Posts by notsurewheretogo

2464

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

notsurewheretogo

That Twitter post is just begging for a reply from @cedarsjwsurvey

21

just a moment ago irán started to attack israel, guess they're gonna end in ruins because israel has a way better army than other country in the region and the support of the us....hope the gas prices don't increase too much.... wonder how the borg gonna spin it..

notsurewheretogo

Iranian drones raining down on Israel...shot down by the UK/US.

Iranian drones raining down on Ukraine...sorry we can't do anything.

28

Waiting On Jehovah First Mentioned?

by Ron.W. in

yes, waiting on jehovah for him to handle a problem/ doctrine etc.. when did the jw's first start saying that?

they've been saying it as long as i can remember.. what scriptures do they trot out to back that teaching up?

?.

notsurewheretogo

Well a lot of CSA are "waiting" on Jehoover to sort out the child abuse issues but nothing seems to be happening ergo I don't think he exists or cares.

Waiting on a god is a copout.

130

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

notsurewheretogo

TO ALL OPPONENTS AND CRITICS OF 607 BCE
In all of my many decades in the pursuit of scholarship pertaining to 607 BCE whether from scholars or our critics I have not read any scholarship that disproves that 607 BCE was not the date for the Fall of Jerusalem. I have read every piece of literature published in English from the fifties to date and have not found a one, single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE for the Fall.
My challenge on this forum is for any such opponent or critic to show such proof that 607 BCE is not the date for the Fall of Jerusalem by means of at least one line of evidence. Surely, that is not too much to ask?
scholar JW

This has been done so many times and you continue to reject based on your cognitive dissonance.

It's pointless when you refuse to accept EVERYONE ELSE's factual evidence and rely on your own interpretation.

You are in the minority with your view and 587 is backed up factually by a plethora of SME's in the field.

130

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

notsurewheretogo

But removing 607 BCE affects 1914 and then 1919 when the GB self appoint themselves.

They can't adjust this without adjusting when they were self appointed.

607 really is a cornerstone where you remove that thread the whole tapestry comes apart.

I think they will stick with 607/1914 as long as they possible can.

35

Was it Designed?

by Jeffro in

the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle—was it designed?

it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?

' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.

notsurewheretogo

A flower growing in the dark forest - Sign of God creating beautiful things

A leech sucking the blood of an animal and killing it with disease - Animal has changed through the environment after years of imperfectness

Er...so why can't that be the reason for the flower in the forest? One reason for one and one for another where equally the same reason can be applied to both scenario's.

The flower could have evolved as well as the leech...or God did create the flowers ability to grow in a dark forest and the blood sucking leech.

But no take all the good bits about nature = god and bad bits are = species adapted after imperfection.

I hate discussing these things with dubs as the Cognitive Dissonance is just impossible for them to get over.

47

Norway

by St George of England in

so the wt society is going to contest the recent norway ruling.. jehovah’s witnesses to appeal unconstitutional ruling in norway (jw.org).

their true colours are shown in the statement: "the decision to deregister jehovah’s witnesses denies us the financial aid and other benefits that the government provides to over 700 registered religious communities in the country.

additional consequences include losing the right to appoint and authorize ministers of jehovah’s witnesses as officiants for weddings.".

notsurewheretogo

The JW's will use their new DF on minors change to show they changed the policy and get their status back in Norway.

47

Norway

by St George of England in

so the wt society is going to contest the recent norway ruling.. jehovah’s witnesses to appeal unconstitutional ruling in norway (jw.org).

their true colours are shown in the statement: "the decision to deregister jehovah’s witnesses denies us the financial aid and other benefits that the government provides to over 700 registered religious communities in the country.

additional consequences include losing the right to appoint and authorize ministers of jehovah’s witnesses as officiants for weddings.".

notsurewheretogo

The WT have lied though to the dubs on what the ruling was. They state the Norway government is trying to get them to change their practices on DF'ing whereas in actual fact the ruling was based on the effect on minors the DF'ing arrangement.

These are significantly different.

6

Elders or any higher ups at Bethel get paid?

by TxNVSue2023 in

i found this while googling.

i thought elders and/or high rankers don't get paid.

is there something i don't know?

notsurewheretogo

Surely that is just their earnings from their secular job?

14

The coup against Tony Morris in order to make major changes?

by Badfish in

it’s been a long time since i’ve kept up with anything jw-related.

but just a couple days ago, i heard about all the new changes—beards, shunning, etc.

i was surprised, so i asked an old friend who i hadn’t spoken to in ages what happened.

notsurewheretogo

But this is the the issue with AM3. Let's say like all GB members he is full in mentally, that he believes as well as the other GB members that Jehovah is working through them.

How is AM3 and the other GB members now thinking giving a clear difference of opinion? The GB members may just cite AM3 imperfections but how does AM3 view the GB? How does he put the square object through the circle peg that Jehovah is directing things through them when he got kicked off?

A chat with AM3 would be real interesting.