AlanF

52 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

then of course you have the problem of Rolf Furuli whose research undermines any confidence in the correctness of the present scheme of NB Chronology

Furuli does no such thing. A number of commentators have disproved every piece of his "research": Carl Jonsson, Ann O'Maly, etc. Furuli demonstrated, for example, his incompetence in interpreting the output of a simple astronomical display program.

A crucial date in Neo-Babylonian chronology is the date of Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne of Babylon. The date has been completely established by reference to a number of ancient historical documents.

One such document is Ptolemy's Canon, also known as the Royal Canon.

Various scholars have shown or remarked how well 605 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's accession year has been verified. For example, Edwin Thiele, writing in A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1977, pp. 68-69) wrote concerning contents of a contemporary cuneiform tablet called the Babylonian Chronicle (now in the British Museum, described in D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.), London, British Museum, 1956):

<<
The tablet for the year 605 is of particular interest, for according to Daniel 1:1-6, that is the year when Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem and took Daniel and his three companions hostage to Babylon, together with a number of vessels from the temple. According to the Babylonian account, Nebuchadnezzar inflicted a crushing defeat on an Egyptian army at Carchemish in 605, beat it into "nonexistence," and then "conquered the whole of the Hatti-country." Since it was in that area that Judah was located, 605 would be the year when Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem and took Daniel to Babylon. The Babylonian account for that year states further that Nabopolassar, after twenty-one years on the throne, died on the eighth day of the month of Ab, August 16, and that Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon "and on the first day of the month of Elul he sat on the royal throne in Babylon," September 17, 605.

Two [lunar] eclipses establish beyond question 605 as the year when Nebuchadnezzar began his reign. The first took place on April 22, 621, in the fifth year of Nabopolassar, which would make 605 the year of his death in his twenty-first year, and the year of Nebuchadnezzar's accession. The second eclipse was on July 4, 568, in the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, which again gives 605 as the year when Nebuchadenzzar began to reign. No date in ancient history is more firmly established than is 605 for the commencement of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. The year 605 B.C. can thus be accepted with all certainty as the year when the first attack of Nebuchadnezzar on Jerusalem was made, and as the year when Daniel was taken to Babylon and when the seventy-year captivity in Babylon began (Jer. 25:9-12).
>>

So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605 BCE is firmly established by two lunar eclipse texts dated some 53 years apart. The texts are independent of each other. It is widely recognized that two or more independent sources that indicate the same historical date are extremely strong evidence that the date is correct.

Another extremely important date with respect to the several captures of Jerusalem is 597 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar's forces captured the city and took King Jehoiachin and most of the non-peasant-class Jews captive to Babylon. Concerning this date, Thiele continues (pp. 69-70):

<<
The Babylonian record for Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year, 598/97, is also of unusual interest. That record reads, "In the seventh year, the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped agaist [i.e., besieged] the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice [lit., heart], received its heavy tribute and sent [them] to Babylon."

This is a striking confirmation from a contemporary Babylonian document of the biblical record of 2 Kings 24:10-17. According to his own account, Nebuchadnezzar started against Jerusalem in the month of Kislev, the ninth month of the Babylonian and Hebrew year. That month began on December 18, 598 B.C., so Jehoiachin must have been on the throne during the last days of 598. Jerusalem was taken on the second of Adar, the last month of the Babylonian year, which was on March 16, 597. So the three-month reign of Jehoiachin can be set with complete certainty as 598-597 B.C. The king who was set on the throne of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar was Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 18), Judah's last king.

That Jehoiachin was a captive in Babylon is confirmed by a Babylonian tablet dated 592, which lists him and five of his sons as receiving rations in oil, barley, etc., at that time.

In 2 Kings 25:27 is a record concerning the end of Jehoiachin's captivity: "And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison." Since Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon in 597, the twelfth month of the thirty-seventh year of his captivity would be March or April of 561. That, according to the biblical record in Kings, would be the last month of the accession year of Evil-merodach. According to the Babylonian records, Nebuchadnezzar ended his reign and Amel-Marduk began his reign in early October, 562, which would bring the twelfth month of his accession year at the very time indicated in the biblical account. The release of Jehoiachin on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month, just before the beginning of the new year's festivities, would be a fitting time for the release of political prisoners placed in custody by the previous ruler.
>>

In The Gentile Times Reconsidered (4th edition, pp. 293-294) Carl Olof Jonsson quotes two scholars as follows:

<< the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. [Dr. Edward F. Campbell, Jr., personal letter to Jonsson dated August 9, 1981.]

[The date for] the capture of Jerusalem in 597 . . . is now fixed exactly. [Dr. David N. Freedman, personal letter to Jonsson dated August 16, 1981]

Based on the above data, Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year would be 604 BCE and his 18th 587 BCE. Therefore, the Royal Canon in conjunction with Jeremiah 52:29 show that Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE.

Far more can be said about how perfectly lunar and solar eclipses verify the above. Carl Olof Jonsson, in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, details how several dozen lunar eclipses described in various Babylonian tablets all converge on what has become the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology.

I'll leave off here for now.

15 hours ago, Arauna said:

The bible is not a science manual. It is a book which gives us the history of how God is still on track to reach his final outcome of his purpose - while allowing wicked mankind to rule themselves with their own governments of choice in the interim period.  God just steps into humankind's affairs  when his final purpose is in jeopardy.

 Describing his power/dynamic energy/ projected energy / spirit is just inviting us to look around us and open our eyes. To make sure of the evidences of his existence and power. "Not one if them is missing" means that God can count billions of stars....... something I doubt any human can do without a computer.  So we are asked to ' think'  about things.

The same issue still exists today. Human rule, or acknowledgement of the sovreignty of God. Now, at the apex if human discovery, when science and tech has become the new God of the 4th industrial revolution,  people look to science and technocracy to fix all the problems on the globe. Yet at present we face the biggest threat to the continuance of human existence than ever before due to humankind's mismanagement of things, our own selfish desires for power and control.   

Nothing of which addresses the issue: Did the writer of Isaiah mean that God is the source of the modern scientific concept of energy as embodied in Einstein's equation E=mc^2 ? Corollary: does the Isaiah passage really refer to the Big Bang and such?

Arauna said:

Quote

  20 hours ago, AlanF said:
dynamic energy" a Proper Translation In Isaiah 40:26?

Quote

Years ago I did I study on the word 'spirit' and came to the conclusion that it meant "projected energy". .......jehovah's power / spirit is always active and directed - regarding our physical realm never in a dormant state. In the bible the words for power and spirit are closely associated.

This has nothing to do with the meaning of Isaiah 40:26.

Quote

Every piece of the visible universe has Jehovah's active energy in it.

Ah. Kind of like in the many African religions where spirits inhabit physical objects.

Quote

I came to the conclusion that the universe would collapse if Jehovah withdrew his 'energy' from it because all matter is energy in one form or another and it is many of these different energies which scientists have not yet come up with ONE formula to describe it all.  This is the illusive or magic formula these scientists are searching for, when 'sheeple' like me can come to good conclusions about it by studying the bible - the book scientist disparage.

Good conclusions? Witchcraft is more like it.

