• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Question for the Skeptics...

Elora said:
Well, you did not make yourself very clear as to what was told to you and what you made up yourself...whatever...
Click to expand...
Yes I did. How is it "made up" when I use available information from both the Bible, Jehovah's Witnesses along with simple arithmetic to deduce that their 1980s claim that Bible prophecy would be fulfilled before the last living people died that could possibly be alive from 1914 would be in the year 2034? Are you saying that Genesis 6:3 is wrong, and not a Biblical statement that no man/woman will live longer than 120 years? Why can't you seem to comprehend this?
 
element94 said:
Yes I did. How is it "made up" when I use available information from both the Bible, Jehovah's Witnesses along with simple arithmetic to deduce that their 1980s claim that Bible prophecy would be fulfilled before the last living people that could possibly be alive from 1914 would be in the year 2034? Are you saying that Genesis 6:3 is wrong, and not a Biblical statement that no man/woman will live longer than 120 years? Why can't you seem to comprehend this?
Click to expand...
Conjecture...none of it is true but the year 1914, which was the year we think Jesus Christ took his heavenly throne...you will find nothing on our website about the year 2034...Genesis says what it says, that doesn't mean we have ever said 120 years is the number to gauge a generation...we haven't...
 
Length. When the term “generation” is used with reference to the people living at a particular time, the exact length of that time cannot be stated, except that the time would fall within reasonable limits. These limits would be determined by the life span of the people of that time or of that population. The life span of the ten generations from Adam to Noah averaged more than 850 years each. (Ge 5:5-31; 9:29) But after Noah, man’s life span dropped off sharply. Abraham, for example, lived only 175 years. (Ge 25:7) Today, much as it was in the time of Moses, people living under favorable conditions may reach 70 or 80 years of age. Moses wrote: “In themselves the days of our years are seventy years; and if because of special mightiness they are eighty years, yet their insistence is on trouble and hurtful things; for it must quickly pass by, and away we fly.” (Ps 90:10) Some few may live longer, but Moses stated the general rule. Moses himself, who lived 120 years, was an exception, as were his brother Aaron (123 years), Joshua (110 years), and some others whose strength and vitality were unusual.—De 34:7; Nu 33:39; Jos 24:29.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001648
 
Elora said:
Conjecture...none of it is true but the year 1914, which was the year we think Jesus Christ took his heavenly throne...you will find nothing on our website about the year 2034...Genesis says what it says, that doesn't mean we have ever said 120 years is the number to gauge a generation...we haven't...
Click to expand...
That generation, meaning the generation of 1914, would not pass way, die, no longer be around, before the prophecies would be fulfilled, come to be, happen. Some from that generation in 1914 would still have to be around, still living, for the prophecy to be fulfilled, and since the bible states that no one will live more than 120 years it all would have to happen by 2034. This is/was the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, and apparently you are denying it, which is quite interesting.
 
element94 said:
That generation, meaning the generation of 1914, would not pass way, die, no longer be around, before the prophecies would be fulfilled, come to be, happen. Some from that generation in 1914 would still have to be around, still living, for the prophecy to be fulfilled, and since the bible states that no one will live more than 120 years it all would have to happen by 2034. This is/was the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, and apparently you are denying it, which is quite interesting.
Click to expand...
I posted to you earlier what our understanding of a generation is and it ain't what you said...we put no date on it...
 
Elora said:
I posted to you earlier what our understanding of a generation is and it ain't what you said...we put no date on it...
Click to expand...
They did though, and that was their teaching at the time. How can the one true God's organization keep changing the details? It's very confusing wouldn't you say?
 
element94 said:
They did though, and that was their teaching at the time. How can the one true God's organization keep changing the details? It's very confusing wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...
No, I don't and it was not the teaching, in spite of what you've been told...like I said, even the apostles did not understand everything Jesus told them at the time...understanding came later...
 
Elora said:
Moses was not a Christian...
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter.

The claims that Jesus is the messiah are predicated on prophecies in the Hebrew texts.

However, the New Testament texts are in conflict.

1) #47 (Chester Beatty) circa 250 CE papyrus contains only Revelation 9:10-17:2 usually agreeing with Codex Sinaiticus. This papyrus alone has over 40 lines of disputed text even though it covers only portions of six chapters of Revelation.

2) #75 (Bodmer) a circa 225 CE papyrus contains parts of Luke and John usually agreeing with Codex Vaticanus but it conflicts with other sources.

3) Codex Sinaiticus circa 350 CE. This is the only complete version of the New Testament.

4) Codex Alexandrinus circa 450 CE. It is nearly complete and very close doctrinally to Codex Sinaiticus, except for the Epistles. There are more than 40 disputed lines of text between Codices Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus.

5) Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus circa 450 CE. Most of you wouldn’t even recognize this as the New Testament, we’re talking 100s of lines of disputed text. It contains portions of every book except for 2 Thessalonians and 2 John.

6) Codex Regius circa 750 CE. Only the gospels. It most often agrees with Codex Vaticanus. Again, several hundred lines of disputed text.

7) Codex Washingtonianus circa 425 CE. A Byzantine work of portions of the gospels only. Parts of John appear to be copied from Codex Alexandrinus.

8) Codex Koridethi circa 850 CE. Gospel parts only. Parts of Mark appear to have been quoted from the works of Origen and Eusebius in the 3rd and 4th Centuries respectively.

