Is "dynamic energy" a Proper Translation In Isaiah 40:26?

[AlanF]

Arauna said:

Quote

2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Whatever. Still has nothing to do with what the Bible says: "power, strength" in the sense of The Incredible Hulk, NOT "dynamic energy" in the sense of E=mc^2.

Quote

Why the denial?

Because there is no evidence whatsoever that the Bible writers knew a thing about Einstein's equation.

Quote

The Spirit of God is always active energy.

But not vice versa. You're committing a gross fallacy of logic.

Quote

But suit yourself......You even argue about a "circle " and turn it into a "ball' just to deflect the truth....

You've got that backwards: it is YOU and Mommy Watchtower who have done that.

Fact: the Hebrew word chuwg used in Isaiah 40 is properly translated "circle" -- not "ball". Thus the claim that Isaiah said the earth is a sphere is demonstrably false.

Quote

anything to avoid acknowledgement of the bible.

Oh the irony!

[AlanF]

Arauna said:

Quote

58 minutes ago, AlanF said:
Thanks for the compliment.....  If someone with more intelligence had said that I would have thought about it and tried to improve.

No you wouldn't. You don't accept what people far more intelligent than I say about most aspects of science.

Quote

  58 minutes ago, AlanF said:
three dimensional structure like the atmosphere.

Quote

Thank you- I was looking for the right word.   I am learning my umpteenth language at present - so I forget some of the precise words in the language used here on the forum.  It does not mean that I do not understand exactly how things work.  You are trying to be a smarty pants now by correcting my language.

I'm trying to correct your thinking! Your mind contains so much Watchtower junk that you've got a huge amount of work to do.

And of course, you're here engaging in yet another sidestep, this time of the fact that Watchtower teaching on the "expanse" is dead wrong.

Quote

 

  58 minutes ago, AlanF said:
You know that how?

Apart from common sense - which I often use

 

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Quote

- it is also in some of our publications.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Quote

  58 minutes ago, AlanF said:
You'll have to read the book

Quote

I suggest you read one or two books against evolution - you may get a surprise.

I've read dozens. All are mostly nonsense based on biblical literalism or deliberate rejection of solid science. Most are also based on what has been called The Argument From Personal Incredulity -- "I just can't believe it, so it can't be so."

Quote

Since Dawkins

Presumably you mean Darwin. Another instance of not knowing what you're talking about.

Quote

wrote his book, many really smart people have written books debunking evolution - mathematicians, Nano-technologists, DNA specialists etc. Face it : evolution is really more of a religious theory than a science.

Debunking is hardly the right term. "Ignorant ranting" is more like it. And of course, most of such come from Young-Earth Creationists who propose a 6,000-year-old universe. Do you really think such morons deserve a hearing?

Quote

 

  58 minutes ago, AlanF said:
requires a book-length treatment.

Really - but the fossil record is totally remiss of all the interim phases.....

 

Wrong. Read the book. Read the link I gave you. Are you afraid?

Quote

so why should I read a book that is not based on evidence...... just a theory?

It's based on a pretty good sized chunk of geological evidence, you moron.

Quote

I prefer the fossil evidence - which indicates that all animals appeared fully formed.

Wrong. The Ediacaran Period and related ancient times contain hundreds of fossils of soft-bodied organisms. These go back some 630 million years. Roughly 540 million years ago some hard parts begin to appear in the fossil record, which are bits of shells and teeth. A few million years later complete organisms with shells and teeth start to show up. The entire period of the "explosion" lasted 13 to 40 million years, depending on definitions and interpretations.

Quote

 

  58 minutes ago, AlanF said:
"epochs" were exactly 7,000 years long.

You should check your mathematics and your reasoning!  If the 7th day is 7000 years long (6000 + 1000 years) - and all the days are equally long -  then that gives 7000 years times 7 weekdays   which amounts to 49,000 years - not 27000 years.

 

You're a complete moron, because you don't comprehend what you read. I said nothing about when the 'creative' period began. Rather, I spoke about THE CREATION OF LIFE. When does Genesis say plant life was created? THE 4TH DAY.

Quote

Which actually mirrors the number of of biblical years BEFORE the jubilee year .... and the 50th year IS THE jubilee year.

The Watchtower Society rejected such thinking decades ago.

Quote

So AFTER the 1000 year reign of Christ (which is also called a "rest" day or is the judgement day)   we may have a Jubilee based on the actual number of years of creation days........ but I am prepared to wait to have that one to be confirmed.