Quote

But Mr AlanF is turning the conversation away to another aspect -  to get a 'spiel' on the translation of a 'word' in Isaiah 40 to disprove the "power" which in this case means "truth",  of God's word.

"Truth"? LOL! Provide references for your claim.

Quote

He disparaged the bible above by giving incorrect quotes from his memory.

Oh? Do enlighten us with your astute analysis of my words.

Quote

I answered with 3 short refrences from the bible..... 

Wrong. Your references were to Watchtower traditions, not the Bible. Would you like me to list them?

Quote

Please Mr Alan F  explain to me why you did not find it appropriate to rather ask about the translation of the word "nothing" in the following scripture written by Moses under inspiration 3,500 years ago?

I had already burdened you with several really, really hard concepts that I knew you couldn't deal with. I didn't want to add a further burden. Besides, you didn't make a point of it.

And of course, you failed to respond to any of my answers, just as I had thought. You're quite predictable.

Quote

job 26:7 " He stretches the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon "NOTHING".

You obviously don't know how problematic this passage is. What is "the northern sky"? What is "empty space"? What is "nothing"? Are you aware that the Hebrew word for that is the same as is translated in Genesis 1:2 in the NWT as "formless" (tohu)? Can you figure that out? Of course not.

I can point you to a much more comprehensive discussion of this and related passages, but I doubt that you would read it, much less understand it

Quote

Scientifically - we no [ sic ] there is.  With the naked eye, it really hangs on nothing. 

All of which is entirely consistent with the Babylonian view of the universe, from whom the Jews borrowed their concept. For a picture, see https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm .

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Here is Gesenius on the word. . .

It doesn't seem consistent to use "dynamic energy" in Isaiah 40:26 and then use just power, strength, and vigor in the other places. You wouldn't say of Jacob that he wrestled the angel with his "dynamic energy" yet it's the same word. You wouldn't say that the wicked man's "dynamic energy" of his gait is reduced, and that his "dynamic energy" fails him when he staggers or falls. Yet these are also the same word.

Quite so. But remember that this was translated by good old Freddie Franz, who never hesitated to distort the Bible text whenever existing Watchtower doctrine or "good arguments" could be made to rationalize it. His thinking was obviously: "Aha! Energy! Sounds like Einstein!" -- even though he was astute enough to understand that a Hebrew word for "power, strength" had nothing to do with the modern scientific concept of energy. Franz was a master of the bogus argument.

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But I should add that Isaiah 40:26 references Jehovah keeping all the stars in place, an extremely complex set of constellations, even more awe-inspiring in desert lands. And it was correctly realized that none were missing, in spite of the fact that meteors were seen in the common mind as "falling stars."

All such expressions are meaningless. What does it mean to keep the stars in place? Certainly not the actual stars zooming around in our Galaxy or in the trillions of other galaxies. They're zooming around at hundreds of kilometers per second. And even from the earth's viewpoint, their configuration certainly changes over periods of centuries and more.

As for constellations, all they are, are patterns of stars seen from the earth's tiny viewpoint. They are NOT PHYSICAL OBJECTS. Their stars do not move as one (the Pleiades is an exception). Their stars range in distance from a few light years to thousands.

And what does "none are missing" mean? Missing from what? The catalog of stars given in the Bible? The expression is meaningless. Or perhaps it means, "none that we've seen before have now gone missing". Still meaningless. Think of the star that went supernova hundreds of years ago and now is the Crab Nebula.

If one insists on viewing expressions such as in Isaiah 40:26 as literally scientific, one is obviously up a creek without a paddle.

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

In various Watchtower publications the writer argues that the phrase "dynamic energy" that the New World Translation uses in Isaiah 40:26 implies that God inspired Isaiah with divine knowledge of Albert Einstein's most famous equation E=mc^2, i.e., that matter and energy are equivalent. But is this a valid claim? I will show that it is not.

The 1998 Watchtower book Is There a Creator Who Cares About You? contains a typical example of this argument in chapter 6, "An Ancient Creation Record--Can You Trust It?" (pp. 90-91). After explaining what Einstein's equation means, that matter and energy are intimately related, it says:

<< From beginning to end, the Bible points to the One who created all the matter in the universe, the Scientist. (Nehemiah 9:6; Acts 4:24; Revelation 4:11) And it clearly shows the relationship between energy and matter.

For example, the Bible invites readers to do this: “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) Yes, the Bible is saying that a source of tremendous dynamic energy--the Creator--caused the material universe to come into existence. This is completely in harmony with modern technology. For this reason alone, the Biblical record of creation merits our deep respect. >>

The argument is wrong in several ways.

We note that the scriptural quotation is from the New World Translation. The key phrase here is "dynamic energy". The book claims that this somehow has to do with the modern scientific concept of "energy". Does it? Let's go a few verses farther into Isaiah 40 and see. Verse 29 says of God, "He is giving to the tired one power; and to the one without dynamic energy he makes full might abound." Now, does that sound like God is giving "energy" in the modern scientific sense to the one who is tired and lacking power? Of course not. By the same token Isaiah 40:26 is not saying anything about the relationship between matter and energy.

This can be seen further by looking at the meaning of the Hebrew word 'ohnim that the NWT translates as "dynamic energy". A variety of Hebrew lexicons yield the following definitions: "great strength, might, power, manly vigor", and these quite properly describe God. A better translation of these verses might be this, from Tanakh--The Holy Scriptures by the Jewish Publication Society: "Because of His great might and vast power, not one fails to appear... He gives strength to the weary, fresh vigor to the spent." It seems clear that the author of the Creator book has relied on a misleading translation to make his point. All that Isaiah is saying is that God is really, really big and strong.

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    23 minutes ago, Anna said:

    predators were created with eyes that look ahead so they could

Animals today do this because they are best suited to fill this gap in this system of things. It does not mean they were originally created to be predators.

 

Oh, so some animals just decided to eat meat, rearranged their teeth and lots of other apparatus, redesigned their digestive systems, and installed new, predatory instincts.
Do you have the faintest idea how ludicrous your claims are?
     

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

    the dinosaurs died out about 4,400 years ago?

They have found dinosaur bones together with other animals in the large grave yards...... so I will not say it is impossible.

 

What "grave pits"? Provide source references. Your memory is crap.

JW Insider said:

Quote

 

    17 minutes ago, Arauna said:

    Animals today do this because they are best suited to fill this gap in this system of things. It does not mean they were originally created to be predators.

I'm a bit confused then. The eyes of both predators and prey didn't being moving (evolving?) until after Adam's fall, 6,050 or more years ago??

 

That's what she's saying, although she's too stupid to know it.

Quote

 

    31 minutes ago, Arauna said:

    They have found dinosaur bones together with other animals in the large grave yards...... so I will not say it is impossible.

I tried to find some of that info and Google led me to

https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/modern-fossils-with-dinos/

 

Note that this is another young-earth creationist website, and suffers from most of the usual problems: most of the sources are hopelessly out of date (1945, 1966), the arguments leave out important facts, etc. -- pretty much the same dishonesty as you find in Watchtower literature.

