Here's a link to the new thread about Bible authenticity:
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
to sweetscholar, the vain hypocrite who can't answer refute evidence that the Bible is chronologically innacurate
Here we have definative proof of what kind of webscum you are; I don't worship the devil idiot. I don't believe in the devil, how could I worship it? But you are willing to lie, and as Satan is the father of the lie, you are a son of Satan.
first of all, I have addressed specific points raised by others.
Address my specific points, if you can.
but 90% of the reason for the hostility towards me is NOT my "tone" but my position.
Your 'postion' is that of a presuppositionalist; every thing you believe is based on an unsupported opinion; you don't want us to worship god, you want us to worship your opinions. And that is exactly why people are hostile to you, in additon to you being offensive from the get go.
I've gone more into doctrinal, technical, and historical things, overall.
And ignored the fact the Bible is not accurate chronologically.
this posting TOWARDS YOU is just to set the record straight. good day. Abaddon.
See, I KNEW you couldn't deal with the issues raised!
I already know you diss the Bible anyway.
Because it is dissable; if it were accurate and god inspired it would not be dissable.
to re-iterate, you blind fool, I HAVE ANSWERED AND ADDRESSED OTHERS POINTS.
Not all of them and not ones I have raised regarding the Bible being inaccurate.
you call me "twat". that's funny.
Oh, it certainly got your attention, which it was meant to do. Now you've replied to me directly rather than in passing the fact you've NOT dealt with the choronological inaccuracy of the Bible is even more obvious; you can't excuse it as an oversight.
"just as the days of Noah" oh so true.
That's the entire point; just as the days of Noah NOT TRUE
For nearly 80 years their understanding of what Jesus meant by "generation" remained unchanged, although the definition they now use was known over 80 years prior. Then, in 1995, 81 years after 1914 (after the time limit for a lifespan placed by Psalms had elapsed) the "understanding" miraculously changed.
It bears up one vital question: If they can be wrong (if they are fallible) how can they be trusted to tell God's truth? They were wrong about 1914 once, how can I be certain they aren't wrong again?
See, with Noah it was easier. He wasn't wrong, right? According to Genesis, God spoke to him directly. God told him what to do and he did it, "just so." Moses did the same thing. But these Governing Body members, they aren't getting messages from God so they aren't doing just so. How can I put my trust in the sons of earthling man? They can't save me.
These are some of the points let me to just stop putting trust in the Governing Body, They don't seem to be spirit- anointed any more than other religious groups. And they make too many specific rules that go beyond what is written.
....but the point that's clear is that that physical object, the Ark, represented the organized church arrangement of Noah and his family. what's the problem? I said it like 3 or 4 times already. you had to do whatever Noah and his family were doing. how do we know? cuz look at the end result for the people who DIDN'T join in with Noah during all those years of constructing the Ark, which was an act of faith and obedience, that "condemned the world", Hebrews 11.
This is pure inference and supposition. We don't know anything of the sort in a definitive sense.
The Genesis stories (Both J & P) do not even hint at the possibility that others besides Noah and his immediate family could have survived. God says to Noah:
"But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee." (6:18)
"Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." (7:1)
In the story, Noah and his family are saved due to Noah's righteousness. The story is explicit that Noah alone found grace before God. (cf. 6:8) The idea that Noah ever preached an invitation and warning to others did not come until much later.
In keeping with it's central motif, (e.g. Salvation apart from Law) Hebrews attributes Noah's salvation to his faith;
"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." (11:7)
The second letter of Peter implies that a message was "preached" but does not state the nature of the message.
...but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness...." --dikaiosuxex keruka
A somewhat different slant appears in two of the synoptics. Jesus indirectly condemns the antediluvian world not because of their wickedness, but because of their preoccupation with normal day to day affairs:
"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. " (Matt. 24:38,39) "They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." (Lu 17:27)
What they failed to note, (e.g. A sign of some sort) can only be speculated upon based on the context. (i.e. The "Sign" of the Son of Man)
None of this lends any support to any of your assertions. We don't know that there was an, "organized church arrangement with Noah and his family." In other words, we don't know what form Noah's righteous took. All we know is that God did regard Noah as "righteous." We also don't know that the ark pictured this alleged arrangement --that is purely an interpretive allegory drawn after the fact. We don't even know that anyone necessarily "dissed" Noah, although it certainly adds color to the story to speculate.
You've mentioned "logic" several times on this thread. Logic is not speculation or conjecture. Logic is not what you want to believe. Logic is not even what seems reasonable to you personally. A valid logical construct guarantees the truth of the conclusion as long as the initial premises are correct.
I like JW's as people, (After all, I've been happily married to one for 25 years) but collectively, I think you assign way to much weight to the speculation of your leaders.
Thanks for everyone's welcome to the site.
What I find remarkable about this post is that SS is already casting judgments on my character despite the fact that I've only posted once so far.
In life I've realised that to judge someone adversely prior to engaging in constructive dialogue is folly. Inevitably the person prematurely judging normally ends up in a situation in the future where he/she needs mercy/forgiveness from the one he criticized and judged!
In SS's case, how would you feel if you had some doubts about the organizations teaching which you were unable to reconcile? To be branded an apostate for having a doubts is unfair. How would you feel if you for example felt you could not accept the organizations previous understanding of "the generation" term. If you were branded an apostate for a view which was contrary to the organizations published position, I'm sure you'd be upset. Then the organization adjusts its understanding of "the generation".....your views are exonerated. Those who branded you apostate would surely feel at the minimum embarrassed and would surely want to apologise to you for such a negative label.
This is how I feel about certain teachings - that they are not solidly based on scripture and may well change in the future. I am open to new ways of thinking to enable me to determine whether there is another way of viewing certain texts which I have trouble reconciling. Hence my reason for reviewing websites as a research tool.
So please SS, refrain from trying to stain my character before you know even a single thing about me. I am not "thin skinned" as you suggest. I am simple a mature adult who is able to respect others and converse and reason with those adults without having to label people negatively. By all means think what you like about me. But please do not make insulting and unsubstantiated statements about my character.
May you have peace (Matthew 5:9)