All of which has nothing to do with our topic or reality.

Quote

 

  58 minutes ago, AlanF said:
act that ignorant JWs like you don't recognize supplementary material

I do not accept any supplementary material as important - it must give enough evidence......

 

Any supplementary material I supply IS evidence. You just stupidly reject it out of hand because you don't know enough to properly evaluate it.

[Arauna]

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

What happened to you?

One does not have to be a scientist to understand science. Scientists like to present themselves as these highly intelligent people which often is a myth.  There are some smart ones - but not all are smart. My brothers are smart - I am mediocre but there is nothing wrong with my reasoning abilities and inquisitive nature.

Reading through some of the research offered by evolutionists after the DNA was discovered in the bones of dinosaur fossils - I realized they were in a panic and were not doing a very good job at explaining it away. Much of the reasoning was flawed but was accepted by their peers...... this made my skepticism grow about science.

My view of scholars changed after I studied Islam intensely. When scholars were presenting papers that were untrue - I started investigating where they got their funding from and realized the corrupting influence of money from donors to universities.  Many universities were accepting large donations from Qatar.  The same happened in the medical field - when FDA approved medicines that were compromised by global companies being allowed to provide their own self-research.  I realized that money talks.

My view of scholars also changed when I read papers how monotheism started with Akhenaton etc.  Moses stole his information according to them. I realized that scholar is just a name (in some fields of study) that gives the person an  opportunity to  promote their own ideas and that of  the money donors. It does not have to be based on actual evidence. These scholars often  ignored uncomfortable facts.  One such example was the temple of Melchizedek which was discovered. This gave evidence of a single god (YHWH) being worshiped 4000 years ago...... Long before Akhenaton.

Evidence of Joseph in Egypt is regularly ignored by scholars.  Many ring seals (seals that were put on messages and letters) have been found with names of Israeli kings on them.  These are ignored - such as the one which has David's name on it..... and I can go on and on. 

I only respect a scholar that earns his bread by good research and evidence.  One such scholar I am following at present is Dan Gibson.  He has done research of all the stones inscriptions around mecca and petra and the original Qiblas.  It turns out that Petra may have been the original mecca.  

So yes - allow me to be skeptic of the learned ones who like to ennoble themselves.  

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

You're not remembering correctly. The 7,000-year creative day doctrine has never been rescinded. All that the Watchtower Society has done is to begin, in the mid-1980s, to sometimes refer to the length of the creative days as "millennia long". How long is that? Could be 7,000 years. Could be 100 million. Since they never rescinded the belief, the explicit teaching of 7,000-year creative days remains official Watchtower doctrine.

Now, why do you suppose the JW organization switched from "7,000 years" to "millennia"?

No, Alan. My memory is correct about "technical change" on issue. But agree with you how "7000 years of creative day" stayed in mind of many JW's (older generations more than younger, perhaps younger JW's easier accepted "new advanced view") as "fine calculation" that "make sense" about some other WT dates and chronology.

Because, as you said, WTJWorg not disintegrated that teaching, and all about other interpretations connected to such calculation, they stayed in same darkness. When WTJWorg changed "view" about "Creative Days" length, and put that on paper it looks like they didn't have "patient and time" to change all other things that needed to be corrected. But, we all knows, how "all old truths" are nothing else but "truth" for JW's. They have no power or will or sincerity and love to call all those "old lights" with real name - lies and misconceptions.  

About last question. I guess how some "new bible scholars" obviously took some scientific book and changed perspective. :))

[AlanF]

Quote

 

2 hours ago, AlanF said:
What happened to you?

One does not have to be a scientist to understand science.

 

Well, rudimentary science, at least.

Quote

Scientists like to present themselves as these highly intelligent people which often is a myth.

True. So what? All scientists worth their salt know that their opinions on subjects outside their area of expertise is of no more value than those of anyone else.

On the other hand, the opinions of non-scientists who think to challenge the experts are usually worthless. Who would you rather have do brain surgery on you? Some random dodo? Or a certified brain surgeon?

Quote

There are some smart ones - but not all are smart. My brothers are smart - I am mediocre but there is nothing wrong with my reasoning abilities and inquisitive nature.