Quote

 

One problem is that this showed up:

In 2005 researchers in China identified a small dinosaur known as Psittacosaurus amongst the stomach region of a fossilized furry mammal that resembled a Tasmanian devil. (Hu, Y. et al., “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature: 433, 2005, pp. 149-152.) To find such an advanced predatory mammal came as a surprise to these researchers. The evolutionists had long maintained that the only mammals alive at the time of the dinosaurs were very small, like the supposed human ancestor that resembled a squirrel!

 

Recent fossil discoveries have shown that there were a lot more types of mammals living before the dinosaurs died out. All were no bigger than a raccoon, and most were the size of a mouse. That appears to be true all the way back to when relatively modern mammals appeared toward the end of the Triassic Period, around 200-220 million years ago.

Quote

Nothing in this article could show that some of these other animals ONLY lived in "modern" times,

Right. But the article clearly tried to give the impression that fully modern mammals and birds lived with the dinosaurs.

Quote

which takes us right back to the problem of animals eating other animals.

Which goes back half a billion years.

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

    a bit confused then. The

Yes you may be confused.... my answer was brief.

 

Less complimentary terms are warranted.

Quote

Animals were created in a certain way and remained that way.... ate what they were created to eat ... .but after the flood some of them turned to a different diet than before......

You know this how?

Quote

because plants, availability and climate changed......and their size could have become smaller too because the abundance and sources, that they were best suited for, changed (the entire earth is now under duress Rom 😎

Ah, 10,000x sped up evolution in action!

Quote

After the flood, some animals were then more suited to hunting since their previous source of food was no longer there.

Yes, they just magically decided to change themselves. LOL!

Quote

They filled a niche. Eyes that look forward or can see in the dark are more suited to hunting.  They also use teeth that previously could have torn large plants.

T-Rex teeth are not suitable for eating vegetation. There are plenty of examples of ancient animals whose teeth are clearly made for eating vegetation.

Quote

After the flood not all animals would have made suitable predators. Jehovah allowed those who would not have survived after the flood to die.  

According to Hezekiah chapter 23? Or what?

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    59 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    which goes to prove my contention: the Bible Creator is not loving.

Which proves my contention about the diversity of animals which CAN eat poisonous plants.

 

Are you really as dumb as you sound? How does what you said have anything to do with what I said?

Quote

...... where did this new DNA suddenly come from which made a poison their food?   

Totally clueless. Both animals that tolerate poison and the poisonous plants evolved together, at the same time and by small steps over a long period of time.

Quote

 

    41 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    not uncommon for mathematicians to rule aspects of evolution out on the basis of probability alone, no matter how long the requisite time span be said to be.

True, some mathematicians indicate that the entire time given by evolutionists for the diversity of animals to come about by the chance of beneficial selection is not  enough time to build one folded protein..... the chances are zero.

 

LOL! Those mathematicians are almost ALL creationists, like Berlinsky. The rest are evident crackpots in the field of evolution.
     

Quote

 

    34 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    you've certainly done your own research

Yes, I am an independent type of person.

 

That was sarcastic, Einstein.

Quote

That is why I do not lap up your gobbledegook.  I am also not prone to make gods out of men.  So mommy watchtower is not my only source of information.

No, you also lap up young-earth and ID-creationist nonsense. And you remain stuck in 40+ year old Watchtower teaching.
     

Quote

 

    35 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

    might have required a lot of death and destruction of very minute things as sma

Wild animals could be put in sanctuary areas.... but personally.... I believe animals can be tamed and animals can adapt to a new diet.

 

Not cats.

Quote

In the Brazilian jungle there are dogs that get no meat. They mostly eat plant material.

So? Their bodily systems can handle it -- those of cats can't. Look at modern pet foods.

Quote

Carrion eaters can be tamed but maybe they were created to keep the earth clean from dead animals. ...so we will soon see.

All well and good for carrion eaters, but most such critters are also active predators.

And then you have the many pure predators such snakes of all sorts, spiders, centipedes, scorpions, etc. etc. etc. Why do you think they have nerve and muscle toxins? Why are constrictor snakes obviously designed to kill by constriction?

Quote

 

    35 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

    like a T-Rex

These ate meat?

 

Of course. Huge serrated, steak-knife teeth? What do you think those were for?

Quite a number of prey animals have been found, such as Hadrosaurs, that had bites taken out of them, which healed, as shown by the growth of new bone. Do you think that God resurrected them?

Quote

According to evolutionists who do not know animals and sit behind desks -yes.

LOL! Most paleontologists and many other scientists do a great deal of fieldwork. You're too ignorant for words.

Quote

They found in several places that herds of these animals moved about - according to the tracks.

And?

Quote

Animals that move in herds do not eat meat.

Duh.

But even that's wrong: ever hear of the packs of wild dogs of Africa? And packs of hyaenas?

Quote

They could have used their sharp teeth to tear fibrous plants.

Obvious herbivores have teeth very different from obvious carnivores. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote

What is very significant is the eyes.  A predators eyes look straight ahead - to focus on the prey.  Look properly at herd animals - their eyes are on the sides of the head - like T-rex.

Wrong. "The eye position of Tyrannosaurus rex was similar to that of modern humans." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_vision )

Quote

And another problem: short arms....... cannot hold onto the prey to tear it apart or kill it.....

Apparently its huge jaws were sufficient to dispatch prey.

Quote

Mr alanF may laugh at me.....

You don't know the half of it.

Quote

but this should demonstrate this: ... I am an independent thinker. When I saw an article about large groups of T-rex tracks.....on more than one location.... I started noticing ..........  

What is the source for this?

T-Rexes are now known to have been somewhat social animals in that they cared for their young, but so far as I'm aware there is no evidence that they lived in groups larger than immediate family groups.

Quote

Lions and wolves are pack animals but they do not wade in water or the type of tracks one sees in large herds. Also - their eyes look forwards.

Your point?

Quote

Elephants do not eat meat and do wade slowly .... which I suspect the T-REX did..... and most probably near water to keep cool...... that is how the tracks were made.

You know this how?

Quote

Bees and ants are insects.

Noooo!!!

Quote

 

    14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    sciences can reproduce anything that happened just once in hist

Most other sciences and reproduce the experiment..... as evidence.

 

These are not historical sciences. As I already explained, historical and observational sciences like physics are different animals and by their nature, must follow different rules.

Quote

But evolution hides behind this impossibility....

Nonsense. Evolutionary Theory takes full advantage of historical science. I've already given you links on this, which you've duly ignored. Such as how historical science helped with the 2004 discovery of that most incredible intermediate fossil Tiktaalik ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik )
     

Quote

 

    14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    bombarded by smaller bodies, it incorporated

I am not asking "how uranium got here" .... I am asking why it has not totally disappeared because it  does not need such a long time to become lead.....

I've told you TWICE already: U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. With the earth 4.55 billion years old, a bit less than half the original amount remains.

Why do you keep pretending that I have not already answered you? Are you completely senile?

Quote

so who keeps answering the wrong question?

You keep asking questions I've already answered several times.

JW Insider said:

Quote

 

    59 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Without those things, the earth's surface would long ago have eroded below sea level.

