on a per capita ratio jws ethos for claiming off the state is higher than any other religion.
does anyone have the answer?
i remember in the late 80s the borg came out with an article "uses and abuses of the welfare system".
Steve2
I'm not waiting for a statistic. I'm waiting for a source document such as may be found in press releases. For example, an organisation or agency might simply provide a table of information to the media which sets out the different religious groups and their ratio of receiving social security or welfare benefits. Does anyone know of any such information in the public domain? I don't. This claim seems plausible but awaits corroboration.
LOL. A statistic by any other name??
on a per capita ratio jws ethos for claiming off the state is higher than any other religion.
does anyone have the answer?
i remember in the late 80s the borg came out with an article "uses and abuses of the welfare system".
A lot of people have asked for the source of the 'statistic' for this thread. The original statement was that "more" Witnesses per capita are on welfare. A statistic by necessity involves a numerical value, so absolutely no statistics have even been offered, let alone a source for them.
Since privacy laws in many countries make it unlawful to record the religious affiliation (or ethnicity or sexuality etc) of welfare recipients, it is unlikely that meaningful statistics are actually available unless an independant voluntary survey has been done.
i have listed all the books i found at the library that mention 586/87 as the fall of jerusalem.
i was also able to link to all of them (except the first one listed) on amazon.com!
many are out of print or unavailable as new books but you can buy almost all of them used on amazon.com ... some are only $10-12 each!
You never get the point do you.
Yes, I see your points, but there is no value in them, and often they are not valid anyway.
I quote Thiele and respect his research even though I do not agree with it all and he does not support 607 but you cannot understand that, can you?
There you go imagining that you know what I do and do not understand. Try to stick to the facts... anyway... That's the thing with devotees of the Society's flawed chronology - they want to indicate some kind of respect for 'profane' scholars because they rely on their methods for 539 so they can't disrespect them entirely. But then they have to ignore 90% of what the professional scholars say because the Society's model is so badly flawed.
No it is not the Society or the Bible that causes the gap it is the methodology and interpretation of Christendom's scholars because they trust Ptolemy's Canon more than God;s Inspired Word.We know with certainty that 607 is corect because of 1914 and the events fulfilled from the Gentile Times right up to 2005 living in the last days.
It certainly is the Society's gap. They have a 20 year gap in their Neo-Babylonian chronology, and 'co-incidentally' they admit that their variance with Egyptian history at exactly the same time is also 20 years. The Egyptian history is not based on Ptolemy's Canon but bares the same results that invalidate the Society's doctrine. You'll have to explain what happened with "suddenness and great force" in October of 1914 because I am not aware of anything significant that happened at that time for the supposed fulfilment. As has previously been explained, the Gentile Times cannot be validly started from 607 or any other point prior to 70AD.
The confession in relation to 587is fundamental to you understanding that methoidology and interpretation is basis for chronology.
There you go again presuming that I need your help in order to understand something. You imply that you have respect for these scholars, but you cannot point to a single scholar (not counting your salivating 'celebrated' WT scholars) who you actually agree with.
i have listed all the books i found at the library that mention 586/87 as the fall of jerusalem.
i was also able to link to all of them (except the first one listed) on amazon.com!
many are out of print or unavailable as new books but you can buy almost all of them used on amazon.com ... some are only $10-12 each!
You show your true ignorance. Why did you not think why I would connect SDA's with chronology and it is not because of any suppossed theological similarities as you suppose. The reason is that SDA's have made perhaps the greatest contribution to the understanding of chronology because of the scholarship of Edwin Thiele, a SDA scholar who is regarded by Christendom as one of the greatest chronologists of the last century. You need to go to Brisbane and read more.
You give Thiele credence for his work, though you inherently believe that he is completely wrong. You are beyond ignorant. I'll decide where I need to go and what I need to read thanks.
