Gweedo,
How do you get the impression that "land" in vs. 9 refers to everything exclusively? It simply is used in context as a name for "dry ground".
It does not change the fact that "land" can be used to reference a geographic area.
stocwach
JoinedPosts by stocwach
-
26
Creation Story Contradiction
by JosephAlward inthe two different creation stories in genesis contradict each other in the matter of the order of the creation of man and vegetation.
in the first story, vegetation was created on the third day, and three days later man was created.
however, in the second creation story, there was no vegetation before man.
-
-
-
3
Surgeon takes care due to blood restriction?
by stocwach ini'm wondering if a portion (the part in brackets)of the following respone i got from a dub re: the controversial blood policy sounds eerily familiar to anyone else, like it does me?
i mean, i could swear i saw a post by someone not long ago almost verbatim, which if i could find the post would make it appear to be kinda like a canned "theocratic warfare" defense line or something:.
"1) what are your thoughts on the blood issues i brought up in my earlier email?
-
-
stocwach
I'm wondering if a portion (THE PART IN BRACKETS)of the following respone I got from a dub re: the controversial blood policy sounds eerily familiar to anyone else, like it does me? I mean, I could swear I saw a post by someone not long ago almost verbatim, which if I could find the post would make it appear to be kinda like a canned "theocratic warfare" defense line or something:
"1) What are your thoughts on the blood issues I brought up in my earlier email? Do you agree that it is quite controversial and contradictory?
I ACTUALLY HAVEN'T READ THEM, VERY BUSY, AUX PIONEERING THIS MONTH, MY NIECE IS GETTING MARRIED, EVERYONE IS SO BUSY. BUT, I DON'T NEED TO READ IT. THE BIBLE SAYS TO ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD, SO I DO. EVEN THE WORLD IS TRYING TO ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD NOW BECAUSE OF ITS PROBLEMS THAT CAN COME WITH IT. PEOPLE MAKE WAY TO MUCH DEAL OUT OF THE BLOOD ISSUE. VERY RARELY DOES SOMEONE DIE FROM NOT HAVING BLOOD. [[[[[I HAD SURGERY, AND WAS VERY CLEAR TO MY DOCTOR THAT I WOULD NOT ACCEPT BLOOD, AND MADE SURE HE WAS VERY CLEAR ON IT. YOU KNOW WHAT HE DID? HE TOOK A 2 HOUR SURGERY, AND MADE IT A 4 HOUR SURGERY, AND CLOSED UP AS HE WENT ALONG INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL THE END TO CLOSE UP ALL OF IT. MY HE TOLD ME I LOST VERY LITTLE BLOOD BECAUSE HE DID IT THIS WAY FOR ME. IN THE END, I HAD VERY LITTLE PAIN, AND MY SCARS WERE THE BEST HE HAD EVER SEEN, AND HE ATTRIBUTED IT TO THE FACT THAT HE TOOK HIS TIME BECAUSE OF THE BLOOD ISSUE. MY FRIEND HAD THE SAME EXACT SURGERY, SAME DOCTOR, BUT DIDN'T TELL HIM SHE WAS A WITNESS, SHE HAD THE WORST PAIN OF HER LIFE, AND HAD TO HAVE OTHER SURGERIES TO REPAIR SCARS.]]]]] ANYWAYS, THIS IS JUST A SIDE POINT. REGARDLESS, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IF I SAID NO BLOOD ON SIMON, THE COURTS WOULD JUST TAKE OVER AND DO IT ANYWAYS. SO I GUESS WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? I WOULD STILL BE FURIOUS, AND PURSUE LEGAL ACTION, BUT WHAT IS EVERYONE IN SUCH AN UPROAR ABOUT. IT IS OUR BODY. EVERYONE WANTS TO LET WOMEN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION ABOUT THEIR BODIES AND ABORTION, WHY DO THEY HAVE SUCH A FIT ABOUT THE DECISION WE MAKE? " -
8
Help please! Looking for a WT quote--
by stocwach ini came across a website that included the oct. 1, 1994 wt, p. 6, as a reference for the society basically saying that reading the bible is not enough to understand scripture.
the website did not give a direct quote however.
i was wondering if anyone has a link to this specific wt passage?.
-
-
stocwach
I came across a website that included the Oct. 1, 1994 WT, p. 6, as a reference for the Society basically saying that reading the Bible is not enough to understand Scripture. The website did not give a direct quote however. I was wondering if anyone has a link to this specific WT passage?
(I have a JW friend who claims the theory that the Society frowns upon reading the Bible alone is a fallacy, and that Bethelites are encouraged to read the Bible in its entirety the first year...blah blah blah)
Thanks in advance!
-
140
Just As In the Days of Noah
by Farkel insince the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
-
-
stocwach
Faithful Jah says:
It seems to me that you (Joseph Alward) want to argue against anything and everything in the Bible, and against anything any Bible believer has to say. By doing so you sometimes end up looking less than brillant.
LOL. Right on the nail. Check this out for confirmation of this point:http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23607&site=3
Joseph: How come you never answer anybody when someone asks you a legitimate question on your motivation for your never ending and relentless questioning of the Bible and God? Surely all your "means" must point to some "end"? I think everyone would love to know what the "end" is.