OK. So maybe these radioactive materials were and are good after all.

 

Yes.

Quote

Perhaps they are artifacts of creation to let us know that God is on a higher plane and his thoughts are greater than ours. One could surmise that the area of the original garden paradise was under God's control, and that as man would have needed to expand, the instructions for how to handle dangerous materials would have been forthcoming. Or perhaps all such dangers were safely buried until the Flood?

The more likely explanation is that there is no such God.

Quote

At any rate, I think we have to admit that animals behaved violently long before Adam sinned.

Tell that to your young-earth creationist friend Arauna.

Quote

Creating an environment good for man might have required a lot of death and destruction of very minute things as small as bacteria and some of the larger animals too, like a T-Rex, Saber-tooth Tiger, or a hippo, great white shark, lion, or crocodile.

This harks back to the 1943 book "The Truth Shall Make You Free", which ridiculous book had chapters on how the earth was formed. An amusingly cartoonish romp.

Quote

 

    59 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Harry Peloyan, editor-in-chief of Awake!, once told me why they do it: they enjoy making secularists look bad. Apparently it didn't dawn on him that such tactics make the Watchtower Society a laughingstock

I've interacted with Harry Peloyan, and thought him to be honest.

 

He was in his attempts to get the Governing Body, in the 1990s, to take the child molestation business seriously.

He was thoroughly dishonest in his writings about evolution/creation, the notion that the Bible is scientifically accurate, and many other things. I'm in the middle of an essay that examines various Watchtower publications on the evolution/creation question and so forth. Peloyan clearly wrote a thoroughly dishonest Awake! article on this in 1963. From the writing style and the repeated false arguments and the overall manner of dishonesty, I can also see that he wrote the 1967 Evolution book, the 1985 Creation book, the 1998 Creator book, and several W/G articles along the way.

Quote

But I do believe the Evolution book (1967) was almost entirely his own work. He never told me, but he dropped enough hints. Do you think he was behind the 1985 book?

Of course. Several ex-Bethelites told me about that, and Peloyan didn't deny it when I challenged him about the dishonesty in that book.

Quote

I can believe that Peloyan enjoyed making secularists look bad. I find it hard to believe, however, that Peloyan admitted that he used "dishonesty" to make secularists look bad.

He didn't admit it -- he rationalized that misquoting was not actually dishonest.

Quote

But he did make it through Harvard, and I therefore can't believe he didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. Today, one could be kicked out of Harvard for some of the same quoting tactics.

Exactly.

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    24 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    No Scientific Theory is ever final.

No evolution theory can be reproduced and be observed because the evidence is scrappy. .....

 

Your view of science is grossly deficient. No historical sciences can reproduce anything that happened just once in history. Your statement is another straw man.
By your 'reasoning', all forensic science is invalid. All history other than that written down in books is invalid. Hypocrite!
     

Quote

 

    24 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    That's not a well thought out question. Since it's

The question is about the earth...... why there is still some uranium  here !

 

Do you need me to explain this a THIRD TIME?

You're such a gross liar!

Quote

If it came from another supernova..... when and how was it replenished here on earth..... what catastrophe brough it here from that distance. The question is valid.

Nope. As Wolfgang Pauli said about a colleague's misbegotten hypothesis: "It's not even wrong."

But I've already told you about this, so either you remain abysmally stupid, or you're lying yet again. Which is it?Point being: before the earth and solar system coalesced, supernovas occurred that scattered uranium and other elements over the cosmos. When the earth coalesced and was bombarded by smaller bodies, it incorporated that uranium and such into its structure. No more uranium accumulated, nothing was "replenished". I already told you: a supernova "brough it here from that distance". You don't think so? Argue with the so-called "pillars of creation" photo from the Hubble telescope featured on the cover of the 1998 Creator book.
     

Quote

 

    24 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Cats require meat, not vegetables.

Another argument against evolution, given in your own words.

 

Nonsense.

Quote

So animals cannot adapt?

Not to their lack of ability to synthesize the amino acid taurine (cf. https://www.petmd.com/cat/conditions/cardiovascular/c_ct_taurine_deficiency ). To adapt, your God would have to modify all cats to be able to synthesize taurine -- it could not happen on its own -- unless you allow that evolution could occur in one generation.
 

Quote

 

    24 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    this internal radioactivity generates a lot of heat, which in turn

We are not talking about the core of the earth but the crust - that has been here for a very long time.....

 

This is among the most ignorant statements I've ever seen.

Let's just say: It's not even wrong.

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    37 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    I've sometimes tested JWs who came to my door: "What if your organization began teaching that the moon is made of cheddar cheese? Would you reject such obvious nonsense?" Most have answered that they would go along with their organization.

Come, come. Tell the truth. Shame the devil.

What are you hiding? What are you misrepresenting? What are you sifting through with your mighty “logic,” and in so doing, dropping everything of value, making yourself look ridiculous, and qualifying anything else you say?

They are NOT going to say: “If the GB says the moon is cheddar cheese, than IT IS!”

Most likely they demur because the question is so stupid, and then you crow your typical “victory.”

 

You're abysmally dishonest, TTH. I did not say they demur -- I said they directly answered the question.

Quote

 

    37 minutes ago, AlanF said:

          Quote

        which is full of loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing,

    On an individual basis JWs tend to be exactly that. But the leaders are vicious, and no different from those of the Christendom they love to bash
    Read more   

I thought you said that you knew how to think.

 

Obviously you don't, as will be immediately shown.

Quote

It will not fly with those who truly understand logic. Vicious leaders will produce vicious people.

Not necessarily. Watchtower leaders are well known for saying different things out of both sides of their mouths, and acting quite differently from their moral pronouncements.

Quote

If, instead, the rank and file JW “tend to be exactly that”—“loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing,” The leadership cannot be TOO vicious.

The two-facedness of JW leaders is much like that of the Pharisees: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."

Simple, eh?

Quote

No. Anyone of sense will tell you what ones of sense here do tell you. The leaders also are loving and try to do the right thing. They are imperfect, they can err, they are not scared of applying the discipline that any decent parent must. They are NOT “viscious”—otherwise those who look to them for headship would also be.

They're vicious in that they tolerate no dissent, not even from sincere dissenters. They declare such ones "wicked apostates" worthy of eternal death at God's hands.

Quote

Now THAT is logic.

Nope. Argue with Jesus, not me.

Arauna said:

Quote

I did not just trust my family members but went out to discover the truth about it for myself.

That's why you're stuck in obsolete Watchtower teachings more than 40 years old, and continue setting forth young-earth creationist talking points.

Yes indeed, you've certainly done your own research.

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

    I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists

Do they? It is in the eye of the beholder.

 

They certainly do. This is not subjective, as your excuse claims: it is objective.

If a quote changes the meaning of the original, or misrepresents what the original author intended, it is a misquote, a misrepresentation, period. There are hundreds of examples of this in Watchtower literature.

Quote

Must one really point out when quoting a scientist that he believes his own theory.

Another straw man.

Quote

 

I gave an example with Darwin’s quote about the eye:

Darwin wrote:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances . . .”....