The gap of twenty years exposed by the Bible is your problem not mine so when you plug or fill up the gap then you will arrive at 607 for it just means that secular people are slow in catching up with the FDS. I mention an article to you that should have aroused your curiosity but you failed to do because it is incomprehensible because it uses a form of computer modelling to make sense of when Jerusalem fell in either 586 or 587.Why do use the word 'Bible' as a synonym for 'the Society'? The bible makes no such exposition. It is the Society's doctrine that creates the gap. I'm not sure how that is my problem. In reality there is simply no gap to plug, and there are events that occurred before the fall of Jerusalem that are known to have happened after 607. "Catching up with the FDS"... LOL. And even if by some miracle Jerusalem fell in 607, it would be meaningless as the rest of the 1914 doctrine is full of flaws as well.
Let me tell you by way of a honest confession to you that the writer of this article supports 587 rather than 586 for Thiele.
The first "honest confession" that you make on the forum, and you waste it on something of absolutely no value.
i have listed all the books i found at the library that mention 586/87 as the fall of jerusalem.
i was also able to link to all of them (except the first one listed) on amazon.com!
many are out of print or unavailable as new books but you can buy almost all of them used on amazon.com ... some are only $10-12 each!
You need to work harder on the word 'kingship' and spot the difference because it is the death blow to your special pleading for Daniel 1:1 and your alleged union with Jeremiah 25:1.
Oooohhh.. you said "special pleading"... you must be right! And does anyone agree with this coffin nail of yours?
All scholars including our own employ a special and unique methodology and interpretation in order to do chronology. The sooner you get the basics right then you will progress in understanding the subject. All that you are doing is repeating tired and empty theories long advanced by other scholars such as the SDA's.
There you go with your condescending remarks again. It is you who posts information that ignores the basics. You misquote historians, misquote the bible, change the meaning of words, and are continually insulting to any who don't accept the Society's interpretations. Trying to smear scholars by relating them to SDAs is rediculous because JWs share similar roots with the SDAs.
Yes, scholars do date the Fall within a decade and that is that despite the fact that they use the same evidence but their methodologies differ but or date is just another decade away so the the amount of vaiation between 607 and say 587 is statistically insignificant but theologically significant and that is what counts.
The great bulk of scholars date the Fall to either 587 or 586. They also know there was definitely a separate siege in 597, for which the exact day is known. This invalidates your claim that a variance of two decades back to 607 is "statistically insignificant". It certainly is statistically significant because it is extraordinarily unlikely statistically that the records for 20 contiguous years of Neo-Babylonian rule would not be evidenced among the tens of thousands of contemporary records. It is the only the Witnesses who accept 607, and it is to prop up their flawed doctrine.
Current chronologies are complex for all not just me which is acknowleged by a scholar regarding 587 in a recent journal article which you would find incomprehensible. That is why simplicity has to to be the main factor as anything else is suspect. You need to get out a bit more and travel the world of chronology for your ignorance is obvious to all.
The highlighted part of your quote indicates that you are a conceited arrogant fool. Everyone on the board except you seems to agree with me, so it seems that it is you whose ignorance is obvious.
i have listed all the books i found at the library that mention 586/87 as the fall of jerusalem.
i was also able to link to all of them (except the first one listed) on amazon.com!
many are out of print or unavailable as new books but you can buy almost all of them used on amazon.com ... some are only $10-12 each!
You can try to ignore the fact that the word 'kingship' invalidates your theory but it is a fact that this specific word carries a different meaning to 'reign' otherwise the NWT would not have translated the word as they have done. Scholars agree that in Daniel 1:1 third year does not refer to his third regnal year. The text does not indicate the specific year of Neb's reign so you assume that it is this or that just as I can assume that it refers to another later year. The evidence flatly disproves your theory.
The word 'kingship' invalidates nothing. All of the uses of the original word are related to the position or duration of one who reigns. There is never any implication of vassalages or a point of time during the reign relative to some other event.