-
140
Just As In the Days of Noah
by Farkel insince the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
-
-
stocwach
AChristian,
I understand the point you are trying to make with Peter's notation of Noah being a preacher of righteousness, however, there is no question that this can only be pure speculation, because there is no OT scripture that alludes to Noah preaching of imending doom.
Noah no doubt however was a preacher of righteousness right up until the time that God commanded him to build an ark because he would destroy all mankind due to their evil ways. It appears that God had administered his judgement at that point.
-
11
You Know--digging a deeper hole once again...
by stocwach inc'mon, you check in once and now you won't respond?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23335&site=3.
by the way, if new technology developed that could immediately reveal one's true identity, would you start to sweat if the gb and elders read all your rogue, non conforming and unique views?
-
-
stocwach
I apologize for the format above. I guess I am typing too quickly. Hopefully you have the gist.
-
11
You Know--digging a deeper hole once again...
by stocwach inc'mon, you check in once and now you won't respond?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23335&site=3.
by the way, if new technology developed that could immediately reveal one's true identity, would you start to sweat if the gb and elders read all your rogue, non conforming and unique views?
-
-
stocwach
Instead, he communicates those views to the proper ones in Brooklyn. They know his name and the Congregation he attends.
Okay, I'll humor you on this. What form of communication, and with whom specifically? Who are the "proper ones"?
Surely there must have been letters sent to the GB? The GB just doesn't have an open door policy that allows you to call them up and tell them over the phone what's on your mind, now do they? Why not post a letter now and then and truly show us that Brooklyn is well aware?
I suspect that whoever You Know is communicating with back in Brooklyn are simply others who share the same rogue views, and therefore see no need for reproof within his congregation. Otherwise, if his views and the fact that he continually posts them on the internet were truly to be revealed that the GB is well aware of the situation yet has done nothing to clean the organization, do you realize what kind of implication this would have on the rank and file if it were known to the masses that the GB has just been on the sidelines doing nothing and allowing a rogue member to represent the organization is such a way????????
Even You Know said in a previous post:
[QUOTE]If they adopt beliefs that are significantly different from the beliefs and practices of the rest of the brotherhood then they bring into question whether they can continue to represent the organization.
I would say You Know definitely shares in some significantly different views! Like the one where he believes that the WT will have served it's purpose at/during/after Armageddon (I can't remember exactly which)blah blah blah.
-
11
You Know--digging a deeper hole once again...
by stocwach inc'mon, you check in once and now you won't respond?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23335&site=3.
by the way, if new technology developed that could immediately reveal one's true identity, would you start to sweat if the gb and elders read all your rogue, non conforming and unique views?
-
-
stocwach
[QUOTE]Once again you're mistaken. If You Know were truly an apostate like you and the others here then you and they would be calling him your friend
LOL!!!!!!! Show me where the WT says to qualify as an "apostate", one has to be called "friend" by fellow "apostates", otherwise one is not an "apostate"!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me help you out--a textbook definition is for "apostate" is: One who has abandoned or forsaken one's religious beliefs/principles.
Since You Know clearly doesn't adhere to all JW policy/doctrine/beliefs, and is very much a renegade of sorts, you Yadirf are sadly mistaken.
Yadirf, it looks like I have to investigate your posts more thoroughly, I'm not that familiar with your position and views, but with a ridiculous comment like above I suspect your in the same boat as You Know.
-
8
Watchtower 2/01/02 Study article#1 Was he there?
by wokeup intodays' study article stated in paragraph 6 "harmonizing the gospel accounts indicates that only after this traitor was gone did jesus institute the memorial of his death.
" paragraph 2 cited the 3 gospel accounts including luke 21:19,20 but conviently excluded verse 21 why?
because immediately after mentioning the loaf and wine jesus stated "but look!
-
-
stocwach
Mark 14:17-18 says (NLT) "In the evening Jesus arrived with the 12 disciples. As they were sitting around the table eating, Jesus said, 'The truth is, one of you will betray me...'" Then vs. 22 and 23 is where he takes the bread and wine.
Matthew 26:20 "...Jesus sat down at the table with the 12 disciples." Then Jesus in vs. 23 reveals one who is eating with them will betray him. Vs. 25 says "Judas, the one who would betray him, also asked, 'Teacher, I'm not the one, am I?' And Jesus told him, "You have said it yourself.'" Vs. 26 "As they were eating, Jesus took a loaf..."
If you want to "harmonize" Gospel accounts, considerably more evidence points to Judas being there for the institution of the Memorial. Matthew and Mark specifically make no mention of Judas leaving at all, and therefore implies they were all there. Luke specifically says he was there, and John doesn't make mention of the bread and wine at all, but simply that Jesus told Judas to go, but the disciples had no idea what Jesus meant.
-
11
You Know--digging a deeper hole once again...
by stocwach inc'mon, you check in once and now you won't respond?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23335&site=3.
by the way, if new technology developed that could immediately reveal one's true identity, would you start to sweat if the gb and elders read all your rogue, non conforming and unique views?
-
-
stocwach
C'mon, you check in once and now you won't respond?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23335&site=3
By the way, if new technology developed that could immediately reveal one's true identity, would you start to sweat if the GB and elders read all your rogue, non conforming and unique views? You realize you would be disassociated if not disfellowshipped don't you? By defaut of WT doctrine you cannot deny that!
I've got a secret for you...your "apostate" just like the rest of us because of your views. Your just too stubborn or ignorant to admit it--but I'm not sure which one it is.