. . .

. . . If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?

 

Nothing -- as long as you also quote enough to show that he explained why the seeming absurdity is a misconception. That lack is why the Watchtower's misuse of Darwin's "eye quote" in the 1985 Creation book is so egregious, as are so many other misrepresentations.

This is very simple: an honest writer does not misrepresent the words or views of those he quotes.

JW Insider said:

Quote

 

    6 hours ago, Arauna said:

    It is propaganda...... from scholars who have a vested interest to keep things going....... just like the high priests in Jesus' time...... they like the power and the influence this system gives them.

On the overall subject of evolution, I don't pretend to know the answers. I think that a lot of the evidence on both sides has been misunderstood, but every time I try to look into it myself, it seems that the "wrong" evidence is winning. My mother believes that Satan, who keeps transforming himself into an angel of light, was given powers/permission to hide fossils in whatever places he wished to cause confusion and division. (Perhaps a hint of this in Satan's argument over Moses' body in Jude 9.) I don't like this theory at all. I've mostly heard it from young earth creationists, and was actually surprised to hear it from my mother. It brings up so many questions about the timing of such "miracles" that Satan was allowed to perform. Were these fossils moved at the time of the Garden of Eden? Is Satan still allowed to perform these miracles today?

 

Your mother is hopelessly out of date here. Even the Society accepts the reality of the fossil record.

Quote

I've heard my father (in fact I've been with him at museums) back in the years when he tried to explain the feathers on certain non-flying dinosaurs as feathery-looking ferns and/or other leaves and plants. I've now seen enough of these fossils up close so that I realize he is just grasping at straws.

What else does he have?

Quote

I have always assumed that there is a bigger puzzle here and that none of us are ready to deal with all the facts and evidence yet. Although my own son (the math/physicist) tells me that the sum total of the evidence does currently fit the evolution theory, with some minor exceptions not yet understood, but which will probably still fit among the current theories, with minor adjustments.

Your son is far wiser than most JW kids.

Quote

To my son's credit, he does not believe the current theories are necessarily final, and they don't prove there is no God.

True on both counts. No Scientific Theory is ever final. It only becomes better and better verified over time, to the point where, as Stephen Jay Gould said, "It would be perverse not to accept it." Like the Theory of Gravity etc.

Quote

But here is the most surprising thing about my son's belief: The current theories are the ones that HONEST scientists are forced to accept based on rules of handling scientific evidence.

Exactly.

Quote

It's not the same as scholars having a vested interest in keeping things going because of power and influence. In fact, if a scientist could come up with a new theory that fits the facts and evidence, he would become the new Darwin. It's probably the "holy grail" of scientists to be able to topple a current theory with a better explanation for all the evidence The problem is not the scholars, or the theory, it's that this theory is the RIGHT one from the perspective of science. It fits the old evidence and the new evidence, so far.

Yep. And if such a maverick theory stood up to all manner of rigorous tests, as the modern Theory of Evolution has, most scientists would be happy to adopt it.

Quote

The best the Society can do is to look for inconsistencies and disagreements among certain scientists, and make the most of these issues to show us that there is still some room for disagreement over certain bits of evidence.

Right. Such disagreements are normal for a dynamic field of science.

Quote

I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists, however, or quote a religious view from a different kind of scientist who clearly never dealt with evolutionary theory.

WTS writers are so well known for this dishonesty that most scientists laugh at them.

Quote

I'd like to think that the WTS writers were only being careless when looking for ways to discredit evolutionary scientists, but the clever way in which words have been selected for quotes, with other words left out, tells me that the writers have sometimes understood the original intent and stooped to dishonesty.

Exactly. I've posted about such many times.

Quote

I'm not sure why a WTS writer would ever think this was a reasonable solution for us. But it tells me that the WTS is not ready to explain the overall evidence yet.

Harry Peloyan, editor-in-chief of Awake!, once told me why they do it: they enjoy making secularists look bad. Apparently it didn't dawn on him that such tactics make the Watchtower Society a laughingstock in all arenas but the echo-chamber of the JW community.
     

Quote

 

    On 12/1/2019 at 12:26 PM, Arauna said:

    Uranium breaks down into  lead  reasonably fast.... and there is still uranium left on the earth..... so if the earth is as old as they say, there would be no uranium left.

This reminds me of a problem I've had with uranium. What GOOD is it?

 

That's not a well thought out question. Since it's produced in supernovas, along with most other elements, it just IS. What use people put it to is a different issue.

Quote

 

Radioactive substances were clearly on the earth when Jehovah declared each successive day "good." And after the sixth day he could look back and see that everything he had made was good.

Was it good because humans might find that some radioactive elements could be made to produce heat like coals? Obviously not! Were all radioactive elements and substances kept out of man's reach so that he would never come across them?

 

There's a lot of radioactive materials inside the earth. Some people have proposed that the earth's core is more or less a giant reactor. In any case, this internal radioactivity generates a lot of heat, which in turn drives plate tectonics, which in turn has made the oceans and continents into what they are today. Without those things, the earth's surface would long ago have eroded below sea level.

Quote

. . . Even animals that are violent with one another can still be trained to be peaceful in their interaction with humans.

Not entirely. For that to work, God would have to chain the brains of most predators. Or perhaps assign an angel to each predator. And of course, what would meat-eaters eat? Cats require meat, not vegetables.

Quote

But perhaps this is the same argument that AlanF is making about thousands of years

Half a billion.

Quote

of animals being violent and unloving with one another. I have less problem with that, than with all the things that would seem to be poison to us, and which we would only learn about through dangerous, even lethal, experimentation. Does EVERY poison and danger have a good side? When did certain plants and elements become poisonous to us? Only after Adam's sin?

All of which goes to prove my contention: the Bible Creator is not loving.

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Pentecostals has grown from virtually zero size 120 years ago to upwards of 300 million today. They are strongly united in many ways -- just not the same way JWs are united.

They are so united that any jingoistic national leader can talk them into blowing each other’s head off in the latest inter-national skirmish, something that cannot be done with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

Pentecostals generally don't do that.

Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump.

Quote

 

The “Truth” that Jehovah’s Witnesses cling to is the pearl of great price which the merchant, upon finding it, gladly sells all that he has to secure it. (Matthew 13:46)

If he later came to regard that pearl no more highly that a common pebble found on any dirt road, then he will naturally reverse course and holler about the price he and others paid to secure it

That’s all that is going on here with Alan. He has negated the upside, so of course all that remains is to moan about the cost. He has “disproven” even the central tenet of that “pearl.” He has “disproven” God.

 

Correct. And obviously you have no answer against my proof.

Quote

For the most part, he does not outright lie.

I never lie. You're doing what ever-Trumpers do very well -- project their own faults onto their opponents.

Quote

But he overstates to such a degree that nothing from him can be taken verbatim. It all has to be carefully checked. Much of it is embellished with sweeping assumptions. Minor, but typical, case in point is his recent insistence that his enemy stated the end would come specifically in 2000. Under relentless pressure, he walked it back to some generic statements about “within the century.”