One must refer to other scholars on matters of chronology and take not of their research which is what celebrated WT scholars do and which you do not but you rely on your own opinion which is foolish. Scholars have no date for the Fall of Jerusalem, some say 587, 586, 588, 589 so it is a feast all based on the same empirical evidence. Daniel did not say the third year of reign but the third year of kingship. You have already listed the range of meanings for the word Malkut but it seems that you failed to get the point.
The Society ignores most secular research and goes by its own rediculous methodology simply to support its flawed doctrines. The fact that all of these variant scholars place the event around the same period time indicates that it was definitely not 20 years earlier as you would claim. There are events known to have occurred before Jerusalem's fall that are dated to the very day several years after 607.
If our method is simple then it is less likely to be wrong but your method is complex and more likely to be wrong. Simplicity always wins out in the end and that is why we are right and you are wrong.
Perhaps my method seems complex to you. I can't do much about that. If you are trying to make yourself look 'simple' to the forum readers, it doesn't mean they'll think you're right.
i don't have much time but... .
i met with the elders, and they restored all my priviledges!!!!.
haha!!!
Just think... in a few years you can give a nice upbuilding experience at a convention about nearly losing your faith but how the elders helped you become strong in the truth by lightening your heavy load of microphone duty... and how excited you were to get back your privileges after once again becoming such a great pillar of faith.
i have listed all the books i found at the library that mention 586/87 as the fall of jerusalem.
i was also able to link to all of them (except the first one listed) on amazon.com!
many are out of print or unavailable as new books but you can buy almost all of them used on amazon.com ... some are only $10-12 each!
You are simply reading something into the text that is simply not there. It makes no sense to imply that Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzer as ruling in his first or acc year because of omission. The fact is that Daniel omits any chronological reference to Nebuchadnezzer but simply refers to Jehoiakim's third year of kingship as a datum. There is no link between Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 then your theory becomes plausible. But you have to prove that there is a connection between tghese two texts in order to support your claim and this is something you cannot do.
It is not simply because the year is omitted by Daniel, but because Jehoiakim's third year was Nebuchadnezzar's accession year and Daniel said it was Jehoiakim's third year (accession-year system). You can say the word 'kingship' a million times over and it will not change the meaning of the original Hebrew word into anything else.
One can only conclude that both texts refer to two separate events as to time and history and any amount of fudgy bookkeeping won't help. Also, scholars are unsure as to whether the First year of Nebuchadnezzer in Jeremiah 25:1 refers to his first regnal year or his accession yearAh... now you appeal to what scholars say. Scholars say Jerusalem fell in 587.
so your theory fails on this basis alone additionally Daniel refers to the third year of kingship which clearly implies not a third regnal year but a third year in the course of his reign of 11 years.
You claim that your method is simple and that mine is complex. I say that when Daniel says third year of Jehoiakim, that it means third year of Jehoiakim. But you, without legitimate basis, claim that he was referrring to "a third year in the course of his reign". You claim that the word 'kingship' implies something that it simply does not. You act like it's a different word than would normally be used for 'reign', but it is not. The only manner in which your method is simple is that it is simply wrong.
Still waiting on your chart of Neo-Babylonian kings.
lets say that there is a "great tribulation" in our time, how will the average witness survive it?
first of all, they don't even know what it is, or when it will happen.
the great tribulation could be a nuclear war or anything man made.
Silly rat! Jehovah is going to inclose each JW in their own plastic bubble. This way they will be protected from the tribulation. Like a hamster.
Hope he remembers to make some airholes.
i was in need of some laughs, so i did a search for "microsoft crap".
i found something written about the blue screen of death, so i figured i'd click on that.
however, i couldn't read it.
I agree about using Firefox rather than IE... but the message you got most likely means that the web server disconnected. It has nothing to do with the fact that you're running Microsoft on your machine.
Possibly, but I got the same result trying the same page in IE, but the page comes up fine in Firefox.
