Disillusioned JW

Joined

• started 27 topics
• posted 2,027 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Disillusioned JW

• 
  47

  The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

  below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

  https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  I already provided one specific fossil example in my first post in this topic thread, namely the example of the fossil skeleton named "Little Foot". I consider it an excellent case - even better than the fossil named Lucy. The "Little Foot" skeleton has a mixture of human non-ape features and of ape nonhuman features, and is thus representative of part of the evolution of modern humans from non-human apes. But it is the collective evidence which strongly and conclusively demonstrates evolution, not merely one single example.

  You are trying to trap me by your unreasonable insistence that if if evolution is true then one specific example, all by itself, should be able to conclusively demonstrate its entire truth. That is a major fault of young earth creationists and of their literature.

  It is really tiresome communicating with people who are so faulty in their reasoning against biological evolution and in other matters.
  
• 
  47

  The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

  below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

  https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  In order for the doctor to know how to do the medical procedure the person who became the doctor had to spend numerous years studying numerous medical facts in order to later become a doctor, in order to later diagnose the medical problem, in order to later determine the solution to the medical problem, and in order to later propose a particular medical procedure and to perform the medical procedure. Figuratively speaking, the person who became the doctor had to collect and study multiple puzzle pieces and to piece them together. My analogy of jigsaw puzzles is thus valid.
  

  For example, in order to show the fossil evidence for evolutionary transition of humans from non-human animals, one needs more than one fossil. One needs multiple fossils representing multiple stages of the transition (multiple transitional features). Likewise to show the evidence of evolution from comparative anatomy a person needs to compare more than one common feature between two different species. One needs to compare many common features (as well as different features and somewhat different features) between numerous species, to show that various current species have a common ancestor and to show evidence for biological evolution.

  There is also the evidence from genetics of existing species, the evidence from biogeography, the evidence from experiments in mutations of genes, the evidence of atavisms, the evidence of radiometric dating of fossils, and more. There is also the principle of consilience. When these lines of evidence are all considered together, while using the principle of consilience, biological evolution is shown to be true well beyond a reasonable doubt (much like jurors considering multiple pieces of evidence before making a final decision and casting a verdict) - and non-evolutionary special creationism is shown to be extremely unlikely to be true.

  Regarding atavisms see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism .
  

  Sea Breeze, it sounds like you are the one who needs to do some more research and/or to do much more critical thinking (from a scientific perspective) on the topic.
• 
  29

  The bus stop analogy

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  suppose we were naïve observers, given the following data, and asked to draw a conclusion.

  we see people gather at a busy bus stop several times a day.

  at first one person, then another, and another, until they form a group.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  It is true that the arrivals of the buses are based upon bus schedules, but the but schedules are in turn based upon ridership patterns. When ridership levels drop considerably in certain routes, then the bus schedules for those routes change to lower frequency of stops and sometimes the routes are even discontinued. Likewise if some areas start having much higher ridership (or are even anticipated to soon have higher ridership or even to need ridership, such as due to newly created buildings on the route), the bus schedules for those routes change to higher frequency of stops and sometimes even a new route is created.
  
• 
  47

  The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  despite the wt's and young earth creationists' teachings against human evolution (namely macroevolution from non-humans) being a reality, the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.. consider for example two science news articles and one other science article, each pertaining to the fossil that is nicknamed "little foot".

  below are links to three science articles, listed in order of the articles from oldest to newest (except i don't see a date for one of the articles).

  https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187639-exclusive-controversial-skeleton-may-be-a-new-species-of-early-human/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Sea Breeze, for me it more of a comprehensive collection of numerous scientific findings that together prove well beyond a reasonable doubt that neo-Darwinian evolution (incorporating the idea of punctuated equilibrium) is a fact. It like viewing a large jigsaw puzzle. If a person only looks at a few pieces of a 650 piece jigsaw puzzle (without looking at the picture on the cover of the puzzle's box) then the person has virtually no idea of the what the whole puzzle is a picture of. Even if the person looks at all 650 pieces without the pieces connected together, then the person would still have no more than very little of an idea of what the whole puzzle is a picture of. But, after much of the puzzle has been assembled then the person has a good idea.

