i keep hearing this in threads.....
Speeches by federal employees are in the public domain...Fair use does not allow [reproduction] in whole without the express permission
It all sounds reasonable. In any case the Watchtower did not decide to pursue the counter claims. One was done by Dustin [LuciousVBogeyman] and he actually made a video of him doing the counter claim.The wtbts of Pennsylvania probably felt it was not worth pursuing as they had accomplished the removal of most of the videos in any case.
i keep hearing this in threads.....
What about fair use? This was not done without attribution and was primarily focused on news worthiness and education. Two YouTube users actually filed counter claims on the above basis and the wtbts did not follow up with legal action. Just for interest sake, wouldn't it be like the US president filing a DMCA for a transcript of the state of the union address?
i keep hearing this in threads.....
The weird thing is they claimed copyright infringement on the transcript of a public talk.
Let me repeat: ...transcript of a PUBLIC talk.
The wtbts really did not want the overlapping generation being announced by anyone other than an official representative from a JW convention podium.
i keep hearing this in threads.....
Hi LevelThePlayingField,
Yeah it was a mirror of the public talk introducing the overlapping generations. The original video poster who posted the transcript of the 2010 DC generation talk got flagged and he asked that it be mirrored by the ex-JW YouTube community in protest.
All the protesters got flagged by the wtbs of Pennsylvania.
i keep hearing this in threads.....
Dunno about this site but on YouTube I got a DMCA from the Watchtower:
i keep seeing references to the 750 million in sales of the nyc properties and confusion around the apparent cash flow problems of the wtbt society.
here's the reality.
if they went, to a bank and asked for loans for the buildings here's what a bank would say, "absolutely.
Perhaps the answer might be cash flow. Wallkill could be costing them a lot more than they anticipated. They might already have taken loans on some of their their property's and now the banks are getting skittish about lending them more. Also because they have invested their past cash surpluses into long term funds it might exacerbate a possible cash flow problem.
Something is off here.
Could an investment or investment partner have caused a big loss for the beloved corporation?
our former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
Caleb, you are way too serious.
Just read what I wrote: "Jesus might have spoken with a heavy Egyptian accent...His use of obscure parables might also be explained in the fact that he had an Egyptian background... and this might also be explained in the fact that the disciples could not make out what he was saying. ... at some point Jesus' disciples at least tried to compare notes.... If he was charismatic perhaps women were attracted to him first and they found his accent foreign and attractive. The men later just went with to listen because their wives would nag them to go... The disciples later got together to try and figure it out but they never really cleared up matters. Its almost like a Scotsman addressing an American audience. They share a common language but the Americans would not have a real clue what the Scotsman was saying...With John one gets the idea that he might have been ingesting a hallucinogenic of some sort and not paying attention to Jesus at all. Jesus is God and all that and he almost never agrees with the Synoptics. Then when you get to Revelation you know he's on something."
Giving my initial "evidence" I take a lot of disparate sources that give Jesus time period in Egypt. Then I average these values. On what basis did I do that? Where's the rule that you can just average different time values from different sources?
Then I contend that after 4.1 years Jesus would now have an Egyptian accent for the rest of his life. Children will actually adopt the accent of their environment. By 10 or 11 years old Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic like the boy next door.
Then there's the issue of evidence for the decree by Herod for the execution of children below two, for which there is absolutely none.
I really didn't think my "thesis" would be taken seriously, least of all by you.
Unfortunately when you kept on coming I started feeding the flames...
I am sorry.
our former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
"Besides, if you have read Thomas, you would know it was was written in Coptic, proving my original point that the language of that era was not "Egyptian" as you put it (Thomas was discovered in Egypt)."
BTW, don't you get that I was jesting about Jesus most comfortable with Egyptian? Good lord, I tried to model it as close to a Monty Python sketch as I could. With Jesus talking in a thick Egyptian accent and his disciples not knowing what the hell he was on about while John was dropping acid.
our former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
but Thomas shows a narrative structure
Have you read it? Give your arguments. All that you're doing is citing authority: "Duke’s professor of religion, Mark Goodacre".
As I mentioned before, Q is supposed to contain only sayings, well-known for being the source of the Eschatological Discourse given on the Mount of Olives, such as appears in Matthew 24. Thomas, on the other hand, has no such discourse in it at all.
Hence source M.
My question to you is how can Thomas be Q in light of the absence of Q’s well-known Eschatological Discourse feature?
Have you read the book of Mark?
our former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
I didn't say I didn't know.
Yeah so you say, but you didn't prove it now did you? You could not write down a similar first three paragraphs of my response.
You had no idea.
So I've done my bit. You haven't.
Prove that Thomas is NOT Q.