LOL! Such a transparent liar. I explained all that in excruciating detail, and of course, accompanied all of my claims with quotes from Watchtower publications. And of course, "within the 20th century" obviously means "in or by 2000". More grasping at straws.

For Big Old Woman Arauna:

For the most part from here on in, I'm going to turn Arauna's dishonest "debate tactics" back on her: ignore some arguments, falsely claim that responses were never given, and so forth.

Quote

All these little side issues keep you focussed on them so you do not ask the BIG questions..  Where did all the energy for this vast universe come from in the first place.  What was there before the singularity?

Already answered. Now you answer similar ones.

Where did God come from? Who created God? Where did God get all his "dynamic energy" from? How long has God existed?

Quote

They keep you busy with hypothesis of 23 universes.... lol....

You just pulled that out of your ass. No one has such a "hypothesis".

I think what you've done is confuse the 11 dimensions proposed by one of the string hypotheses with some of the multiverse hypotheses. But your senile old brain isn't firing on all cylinders.

Quote

I am glad I have a real smart brother who can do math and a researcher in carbon chemistry..... so I have access to knowledge that gives real answers.

But you're too cowardly to let him evaluate answers such as I've given you about the decay of uranium-238 -- which I've given you two times now, and you've ignored each time.

Wow, not only dishonest to a fault, but cowardly and senile!

Quote

True evolutionists acknowledge that they do not have the answers.....

To some things, sure. To things like "what does the fossil record show?" they have plenty of answers. You just don't like them because they destroy your world view.

Quote

Why? Because there is too many things one needs to get explanations for which  accidental order and intricacy cannot  explain.

Like, Who created God?

Quote

And the records are too scanty to support it..... even if you try your hardest you know you are lying to yourself.  Honest evolutionists acknowledge there is not enough evidence - usually after they have retired......

LOL! Yet another creationist talking point.
     

Quote

 

    On 12/2/2019 at 5:49 AM, AlanF said:

    times now: the "Cambrian explosion" lasted 20 million to 140 million years,

Not true - 10 million ..... the newest info.

 

That's just one figure. And of course, you cannot name your source. And as I've carefully explained several times, the number is entirely subjective because it depends on exactly how one defines "explosion". You just don't learn.
Nevertheless, even 10 million years is a long time for life to proliferate.
     

Quote

 

    On 12/2/2019 at 5:49 AM, AlanF said:

    plenty of such things. I've given you links to descriptions of them. You simply refuse to learn anything.

If there were plenty..... I would be convinced by now.  

 

LOL! Yet another instance of Orwellian crimestop.
     

Quote

 

    On 12/2/2019 at 5:49 AM, AlanF said:

    again, read a good book on paleontology

 

    
We note the refusal to self-educate.

Quote

Explain the 13 proteins found in the bones..... which points to a younger earth..... This has not been explained in an acceptable way

I already did. You've again ignored what I've said because your Orwellian crimestop kicked in.

b4ucuhear said:

Quote

 

    15 hours ago, AlanF said to Anna:

    Not just 'appears' -- it IS that way. Through at least the late 1980s it was unofficially stated but strongly enforced Watchtower policy that "keeping Jehovah's name spotless" was above all other goals in handling judicial and other matters. "Jehovah's name" was deliberately conflated with "the Watchtower Society's reputation". Thus, elders' prime goal was usually to keep all sordid situations under wraps. Hundreds of examples of this have been reported in various public and private media.

    Good points! Tolerance is a form of enabling, which in some cases is even worse than the crime.

While I do try to defend "the organization" as much as possible as a JW, I'm not one of those who feels that mindless unquestioning obedience is a mark of "loyalty."

 

Then you're an apostate, because that's what your Governing Body requires.

Quote

Yes, at times we don't second guess the direction we receive and progress has been made, but it is also true to say that organizationally we haven't always been that forthcoming.

You're a master of understatement.

Quote

The fact is, that at times what has masqueraded as "discipline from Jehovah" has been nothing more than some men in authority silencing whistleblowers who have exposed the wrongdoing of those self-same men in authority - removing or even disfellowshipping those who they perceive as a threat to their position and reputation.

The cases of Carl Olof Jonsson and James Penton being prime examples.

Quote

(While I have seen that happen, it's important not to paint with too wide a brush here.) Saying one "doesn't have all the facts" in some cases is just utter nonsense. It at times can serve to protect those who should have been on trial while vilifying/diminishing the whistleblower. Yes, I have seen that happen and that's why I don't buy into the idea that Jesus controls everything that goes on in the congregation - especially when God's Word warns us of "wicked men and imposters," "wolves in sheep's clothing," "rock hidden below the surface..." I don't understand why people after reading these clear warnings in God's Word appear to think they can't actually happen.

They think that because JW leaders have made it a disfellowshipping offense to disagree.

I'm happy to meet one of the few JW apologists who straightforwardly admits to such faults, so good for you!

I met an elder nearly 30 years ago with whom I had some frank talks. He had been an especially respected elder for several decades, and had a realistic view of the JW organization reminiscent of yours. He didn't believe about 80% of JW teachings. He said he had become an elder mainly to damp down "the bears", meaning elders who he felt mistreated "the flock". Despite his being an undercover apostate, he often entertained GB members and other Watchtower officials. Go figure.

Quote

True it doesn't characterize the organization which is full of loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing,

On an individual basis JWs tend to be exactly that. But the leaders are vicious, and no different from those of the 'Christendom' they love to bash. In certain ways they're even worse, since most such leaders make no arrogant claims to be divinely directed and are often not as hypocritical. JW leaders are well known for talking out of both sides of their mouths, claiming virtual inspiration out of one side, and excusing their false teachings and predictions out of the other side.

You can see this sort of gross hypocrisy in several of the most rabid JW apologists posting on this board. I often taunt them in order expose their wicked attitudes.

Quote

but it does happen and to categorically dismiss these things by implying Jesus controls everything is tantamount to blaming him.

Indeed. Another instance of gross hypocrisy by JW leaders.

Quote

It appears to me that hiding behind the umbrella of "not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name," - which we should totally try not to do anyway, has at times been used by imperfect and sometimes wicked men to protect themselves.

Exactly. Even for an ostensibly good person, thinking that one speaks for God often emboldens one to act especially wickedly. As physicist Steven Weinberg said:

<< With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. >>

Quote

I ask: When has Jehovah ever withheld needed discipline because he was afraid of what the neighbours think? Did he forgo discipline to the nation of Israel knowing full well that the nations would attribute the victory to their false gods? No. Jehovah has always been true to himself and his standards - regardless of what puny imperfect humans think, do or say. He wasn't straightjacketed into non-action. fearing "reproach" from others.

Would that JW leaders act accordingly.

Quote

Still it would be unfair, as stated, to paint with too wide a brush. There are millions of kind, loving, sincere people who are actively trying to serve Jehovah the best way they can.

Yet, you know that if push comes to shove, the majority of JWs would act according to the tribalism they've been ingrained with, and side with their leaders irrespective of facts or "Bible standards" of honesty and morality. Thousands of instances of this have been posted online for decades.