On this forum you've shown quite the opposite. You've shown that the only 'science' you know comes exclusively from Watchtower publications. Which is dangerous, because such publications have stated that they have given JWs such a good education that JWs can be called "Bible scholars". This results in an extremely bad case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Quote

Reading through some of the research offered by evolutionists after the DNA was discovered in the bones of dinosaur fossils - I realized they were in a panic and were not doing a very good job at explaining it away.

Nonsense. No panic at all. Rather than reading actual scientifically valid material, all you've read is Creationist claptrap. There's a lot of that, and most of it is crap. Not just crap, but crap designed to promote the idea that the universe was created some 6,000 years ago.

Quote

Much of the reasoning was flawed but was accepted by their peers...... this made my skepticism grow about science.

Sure, based on Young-Earth Creationist pseudo-science.

Quote

My view of scholars changed after I studied Islam intensely. When scholars were presenting papers that were untrue - I started investigating where they got their funding from and realized the corrupting influence of money from donors to universities.  Many universities were accepting large donations from Qatar.  The same happened in the medical field - when FDA approved medicines that were compromised by global companies being allowed to provide their own self-research.  I realized that money talks.

You don't seem to realize that Qatar is quite secular for a Muslim society. So far as I can see, they're interested in empirical evidence for stuff. While the fanatical wing of Islam is at least as bad as American Young-Earth Creationists, that doesn't seem to characterize Qatar. What's your point?

Quote

My view of scholars also changed when I read papers how monotheism started with Akhenaton etc.  Moses stole his information according to them.

You're dancing to the Watchtower's tune -- lumping all non-JWs into one big, nasty pile. Do you realize how stupid that is?

Quote

I realized that scholar is just a name (in some fields of study) that gives the person an  opportunity to  promote their own ideas and that of  the money donors.

LOL! Pure Watchtower-ism along with conspiracy-theory-ism.

Quote

It does not have to be based on actual evidence.

It does if they want to have longer than a five-year career. They have colleagues eager to knock down such nonsense. What happened to "cold fusion" in the late 1980s?

Quote

These scholars often  ignored uncomfortable facts.  One such example was the temple of Melchizedek which was discovered. This gave evidence of a single god (YHWH) being worshiped 4000 years ago...... Long before Akhenaton.

So what? Most of these scholars are nowhere nearly as educated in the hard sciences as they ought to be. A great many are highly motivated by their religious views, and are not to be trusted without much verification.

Can you supply links to where you got your information on this? What I've found is basically nothing more than that a pillar was found in Jerusalem that certain Christian scholars decided was connected to Melchizedek, but such pillars don't come with theology lessons attached.

Quote

Evidence of Joseph in Egypt is regularly ignored by scholars.

What evidence?

Quote

Many ring seals (seals that were put on messages and letters) have been found with names of Israeli kings on them.  These are ignored - such as the one which has David's name on it..... and I can go on and on.

Nonsense. Such evidence is NOT ignored. The very fact that you know about it is proof.

On the other hand, Christian Fundamentalists completely ignore far more important facts. Like the fact that ZERO evidence has been found of the supposed 40-year sojourn of 2.5 million+ Israelites in Sinai. What? Nearly three million Jews could wander in a small desert area for 40 years and leave NO evidence? Not even piles of buried poop?

Certain scholars have tried to rationalize the lack of evidence for the Sojourn by saying that the traditional translation of certain numbers from Hebrew is wrong: numbers concerning the Exodus that traditionally speak of "thousands" really mean something far smaller, so that the reference to "600,000 men" of military age that left Egypt really means perhaps 10,000. But even that fails to explain the complete lack of evidence in Sinai.

Quote

I only respect a scholar that earns his bread by good research and evidence.  One such scholar I am following at present is Dan Gibson.  He has done research of all the stones inscriptions around mecca and petra and the original Qiblas.  It turns out that Petra may have been the original mecca.

What does any of that have to do with the topic of this thread? You keep going off on tangents.

Quote

So yes - allow me to be skeptic of the learned ones who like to ennoble themselves.  

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.

[AlanF]

Srecko Sostar said:

Quote

 

3 hours ago, AlanF said:
You're not remembering correctly. The 7,000-year creative day doctrine has never been rescinded. All that the Watchtower Society has done is to begin, in the mid-1980s, to sometimes refer to the length of the creative days as "millennia long". How long is that? Could be 7,000 years. Could be 100 million. Since they never rescinded the belief, the explicit teaching of 7,000-year creative days remains official Watchtower doctrine.

Now, why do you suppose the JW organization switched from "7,000 years" to "millennia"?

. . .

