by Spade 382 Replies latest watchtower bible
gawd!! sometimes when i talk with jw's i feel like shooting myself in the head!! you people are the most ignorant, self righteous, "its right cuz we say so!" peeps ever!
one thing i can give spade is a p for persistence, even tho persistence doesnt make you right or prove wrong secular history.
The Watchtower almost had me on the 607 B.C.E. thing, too. I would accept Bible chronology before secular, if they disagreed. The problem is, they don't disagree. The Watchtower simply picked the wrong date to count 70 years back from. Their own literature can be used to refute the 607 B.C.E. date, per my timeline. Feel free to comment, if you find a discrepancy. I don't care who is right or wrong, but what is right or wrong.
Once again, YOU ARE ON AN "APOSTATE" WEBSITE!!
Why are you continually trying to teach something here when you could be "helping" people at empty homes?
Oh, I see. You and the GB are cool like that. You got special permission to post here.
Seems like you should be the one bugging off. With so much copying and pasting, I can only imagine your Watchtower study comments. Word-for-word.
Go knock on a door or on your head. Take your pick.
CoC
"Human ancestry studied through mitochondrial dna. Look it up. There's a lot more evidence than just those two things. Ignore mountains of evidence all you want, but don't be surprised when no one wants to debate you about it. It doesn't mean you're right, it means it's a waste of our time."
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html
Mitochondrial DNA
DNA is present inside the nucleus of every cell of our body but it is the DNA of the cell’s mitochondria that has been most commonly used to construct evolutionary trees.
Mitochondrial DNA — maternal DNA — is used to construct evolutionary trees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. They do not necessarily accurately represent the species evolutionary history.The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by horizontal gene transfer, hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.
Here you go, Spade. I won't cut and paste anything but the main site address. It's your responsibility to educate yourself.
EDIT: Are you really Alice? I haven't been keeping up with your latest alias.
I've written extensively about 607, 586/7, 1914 and the Genital Times, but I won't repost links here.
I will regurgitate this, though: it's ALL a huge pile of bullshit. "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" is boring and says it the hard and somewhat academic way, so I will say it the easy way:
It's all a huge pile of bullshit.
I can (and have) prove(d) in a simple 5 short paragraphs using ONLY WTS publications AND two Bible verses that 607 is bullshit and that 586/7 is the correct date.
I've also shown that the claims made for 1914 are bullshit, too and have done that without any reference for earlier dates whatsoever.
If anyone trampled on anyone's genitals, they didn't start doing it in 607 BCE. NO! They started trampling on someone's genitals twenty years later! This is GOOD news for the people who didn't want their genitals trampled on for twenty years who lived back in 607 BCE! They had a full TWENTY years to hide those genitals and keep them from being trampled on when people finally started to trample them!
No one likes people to trample on their genitals.
Farkel
Spade quoting some nonsense: "During the first half of 1914, the world seemed secure and safe from war."
All of these points have been satisfactorily rebutted before. Get a copy of the Watchtower bound volumes or at least The Time is at Hand and see how Russell predicted the end of this era at 1914 with the millenium starting immediately after it.
Also, the myth of an unexpected WWI, perpetuated by some 'worldly' idiot historians, is false. Europe had been building up towards war for the past several decades. It was in a tense situation that certainly could not be considered peaceful but could more accurately be described as a "cold war".
Even the Watchtower stated on one occasion, in the 1880s, that it looked like the nations were getting ready for war. Russell himself, in the 1890s, was upset that his members asked him to readjust his complex eschatology because it appeared to them that a general war, involving the whole world, could break out. That would have disrupted Russell's slow motion social collapse theory where chaos would disrupt the whole world simultaneously by means of communist union disruptions, religious institutions being overturned, and people turning on each other.
No, War does not quite qualify as that type of chaos due to the fact that both sides in the war would need to be very organized in order to produce and provide weapons, vehicles, and food through a complicated logistical chain to soldiers. You cannot do that with social fracticide and chaos. How would they maintain the organization to fight a war if people within the warring nations would be at each other's throats?
The result of a war would have been that of one side winning. That would obviously have created an inconvenient postponement of Russell's unusual Armageddon theory. After all, he wanted all the nations to collapse together, on schedule, by 1914; not one block of nations to win a war which would maintain the status quo.
That is why Russell specifically said in the Watchtower that such a war involving all of Europe either would not happen or, if it did, it would be a minor event happening before 1905 (That would leave time for his social collapse to play out.). Then when 1904 came, as if on schedule, he reinvented his prophecy. He even denied saying certain things that he did blatantly say in his book The Time is at Hand. He did not even do the courtesy of altering the text of that book in later editions; as he always did with his books, when his secondary prophecies failed to happen on their appointed dates throughout the 1880s and 1890s.
Bottom line, 1914 is analogous to a B movie monster that keeps mutating and changing shape. I've seen, throughout the 1980s, how the ever changing "light" kept shortening the necessary minimum "age of understanding" for those alive in 1914. They kept getting younger and younger. From 20 years of age down to infancy. It was obviously a pure mindf*ck, on the part of the Bitchtower Pharisees, to squeeze more time out of a false prophecy that was about to be falsified.
Then they came up with their new 'mutation' that made the length of a "generation" indefinite. This would make the very mention of the word, a meaningless thing for Jesus (As interpreted by Jehovah's puppeteers) to have said.
So go ahead; reshape and stretch your bogus prophecies like so much playdough, for the rest of your life in Watchtower bondage.
Villabolo
villabolo,
I'm impressed. When you get out of faux science issues, you are quite articulate and knowledgeable!
Don't get your knickers in a snit. The is a peace offering.
Farkel
Historians also agree on 537 B.C.E. as the year when Cyrus the Great decreed that the Israelites could return to Judea from captivity to rebuild their temple.
Source? Or is this like saying "Nine out of ten doctors agree..."
The document also confirms many of the details recorded in Ezra 1:2-4, in which Cyrus the Great decreed that the Israelites could return to Judea from captivity to rebuild the temple in 537 B.C.E.
You refer to Ezra 1:2-4 as a scripture "in which" Cyrus made his decree in 537 B.C.E. I don't see that date in the text.
"Source? Or is this like saying "Nine out of ten doctors agree..."
At Ezra 1:1, reference is made to "the first year of Cyrus," not "the year Cyrus became king" (or accession year), so he was speaking of the first regnal year of Cyrus, which cuneiform documentation places in 538/537 B.C.E. Jewish historian Josephus corroborates by referring to "the first year of the reign of Cyrus."—Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter I.
This point is generally agreed upon by historians. For instance, the Handbook of Bible Chronology by Jack Finegan (Princeton University Press, 1964), p. 170, states:
"The biblical references to the first year of Cyrus when he made the proclamation which allowed the Jewish exiles to return from Babylon to Jerusalem (II Ch 36:22f.; Ezr 1:1f.) are presumably stated in terms of his reign in Babylon since they deal with an event in that city. According to the cuneiform evidence and the Babylonian calendar, Babylon fell on Tashritu 16 = Oct 12, 539 B.C., and Cyrus entered the city two and one-half weeks later on Arahsamnu 3 = Oct 29. His Babylonian regnal years began, therefore, as shown in Table 77. Accordingly his first year, in which he made the proclamation, was 538/537 B.C."
TABLE 77. BABYLONIAN REGNAL YEARS OF CYRUS AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS REIGN
Accession 539/538
Year 1 538/537
Year 2 537/536