I've sometimes tested JWs who came to my door: "What if your organization began teaching that the moon is made of cheddar cheese? Would you reject such obvious nonsense?" Most have answered that they would go along with their organization. Tribalism at its best.

Quote

And it can't be denied that despite the bad actions/choices of some relatively few individuals (some of whom may be in positions of authority) this is the best place to be.

Yes it can.

And there is no reason to think that there must be a "best place to be". How about just quietly living a reasonably moral life free from as many bad influences -- like religion -- as possible?

Quote

We recall that all of us are accountable - from members of the Governing Body to the newest publisher. We may not always be in a position to do much about it, but we can have faith in the promises found in God's Word that there will be accountability. Our policies, like our beliefs/expectations on certain things have and are changing - more in some areas than others.  

I see no change for the better. Rather, I see the opposite, as JW leaders circle the wagons and demonize critics more than ever.

More than forty years ago when I was still a practicing JW, I understood quite well that to raise questions without a demeaning level of obsequiousness would get one disfellowshipped. After the April 1, 1986 Watchtower and other communications clearly indicated that even expressing contrary opinions privately -- not trying to teach them to others -- was grounds for disfellowshipping for apostasy, I realized that the JW leadership was unrepairably corrupt. Who in his right mind would want to be part of such an organization?

As for "the promises found in God's Word", you first have to prove that this God exists, and that the Bible is His Word. But the Bible contains, as I'm sure you're aware, many contradictions with facts, such as in the Genesis account. In this area the Society has been especially remiss, publishing all manner of lies and misrepresentations.

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    TTH: “At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.””

You donkey, of course they are different!

 

I clearly said that, you moron. Can't you read? Or is your brain still dead?

Quote

You are committing Event Escalation Fallacy.

Nope. You are committing the fallacy of not understanding what you read.

Quote

Turn your mighty intellect upon murder, if you can do so without screaming ‘Straw Man.’ Consider that there is first degree murder, 2nd degree murder, even 3rd degree murder, not to mention hate crime murder. Vent your outrage over that, why don’t you? Tell the morons that “murder is murder!”

I already went through that with various degrees of child molestation.

Quote

Even that paragraph doesn’t adequately describe your idiocy, for the examples within all do involve murder. Better that you should insist that a shove to the body is no different than murder. That comparison is much more parallel to the CSA offenses that you think are the same.

Yep, a great big straw man alright -- invented because you can't understand written English.
     

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality....Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!

Completely emotional outbursts. Not a shred of “logic” to them.

 

Any objective person reading your ridiculous responses and general lying would disagree.
 
 

Quote

Character assassination appears to be your specialty.

I unhesitatingly call spades spades and liars liars. You don't like it because you know you're a liar.

Quote

Not meeting your completely arbitrary criteria is enough to be labeled a person of “demonstrably defective moral sense.”

Arbitrary? My 'criteria' are generally part of The Law and clearly indicated by so-called Bible Morality.

Quote

It is perhaps understandable from Leonard McCoy. the hothead. But not from someone who claims logic and intellect that would put even Mr. Spock to shame.

 
You obviously know nothing of logic and intellect.

28 minutes ago, Arauna said:

The level of thinking ability of the youth today.....  No wonder USA is in such a mess! 

I used to mountain hike and ride motorcycles with my husband ..... I am used to seeing wayward people act out.  But the level of zombie-ism today is unprecedented. 

Especially in the JW community.

b4ucuhear said:

Quote

    I can respond to that since you appear to be drawing assumptions without having all the facts. I completely agree that one should go to the police when dealing with such issues involving a minor. In fact, the direction we get from the society is to do just that. One of the reasons we are instructed to call Bethel is to make sure we comply with all current reporting laws regarding child molestation. Some of the problems we have had in the past (and I have personally attended in court), have been because brothers had not acted in harmony with the instructions given because they haven't paid attention or been casual about doing their homework. The examples I had cited were from many years ago when the current laws were not in place and in fact, they have been evolving over the years - and in some cases, a moving target. Those individuals affected are now adults with the freedom to choose to go to the police under the current laws if they so choose. However, if what they had done decades ago occurred now, it would be an entirely different story. Our policies have changed as well to comply with legal requirements.

You're covering over the fact that in most regions only certain religious and other public officials are required by law to report. In the U.S., in most cases and due to the influence of religious leaders on lawmakers, elders are not so required. But they ought to be. That's why elders are supposed to check with the Service and/or Legal Departments, to see if they're required by law to report. So in most cases in the U.S., since the law doesn't require them to report, they don't.

b4ucuhear said:

Quote

. . . Holy spirit does not give appointed men a miraculous ability to read hearts and minds. A person is spoken of as being "appointed by holy spirt," when they are seen to live up to the qualifications set out in God's Word - which is inspired by holy spirt. . .

The key concept here is spoken of. As I have repeatedly said, that means that such 'appointment' by God is only in a manner of speaking. It is not literal, direct appointment such as described of the Old Testament prophets. But JW leaders deliberately confuse the two concepts, hoping -- and mostly succeeding -- to convince their followers that they themselves are quasi-inspired prophets who speak in God's name. Since they are admittedly not inspired, they do not speak in God's name, and so they are false prophets. They are also false prophets in the sense that anyone who claims to speak in the name of a god is a prophet by definition. Thus, such prophets who teach falsehoods of any sort are false prophets.

The rest of your post is a standard whitewash of the JW organization. But this organization demonstrably teaches all manner of falsehoods, and so is a false teacher and false prophet.

As for the JW preaching work, hardly anyone takes notice. Ask most anyone walking down the street, "What do you think of the message JWs preach?" The answer is usually along the lines of "What message? Aren't they the loons who don't take blood transfusions?"

As for the size of the JW community and its influence on the world, its 'unity' and so forth, note that the worldwide loose group known as Pentecostals has grown from virtually zero size 120 years ago to upwards of 300 million today. They are strongly united in many ways -- just not the same way JWs are united. For the most part, both Pentecostals and JWs as individuals are highly brainwashed by their cultish leaders.

Anna said:

Quote

 

    3 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Your last post was excellent and well describes the attitude shown by TTH and so many elders, including and especially the Governing Body.

The reason why I said what I did in that post was to highlight that "a little molestation" leads to "big molestation" unless the "little molestation" is stopped.

 

Exactly.

Quote

What happened to me was nothing really. It did not traumatize me, and I was on good terms with my uncle.

I guarantee you that in my extended family, an uncle who was known to have done that to one of my female cousins would have become a pariah.

Quote

I doubt I would ever think of bringing something like that to the police, and my mum obviously didn't think it warranted it either. And to let you know, my mum was a tigress when it came to protecting me.

I suspect that this was many years ago, when such things were often shrugged off by most everyone.

When my mother, a real hottie, was about 16, a prominent Watchtower official molested her in the sense that he touched her breasts, bottom and other private parts. She was horribly naive and didn't think of it as sexual molestation, but only as uncomfortable. She didn't tell anyone until she was in her late 60s. Do you think she was molested or not?

Then in my reply to you I said:

    I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

I mentioned that elsewhere too. No one thinks child sexual molestation is ok.