 

Quote

No, Alan. My memory is correct about "technical change" on issue.

No it is not. You said:

<< official teachings was changed from: 1 Creation Day is 7000 years, to 1 Creation Day is unknown period. >>

Please supply references to where such an official change in teaching was made in Watchtower literature.

Quote

But agree with you how "7000 years of creative day" stayed in mind of many JW's (older generations more than younger, perhaps younger JW's easier accepted "new advanced view") as "fine calculation" that "make sense" about some other WT dates and chronology.

In actuality, JWs younger than about 45 years have little or no knowledge of the old teachings. The Society simply stopped talking about such, but it remains on the books. That way, old JWs won't get alarmed by such a big change, and younger ones remain clueless and can believe what they want.

Quote

Because, as you said, WTJWorg not disintegrated that teaching, and all about other interpretations connected to such calculation, they stayed in same darkness. When WTJWorg changed "view" about "Creative Days" length, and put that on paper it looks like they didn't have "patient and time" to change all other things that needed to be corrected.

It's more like: they didn't want to rock the boat with older JWs.

Quote

But, we all knows, how "all old truths" are nothing else but "truth" for JW's. They have no power or will or sincerity and love to call all those "old lights" with real name - lies and misconceptions.

Right. Which is why I harp on this issue as opportunity arises.

Quote

About last question. I guess how some "new bible scholars" obviously took some scientific book and changed perspective. :))

Not really. What seems to have happened, back around 1980, was that certain WTS writers realized that the crap they had been peddling about their idea that there were no ice ages, but that most evidence for a recent global ice age was really evidence for Noah's Flood, actually came from the Young-Earth Creationists. A couple of years into the 1980s saw the WTS explicitly declare that Young-Earth Creationism was crap, so it stands to reason that they dumped their old ideas on YEC "flood geology". I doubt that this had anything to do with new writers, but was spearheaded by one Harry Peloyan, a long-time Bethelite who eventually became Editor-in-Chief of Awake! magazine. Harry was no dope, but was quite anti-science wherever standard science contradicted Watchtower tradition. I guess hanging on to Young-Earth Creationist nonsense was too much, even for him.

[Srecko Sostar]

47 minutes ago, AlanF said:

official teachings was changed from: 1 Creation Day is 7000 years, to 1 Creation Day is unknown period. >>

Please supply references to where such an official change in teaching was made in Watchtower literature.

First two WT quotes are part of my comment made to Arauna on page 4.

They changed view, it seems, in 1985 with "Creation" book. In fact, when i now looks on their quotes again, they only moved from specific number of years (7000) to sort of fog quote where they not denied same or similar possibility of length.

I guess, when enough time will pass and when older generations passed too, and when nobody will have interest to read what older publication said about it, than they will published some "new light" on creation days. :))

There is, as we have seen, good reason to believe that the days of creation were each 7,000 years long. - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970123

In the Bible account, each of the six creative days could have lasted for thousands of years. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201403/untold-story-of-creation/

And in addition new one:

 It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums. What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific? Following is a review of these “days” as expressed in Genesis. - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985013

[AlanF]

Srecko Sostar said:

Quote

 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:
official teachings was changed from: 1 Creation Day is 7000 years, to 1 Creation Day is unknown period. >>

Please supply references to where such an official change in teaching was made in Watchtower literature.

 

Quote

 

First two WT quotes are part of my comment made to Arauna on page 4.

They changed view, it seems, in 1985 with "Creation" book. In fact, when i now looks on their quotes again, they only moved from specific number of years (7000) to sort of fog quote where they not denied same or similar possibility of length.

 

Exactly. Going from a specific number to a foggy number is NOT a change in their teaching. The foggy number is fully consistent with the old specific number. It was done, as I explained, to deceive the JW rank and file.

Quote

I guess, when enough time will pass and when older generations passed too, and when nobody will have interest to read what older publication said about it, than they will published some "new light" on creation days. :))

Precisely. Liars and cowards, all of them.

Quote

 

There is, as we have seen, good reason to believe that the days of creation were each 7,000 years long. - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970123

In the Bible account, each of the six creative days could have lasted for thousands of years. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201403/untold-story-of-creation/

And in addition new one:

It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums. What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific? Following is a review of these “days” as expressed in Genesis. - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985013

 

The following is the latest WTS statement on the specific length of the "creative days", from the January 1, 1987 Watchtower, p. 30:

<< a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. >>