full of Errors And Inconsistencies?

by Recovery in

i noticed in the "magic" thread many former jw's no longer adhere to the bible as the unerring and accurate word of god.

if you feel this way, can you please list any specific reasons/arguments as to why not.

this thread isn't for debating purposes, but simply for listing.

johnnyprc

King Solomon

Wong on many counts.

1. Gen. 1:3 has God creating light well before anything else.

2. Organs - nothing in the bible states what you are referring, only the suggestion of sybolism - what you are saying is simply not true.

3. Job's issue was much more than a "bet". There is only one person in that situation that could complain about those events - Job. He never complained, and I am sure felt honored with passing such a universtal test. If the story is true, who wouldn't want to be Job and forever be known by everyone for passing that test???

114

The Bible-- Full of Errors And Inconsistencies?

by Recovery in

i noticed in the "magic" thread many former jw's no longer adhere to the bible as the unerring and accurate word of god.

if you feel this way, can you please list any specific reasons/arguments as to why not.

this thread isn't for debating purposes, but simply for listing.

johnnyprc

Finkelstein:

Your first example of Genesis inconstancy isn't correct. Genesis 3-5 is talking about making the Sun. Genesis 14 on is placing a spin on the earth to create seasons and time with the rotation of the earth. You can't see that? Gen. 3-5 on is "Light from Darkness", Gen 14 on is "Day from Night" and the time oriented.

I hope you didn't stop believing in the bible over that misconception YOU had.

114

The Bible-- Full of Errors And Inconsistencies?

by Recovery in

i noticed in the "magic" thread many former jw's no longer adhere to the bible as the unerring and accurate word of god.

if you feel this way, can you please list any specific reasons/arguments as to why not.

this thread isn't for debating purposes, but simply for listing.

johnnyprc

Finkelstein:

I said sprung back in a short time, not necessarly that is was a short time ago. It really matters not, as dating itself has a host of problems. There is going to be no way we can argue what happened and how it happened that long ago. I made general statements, including the fact there is no agreement or consensus on what/how/when - only that it did happen, and life sprung back rather fast. I am sure some would argue with every point there is out there.

Needless to say, you who don't believe in God have more difficulties explaining things than you have answers for.

The comment about other gods' stories being used to create the bibles stories is not a new argument. The main problem you have is that you think that came first. All the surviving relatives of the flood would have passed down stories of such an event without accuracy. Every time I hear this analogy I actually feel more emboldened in the truthfulness of the real true event.

114

The Bible-- Full of Errors And Inconsistencies?

by Recovery in

i noticed in the "magic" thread many former jw's no longer adhere to the bible as the unerring and accurate word of god.

if you feel this way, can you please list any specific reasons/arguments as to why not.

this thread isn't for debating purposes, but simply for listing.

johnnyprc

I know SOME in the science community have created alternative theories behind mammoths freezing as they did. However, for years the accepted theory gave credence to the idea of a flood - and "some", not all, felt compelled to develop alternatives.

None of us can say - its all conjecture and theory. What is not is that the Earth did have a cataclysmic event on the scale of a flood described in Genesis. How and when is in debate, naturally.

J. Hofer : When I say "life" started over, I am referring to larger animal life. Before either a flood or asteroid (or other) dinosaurs ruled this planet. Some event changed that, and nearly EVERYONE in the scientific community agrees it was sudden - within hours/days depending where they were on the planet. I am surprised you dont know this.

114

The Bible-- Full of Errors And Inconsistencies?

by Recovery in

i noticed in the "magic" thread many former jw's no longer adhere to the bible as the unerring and accurate word of god.

if you feel this way, can you please list any specific reasons/arguments as to why not.

this thread isn't for debating purposes, but simply for listing.

johnnyprc

Concerning the flood:

Whether you believe in evolution or the bible (or both), there was a cataclysmic event that destroyed most life on this earth, and yet animals as we know them today sprung back in a VERY short timeframe.

Many scientists look to an asteroid that hit in Mexico, but that is rough conjecture. It is known for a certainty the death of may creatures was sudden - as seen in mammoths being frozen as they ate.

When it comes to the flood, surprisingly science and the bible both agree that life had to start over on this planet. At the time of the flood, humans lived in a very small part of the earth. God may very well needed to get rid of dinosaurs for man to expand.

The ark was symbolic (but also very real) in that God will provide escape - though Him, yet humans need to act as well.

42

Great Crowd is NOT under the New Covenant...Where does it say this?

by Christ Alone in

i was wondering if there was anywhere someone could point to in the bible for the watchtower belief that the great crowd is not included in the new covenant.

i know that this is their line of thinking when it comes to jesus being mediator.

they say that jesus is only mediator of the new covenant and since the gc is not under the new covenant, jesus is not specifically a mediator to them.

johnnyprc

The only thing I would mention about Michael and Jesus is that Daniel speaks to Michael doing and saying things that are later only attributed to Jesus in Revelation. Does it mean they are the same entity..? Tough one.

Important to note that JW's are not the first people to say that, so its not like they can lay claim to some sort of special insight there. Russell associated greatly with Adventists before he broke away, and that is an Adventists teaching to this day. All JW's can do is say they copied that idea.

Without the bible containing a scripture that says Michael was the same entity as Jesus, it comes as close as you can to suggesting that. You would have to ask yourself what John thought of when he wrote the same words (nearly word for word) as Daniel, expect subsituted Michael's name for Jesus.

Also, what was Daniel thinking atributing to Michael the title "Prince of you people", when that title had be atributed to the Messiah??

Since I am just a student of the bible I am not qualified to tell you what something means - but it is very interesting.