  By the way, as a youngster I loved putting together jigsaw puzzles, including a 650 piece jigsaw puzzle and I still have most of the puzzles I had as a youngster.
  
• 
  179

  The Watchtower is NOT a false prophet

  by The Quiet One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  regarding what some have said here about the wt being a false prophet.. i would like to make my point regarding the wt not being a false prophet... so please, if you can be patient enough to read this, at least try to understand what i am getting at.. a false prophet is one who, according to deuteronomy, makes a false prediction of the future and claims that the prediction came from god, or in other words claiming that 'god has said he will do a certain thing at a certain time' etc.. for example, hypothetically speaking, if someone had claimed: "god will bring about the end of the world in 2010", they would have been proven to be a false prophet, obviously.

  but, as an example, imagine a man who claimed the position of a prophet of god, (as moses did, because although he was not the type of prophet that predicted the future.. he was still a prophet or spokesman for god) and that he had publicised worldwide, according to his interpretation of a (for example) prophecy found in the book of isaiah, that the world would end in 2010.. and he had also stated that he was not saying that god will end the world in that year.. but only that there was biblical evidence that god might do so.

  that would clearly have been a mistake.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  waton, I appreciate the insight of your words of "DJW; even when wrongly assigning the details of a so-called "second fulfillment" of a bible prophecy, wt sets itself up to be a false prophet, before the date even arrives."

  It is true that the WT is often incorrect in making a "second fulfillment" type of
  interpretation of OT prophecies. Furthermore since the WT claims that it (and its governing body) is (are) Jehovah God's channel of providing scriptural insight, and that the WT is directed in some sense by Jehovah God's holy spirit, and since they also claim that all of the literature of the WT are part of Jehovah God's provisions, then when the WT teaches such false interpretations they are indeed acting as a false prophet. Likewise such can be recognized even before the dates assigned (and even if no date is assigned) by the WT for fulfillment to such prophetic interpretations, since the WT is on record as naming specific former prophetic interpretations of theirs as false (in some regard).

  waton, you are correct about the WT being in error regarding their teachings of the generation (including the overlapping feature), heavenly resurrections since 1918, and that 'the "anointed" will all have passed away to heaven by the beginning of the "great distress"'. They are also very much in error in saying that Jesus Christ became king in heaven in the year 1914.
  
• 
  28

  Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why?

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  which english translations of the bible are you favorites, and why?

  my favorites include the (english) revised version bible (of 1881-1885) and its apocrypha (of 1898), the american revised version bible (of 1898, it close to the american standard version), the american standard version bible (of 1901), the new american standard bible - updated edition, the new revised standard version bible with the apocrypha, the complete bible: an american translation (it includes the apocrypha), and the twentieth century new testament.

  i also use others beside those.. they are my favorites because i consider them to be highly accurate, and also they are either very literal (but not so literal as to be hard to understand) or they use functional equivalence.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Regarding John 7:53 - 8:11 the translators' textual footnote in the NKJV says the following. "NU brackets 7:53 through 8:11 as not in the original text. They are present in over 900 mss. of John." This shows one example of the Greek NT becoming corrupted long before the year 1000 C.E., by the addition of so many extra words. As a result, the 2013 revision of the NWT is justified in entirely excluding John 7:53 - 8:11 from its text, especially considering that now almost only JWs (and ex-JWs) use the NWT anyway.
  
• 
  28

  Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why?

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  which english translations of the bible are you favorites, and why?

  my favorites include the (english) revised version bible (of 1881-1885) and its apocrypha (of 1898), the american revised version bible (of 1898, it close to the american standard version), the american standard version bible (of 1901), the new american standard bible - updated edition, the new revised standard version bible with the apocrypha, the complete bible: an american translation (it includes the apocrypha), and the twentieth century new testament.

  i also use others beside those.. they are my favorites because i consider them to be highly accurate, and also they are either very literal (but not so literal as to be hard to understand) or they use functional equivalence.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Regarding the Koine Greek see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek .

  Though the main text of the NKJV's NT is translated from the Textus Receptus, I greatly appreciate that the translators' footnotes include alternate readings from two Critical Text types (the ones referred to as NU and M). "NU" means Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (referred to as "the most prominent modern Critical Text of the Greek New Testament") and "M" means Majority Text (see the "Preface" and the section called "Special Abbreviations" of the NKJV).

