Where is the scripture about using pencil?
I don't know if this is what you're thinking of, but there is a JW illustration along those lines. (i.e. By being faithful, your name is "penciled" in today.)
Since JW's don't believe the "book of life" is actually opened until the end of the 1000 years, it's not entirely in line with what they themselves teach.
do jw's still believe that babylon the great is the empire of false religion?
inquiring minds want to know .
estephan.
It's a genre of literature known as apocalyptic. It makes sense as a message written in a specific manner at a specific time and a specific place to a specific audience in response to a specific problem, but attempts to interpret it outside that context age badly and eventually become laughable.
regardless of belief/non-belief in the bible account, why is the ark nearly always depicted by both believers & non-believers as a huge boat, with a rounded hull & stern, and a tapered bow?
https://arkencounter.com/ .
the ark was crate shaped according to the measurements.
--Two different words in Hebrew
תֵּבַת - tēḇâ is the name of the floating basket Moses was placed in and Noah's ark. AFAIK it's only used for those two things
הָאָרֹן - 'ārôn is used for box-like objects including the coffin containing Joseph's bones, the ark of the covenant and money chests
so i grew up as a witness but i’m no longer active, i have some family that still practices very seriously.
but i don’t want to ask them my question.
but what does the bible and teaching’s of jw’s say about early hominids?
but I don't think the depicted photos of the skulls are to the same scale
You're right. --Best I could do with what I had.
The point was to show a morphological gradient separate from any claim of evolutionary relationship.
regardless of belief/non-belief in the bible account, why is the ark nearly always depicted by both believers & non-believers as a huge boat, with a rounded hull & stern, and a tapered bow?
https://arkencounter.com/ .
the ark was crate shaped according to the measurements.
On the "crate" vs "boat" shape:
This is an area where Evangelicals are right and JW's are wrong.
Although the scales described in the Genesis story are unlikely, a boat shape is much more plausible. A rounded hull would absorb and spread out the force of impacts (i.e. waves) whereas a rectangular box would transmit those forces directly to the stress points (i.e. The corners)
That's why a bowl is stronger than a box of the same material (Which is something that can be easily tested)
We use width, height and depth to describe all manner of objects, from cars to trains, to airplanes, so there is really no reason to make that inference from the story to begin with.
so i grew up as a witness but i’m no longer active, i have some family that still practices very seriously.
but i don’t want to ask them my question.
but what does the bible and teaching’s of jw’s say about early hominids?
From left to right:
1. A. afarensis
2. A. africanus
3. H. habilis
4. H. erectus
5. H. heidelbergensis
6. H. neanderthalensis
7. H. sapiens sapiens
8. H. sapiens
AFAIK, JW's would draw the line between ape and human pretty far to the left. --Probably between #2 & #3 or between #3 & #4
bible questions answered.
who were the nephilim?.
the bible account says that “the sons of the true god began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful.” (genesis 6:2) those ‘sons of god’ were actually spirit creatures who rebelled against god when they “forsook their own proper dwelling place” in heaven, materialized human bodies, and “began taking as wives all whom they chose.”—jude 6; genesis 6:2.. the hybrids born from this unnatural union were no ordinary children.
"Materialization" is closer to 20th century science fiction than anything the actual writers would have believed.
--Not trying to be argumentative. It's just confusing when xjw's treat a JW belief as established science and then use it as a springboard for further reasoning.
bible questions answered.
who were the nephilim?.
the bible account says that “the sons of the true god began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful.” (genesis 6:2) those ‘sons of god’ were actually spirit creatures who rebelled against god when they “forsook their own proper dwelling place” in heaven, materialized human bodies, and “began taking as wives all whom they chose.”—jude 6; genesis 6:2.. the hybrids born from this unnatural union were no ordinary children.
Anachronism:
The act of attributing a custom, event, belief or object to a period to which it does not belong.
The JW distinction between spirit vs biological beings is a modern belief that isn't accepted by all Christian religions even today.
bible questions answered.
who were the nephilim?.
the bible account says that “the sons of the true god began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful.” (genesis 6:2) those ‘sons of god’ were actually spirit creatures who rebelled against god when they “forsook their own proper dwelling place” in heaven, materialized human bodies, and “began taking as wives all whom they chose.”—jude 6; genesis 6:2.. the hybrids born from this unnatural union were no ordinary children.
The Book of Jubilees claims the angels are circumcised. The JW view of non-corporeal, sexless entities is a modern innovation.
(i apologise if this is the wrong section for this - its the one i think suits best)this may sound really cliché (it does in my opinion) and a first world thing, but it bothers me someone can be like this and spout these "illogical" arguments (among others, which i will list as questions in the near future)i recently (as of 21/11/22) finished up a conversation with someone on a few things - i find one of their "implications" slightly concerning.. they wouldn't accept "evidence" from scholars who seemingly didn't agree with their standpoint which is interesting.
i.e on the divine name, i listed scholars such as george howard - i got the answer "try a real scholar"or another example i cited beduhn as (in my opinion) he is easy to understand but then got told "he doesn't teach greek at a university so his opinion is not valid" - scholars may not cite beduhn, but from looking at other factors he really gets nothing wrong (linguistically)once again i apologise if this is wasting anyone's time.
If you have a basic understanding of a subject, then don't argue with those who don't.
If you don't have a basic understanding of a subject, then don't argue at all.
You can't argue trigonometry with someone who doesn't understand a right triangle and you can't argue translation with someone who is not familiar with both languages.
-Not trying to be flippant and sorry if it sounds that way.