Except for molesters like Greenlees. And enablers like certain elders and GB members who make or enforce policies whose result is covering over the crimes.

Quote

And no one thinks "a little molestation" is ok either. If my uncle had been a Witness, and not my uncle, my mum would have gone to the elders and told them what happened.The the perpetrator would have probably made some excuse, or shown remorse,  got a warning and a slap on the wrist. He would probably never dare to do anything like that to me again. The pertinent question is, would he do something like that to someone else?

We know that molesters are never really cured, just stopped or slowed down. So yes, it's likely he would have gone on to bigger and better things.

Quote

And if he did, would that someone else report it? And if they didn't report it would the "little molestation" lead to "big molestation"?

Very likely.

Quote

That is the problem. I have no idea if my uncle molested someone else. He was my aunts second husband and had grown children. It probably didn't cross my aunts mind. I don't think it crossed anybodies mind, that other children could be in danger. Its because that's not how these things were generally perceived or understood.

Many years ago, yes, that's how these things were perceived by most people.

Quote

I am not making excuses. That's just how it was. In a similar manner, elders in those days were not aware that others could be in danger. They probably thought that a warning was enough to ensure it would not happen again. We now know the likelihood of something like that happening again is high.

All good points, but that have nothing to do with Leo Greenlees, because no one aside from those he molested (like Mark Palo) were aware of his perversion.
     

Quote

 

    3 hours ago, AlanF said:

    "We abhor child molestation! But not as much as we abhor public exposure of anything that makes us look bad."

Yes, unfortunately it does appear that way.

 

Not just 'appears' -- it IS that way. Through at least the late 1980s it was unofficially stated but strongly enforced Watchtower policy that "keeping Jehovah's name spotless" was above all other goals in handling judicial and other matters. "Jehovah's name" was deliberately conflated with "the Watchtower Society's reputation". Thus, elders' prime goal was usually to keep all sordid situations under wraps. Hundreds of examples of this have been reported in various public and private media.

Quote

But to be fair, I would put both on the same plane. Child molestation is abhorred as much as the accusation of being tolerant of it, or hiding it. Especially  when felt it is not justified.

Good points! Tolerance is a form of enabling, which in some cases is even worse than the crime.

A classic instance of cultists sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling La-la-la-la-la!

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    ... the Watchtower Society claims that Greenlees, other GB members and all elders are appointed by God, thus contradicting the fact that Greenlees was not. If Greenlees was not, then the rest were not either. This is simple logic. Why do you refuse to accept it?

Because it’s ridiculous.

 

Yet you're unable to show that it's ridiculous. All you can manage is an unevidenced denial of what I said.

On the other hand, in earlier posts in the now-chopped-up thread, I've set forth detailed reasons why it is so. And in no case has anyone shown why the reasoning is wrong.

Quote

As I recall, by your “logic,” you have “disproved God,” also.

That's right, and again not a single JW apologist has refuted that. In fact, only one (Arauna) even tried, and her 'reasoning' was completely lame, and I proved it false.

To recap:

***********************
The Bible says God is loving; 'creation' says the Creator is not loving.

The Bible says God knows all; so God knows when parts of 'creation' are not acting lovingly toward other parts. God sees this and approves, because he created it to be so.

Reality cannot contradict itself. Hence, either the Bible is wrong that God is loving, or the evidence from 'creation' that says the Creator is not loving is wrong.

The half-billion-year-old fossil record of 'creation' is fully established as scientific fact. Hence the Bible's claim that its God is loving is false. Hence, either the Bible is false, or God does not exist, or both.

QED.
***********************

Look at the videos below of leopards eating live warthogs and tell me that leopards act lovingly toward warthogs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhXUrFdWeoU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4Id4OSe2to

A handful of especially stupid apologists will claim that leopard behavior is a product of "man's sin" or even that Satan created such things. But they forget that these things began occurring half a billion years before man or Satan came to exist 6,000 years ago (according to the Watchtower Society).

Note that the above reasoning in no way argues that some sort of creator does not exist -- only that such a creator is not loving.

Ok now, Einstein: show why the above logic is wrong. Put up or shut up.

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    3 hours ago, AlanF said:

    It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!"

He has said or indicated nothing of the sort. This is completely your emotional take.

 

I think you're so blinded by your Watchtower blinders that you don't see your comments for what they are -- abhorrent to anyone with moral decency. Note this one:

<< And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them. >>

As Anna explained, in principle there is no difference between "a hand on the inner thigh or rear end" and outright rape. All are violations of law, and of New Testament principles for sexual misconduct, and all are forms of molestation -- despite your protests to the contrary. The 'minor' violations, if not checked, inevitably lead to major violations.

Your obvious attempt to minimize some forms of molestation is saying exactly, "Molestation is no big deal!"

That's exactly what JW leaders have always done, and continue to do, and is why they're in such trouble with the Law and molestation victims.

Quote

This is yet another example of the Master of Rationality completely throwing that quality out the windows in pursuit of his ends.

I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality.

Quote

The trouble with critical thinking is that those who espouse it the loudest invariably assume that they have a lock on the stuff.

Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!

Anna said:

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Come on! We all know (at least, non-trinitarians do) that the Bible's use of "holy spirit" is just a metaphor for God's power, or better, just God. So saying that "holy spirit did this and that" means "God did this and that".
    So are you claiming that God did not know about pedophilia, or that Greenlees was a homosexual pedophile?

I thought I already gave you an answer to that, that of course God knew, and therefor Greenlees couldn't have been appointed by God using holy spirit.

 

Very good! But the Watchtower Society claims that Greenlees, other GB members and all elders are appointed by God, thus contradicting the fact that Greenlees was not. If Greenlees was not, then the rest were not either.

This is simple logic. Why do you refuse to accept it?

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Most Christians claim to follow the directions in the Bible, and you certainly don't accept that God directs them, metaphorically or directly.

Claiming one thing and actually doing it are different. And we have already established God is not deceived.

 

The point is that the mere claim that one is following the directions in the Bible in no way means that one is actually following those directions.

The proof is in the pudding, and the JW organization's 'pudding' proves that it often does not follow the directions. Hence it is not what it claims: God's earthly representative.

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, Anna and AlanF said:

        Since God used holy spirit, his force, to inspire people to write down His directions, when appointing overseers, elders do so according to those directions. Doing so correctly is contingent on the honesty of the one being appointed, and the astuteness of those doing the appointing. If the person actually qualifies, then it can be said they were appointed by holy spirit as per Acts 20:28 "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God...."
        Read more   

    Once again, by that reasoning the Pope has been appointed by God.
    Read more   

If the Pope qualifies by doing God's will according to the Bible, seen and unseen by human eyes,  then yes.

 

Deliberately missing the point again.

The point is that, despite the Pope's and many other leaders of 'Christendom's' claims to be appointed to their positions by God, and to speak for God, you and all other JWs reject those claims. Why? Because according to your beliefs, despite their claims, they are not doing God's will according to the Bible.

Once again the point here is that old Tom, Dick and Harry can claim to be doing God's will, but that claim in no way means that they are actually doing God's will. Their actions prove or disprove it.