  The Preface of the NKJV (under the heading of "The New Testament") says the following. "Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version. ... the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the textual footnotes."
  
• 
  28

  Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why?

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  which english translations of the bible are you favorites, and why?

  my favorites include the (english) revised version bible (of 1881-1885) and its apocrypha (of 1898), the american revised version bible (of 1898, it close to the american standard version), the american standard version bible (of 1901), the new american standard bible - updated edition, the new revised standard version bible with the apocrypha, the complete bible: an american translation (it includes the apocrypha), and the twentieth century new testament.

  i also use others beside those.. they are my favorites because i consider them to be highly accurate, and also they are either very literal (but not so literal as to be hard to understand) or they use functional equivalence.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  It appears to me that the The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts, by Joan Konner, has a number of good witty quotes (from the perspective of atheists, though theists probably wouldn't approve of many of the quotes).
  
• 
  28

  Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why?

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  which english translations of the bible are you favorites, and why?

  my favorites include the (english) revised version bible (of 1881-1885) and its apocrypha (of 1898), the american revised version bible (of 1898, it close to the american standard version), the american standard version bible (of 1901), the new american standard bible - updated edition, the new revised standard version bible with the apocrypha, the complete bible: an american translation (it includes the apocrypha), and the twentieth century new testament.

  i also use others beside those.. they are my favorites because i consider them to be highly accurate, and also they are either very literal (but not so literal as to be hard to understand) or they use functional equivalence.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  I don't know if there is a difference of over 3000 Greek words between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text (though I know there is a difference of many words), but if there is then the idea can also be said in another way. Namely, "Bibles based upon the Textus Receptus have added over 3000 Greek words (to the underlying Greek text of translations) to the NT." The Greek manuscripts became corrupted long before the year 1000 C.E. by the addition of so many extra words and by other changes in wording.
  

  In addition, the KJV has a number of incorrect translations of Greek words of the Textus Receptus and a number of imprecise translations of Greek words.

  For those who favor English translations based upon the Textus Receptus or the upon the Majority Text, I encourage them to read the book called Companion to the Revised Version of the New Testament: Explaining the Reasons for the Changes Made on the Authorized Version, by Alexander Roberts. It may be read online at https://archive.org/details/companiontorevis00roberich/mode/2up . Likewise I encourage them to see similar books from around the year 1881 about the superiority of Revised Version Bible over the KJV Bible, which also can be read online.

  The book called A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, by Philip Schaff, has much useful information. It can be read online at https://books.google.com/books?id=NMdFAAAAIAAJ&newbks=0&hl=en . That book and the one by Roberts however said that the Greek language of the NT was a Hebraic form of Greek, but after the later discovery of many secular ancient manuscripts in Greek written by the common people it was learned that the language (or dialect) was actually the Greek of the common people - namely, the Koine Greek.
  

  The Revised Version (sometimes called the English Revised Version) and the American Standard Version (officially named the Standard American Edition of the Revised Version of the Bible) are much more reliable Bibles than the King James Version. That is not just because they are more accurate in their translation of their source texts, but also because they are translated from source texts which are much closer to the original Greek NT wording than those used by the translators of the KJV. For those like to read the English Bible in the early modern English (like that of the KJV), the RV and ASV retain most of that style of English, though there is some reduction in the use of archaic language.
  
• 
  28

  Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why?

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  which english translations of the bible are you favorites, and why?

  my favorites include the (english) revised version bible (of 1881-1885) and its apocrypha (of 1898), the american revised version bible (of 1898, it close to the american standard version), the american standard version bible (of 1901), the new american standard bible - updated edition, the new revised standard version bible with the apocrypha, the complete bible: an american translation (it includes the apocrypha), and the twentieth century new testament.

  i also use others beside those.. they are my favorites because i consider them to be highly accurate, and also they are either very literal (but not so literal as to be hard to understand) or they use functional equivalence.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  smiddy3, I noticed there are at least 3 different books with the title of "The Atheist's Bible". Which one do you mean? Do you mean "The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts" by Joan Konner?