by Nosferatu 54 Replies latest jw friends
My Book of Bible Stories
All of the other books are for consenting adults. This book tries to look like an innocent story book, but when you look at it- its all about how you die if you don't obey. (And there are a lot of ways to die!!! Snakes, babylonians, your dad using a knife, fire, whales, plagues, etc, etc, etc.)
Such an evil brainwashing tool.
Reveation book, for the amount of times we had to study it. The first time I started writing little diary entries in the columns during the book study. It was always fun to read them and then update them as the years went by, doing that stupid book four times.
I think if a the Society makes its congregations, go over and over a book that was released years ago are trying to make sure that the witnesses never forget their indroctrination and brainwashing. It is the same information year in and year out. Nothing ever changes.
I believe someone mentioned the Green Bible was N Knorrs, idea, well before he was president the green bibles were in sections with references on the sides or middle column during the fifties. I know that when my parents decided to convert to the JW's in 63 that the publication being studied was "Let Your Name Be Sanctified", OH prior to that was the book, "Let God Be True" book.
As part of our Bible Study at home we studied the Paradise Lost t o Paradise Regained. Very boring.
In 64 that is when we started studing the bk " Babylon the Great Has Fallen Gods Kingdom Rules.
well that was quite the book, I did find interesting to some extent. I still have my original copy, and Your will be Done on Earth Bk was a home project, I read Faith on the March by MacMillian. I use to place tons of Truth Bks in Montreal where I pioneered. The Bk Nations Shall Know I am Jehovah, and the bk, Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God, is where the Society made their 1975 error. and have lived to regret it ever since.
Revelation Grand Climax book I didn't like it either. Evolution or Creation the large blue and latest bk is so wrong in many areas. I am not sure if they even use this bk anymore.
That is my despised list of the WTS litter box reading
love
Orangefatcat
p. s. ...if I recall anything else I didn't like I will let you know.
w
At the time evolution book was stating common knowledge it ertainly could do with an update especially on hybrids but not becasue they have failed their but that further research is backing up a massive fault in evolutions notion of species jumping.
Is a mule a different species? Is a mule a different sub-species? Neither. It's a hybrid. It didn't become a species by the same process of natural selection that drives speciation, so it's not a species. It's not different breeds of the same species. It's a cross between two different species. However, the combination of words doesn't usually mix to make a creature that can reproduce. Sometimes, perhaps a hybrid can reproduce. However, if two mules could reproduce, they might produce an offspring that is more like either a donkey or a horse because "mule" is not a species per se. If you could breed a mule back with a horse or a donkey, you may get a horse or donkey with some qualities of the other species. If so, then perhaps some of the words long lost in a species could be restored toward the type, but I wouldn't think this to be very likely because the mule isn't a species.
Now let me tell you why this is important. There are two types of evolutionists: those who understand genetics and those who think they understand genetics. Those who understand genetics know that I'm right in a basic way. There's a sense in which there appears to be some flexibility in the structure of a genotype. However, science has not demonstrated such fluidity in structure that would account for a slow progressive change in a genotype over time. Rather, the evidence is that different species within a genotype maintain a fairly consistent genotypic structure with marked distinctions between genotypes. In other words, there's not a multitude of slight yet fundamental differences in genotype between species within a genotype.
In keeping with our metaphor, the evolutionist's claim is that the story is pretty much the same, but the structure of one sentence or another has been altered changing the gist of the story slightly. What I'm saying is that this hasn't been noticed. There is the occasional error where part of a sentence, or even a whole sentence, has been duplicated. This would be obvious and is obvious, but this doesn't represent a re-write of the sentence.
However, an evolutionist who understands this can't accept it. Therefore, the only thing the evolutionist can do is to propagate the notion among evolutionists who don't understand this that speciation represents these slight changes in genotype to the point where eventually one can call the type of organism a new genotype. The evolutionists who don't understand what I have addressed above think that the supposition they have been fed has been proven to be true when it hasn't.
Now there are levels of detail that I haven't even touched here like dipthoid reproduction and a genetic analysis of different levels of morphologically based taxonomy, but I hope I've made this understandable to you. When hybrids can't reproduce, we may think that perhaps it's because their genotypes have shifted far enough apart. Rather, it's because hybrids are not breeds within a species. A hybrid doesn't have the benefit of a species to contain the allele combinations that can survive and reproduce by actually surviving and reproducing.http://timelessfaith.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-hybrids-cant-reproduce-creationists.html
this is one example of a new wall the scientists are hitting with chromozones etc with their jumping species theory but time will tell and then if the books are rewritten to allow for the scientific developments will you be more understanding of it than you are with the admittedly old evolution book?
Reniaa
The evolution book will always be the one that I spit on every night before I go to bed. My parents made me give that one to my science teacher. I never lived down that shame.