9) Codex Athous Laurae circa 900 CE. Contains parts of gospels, Acts, most of Paul and the Epistles. A mix of the Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine doctrines. Hundreds of lines of disputed text. https://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/1500260-oldest-manuscript-nt-found-dates-time-2.html

"Translators" -- and I do use the word loosely -- use those and other works to write their nonsense.

I won't even get into doctrines such as Coptic, Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, et al, because I already know that's way beyond your understanding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elora said:
Conjecture...none of it is true but the year 1914, which was the year we think Jesus Christ took his heavenly throne...you will find nothing on our website about the year 2034...Genesis says what it says, that doesn't mean we have ever said 120 years is the number to gauge a generation...we haven't...
Click to expand...
I know little about the doctrines of JWs. What is the basis for the belief/claim that Jesus took his heavenly throne in 1914? And where was he before that?
 
Buckeyes85 said:
I know little about the doctrines of JWs. What is the basis for the belief/claim that Jesus took his heavenly throne in 1914? And where was he before that?
Click to expand...
Jesus has been in heaven ever since 33 CE but did not take his heavenly throne to begin ruling until 1914...the way of determining this date...

The prophecy in Daniel chapter 4 teaches us that God would set up his Kingdom in 1914.

The prophecy: Jehovah gave King Nebuchadnezzar a prophetic dream about a large tree that was chopped down. In the dream, a band of iron and copper was put around the tree’s stump to stop it from growing for a period of “seven times.” After that, the tree would grow again.—Daniel 4:1, 10-16.

What the prophecy means for us: The tree represents God’s rulership. For many years, Jehovah used kings in Jerusalem to rule over the nation of Israel. (1 Chronicles 29:23) But those kings became unfaithful, and their rulership ended. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 607 B.C.E. That was the start of the “seven times.” (2 Kings 25:1, 8-10; Ezekiel 21:25-27) When Jesus said, “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled,” he was talking about the “seven times.” (Luke 21:24) So the “seven times” did not end when Jesus was on earth. Jehovah promised to appoint a King at the end of the “seven times.” The rulership of this new King, Jesus, would bring great blessings for God’s people all over the earth, forever.—Luke 1:30-33.

The length of the “seven times”: The “seven times” lasted for 2,520 years. If we count 2,520 years from the year 607 B.C.E., we end up at the year 1914. That was when Jehovah made Jesus, the Messiah, King of God’s Kingdom in heaven.

How do we get the number 2,520? The Bible says that three and a half times equal 1,260 days. (Revelation 12:6, 14) So “seven times” is double that number, or 2,520 days. The 2,520 days are equal to 2,520 years because of the prophetic rule “a day for a year.”—Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6.

154


https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102015160
Click to expand...
 
Elora said:
No, I don't and it was not the teaching, in spite of what you've been told...like I said, even the apostles did not understand everything Jesus told them at the time...understanding came later...
Click to expand...
Ugh...
 
Elora said:
I didn't read your stupid links, I know what the truth is... [deleted words]
Click to expand...

Thank you for clearly expressing THE problem in today's society. You KNOW the TRUTH and contradictory factual data is unable to change your beliefs - for your beliefs are nothing more than what you have been taught with little support in the real world.
 
nota bene said:
If you're referring to American English, double quote marks are used for "quibble marks"/"scare quotes." Single quote marks are used only for quotes within quotes.
Click to expand...

A bit of reading tells me that as with much of our language, the style guides disagree on the usage of single quote marks. The Punctuation Guide agrees with you. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association does not.
In the example provided in the Publication Manual, “considered ‘normal’ behavior,” the quotes around normal should indicate that the behavior under discussion deviates from what might immediately come to mind when thinking of the norm (whatever that might be).
Click to expand...

One of those academic types, this one is British, has some words to say about "Scare Quotes"
If you think a word is appropriate, then use it, without any quotes; if you think it's not appropriate, then don't use it, unless you specifically want to be ironic. Simultaneously using a word and showing that you don't approve of it will only make you sound like an antiquated fuddy-duddy.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
A bit of reading tells me that as with much of our language, the style guides disagree on the usage of single quote marks. The Punctuation Guide agrees with you. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association does not.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue with you, but I strongly advise you to follow the simple rule I provided you. I work with APA, IEEE, MLA, Chicago, and offshoots of CBE such as JAMA's style guidelines, and hundreds of scholarly journals that state anyway (and LOL) that they follow the guidelines of one the five platforms I listed.

What's exciting to me is that someone--anyone!--cares enough to discuss it.
 
nota bene said:
"What's exciting to me is that someone--anyone!--cares enough to discuss it."
Click to expand...
I had nothing to add. Just felt like it was a good time to use ". . . ." :)
 
Somerville said:
Thank you for clearly expressing THE problem in today's society. You KNOW the TRUTH and contradictory factual data is unable to change your beliefs - for your beliefs are nothing more than what you have been taught with little support in the real world.
Click to expand...

You're incorrect in that this is not a merely a problem with today's society. Religion in general shows us that people have always been this way.

To answer the OP: some people have always been willing to die for their beliefs with or without good reason, so, if, indeed the stories you are telling are true and they died for what they believed, we would still not know that they did so because they knew the truth.

Since people are willing to die for their faith in what are free to be lies, and have been willing to do so without any real proof for thousands of years now... why should we pay special attention to a claim that some people did so a long time ago based upon sources we can not really check, because they knew the truth?
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
And I thank you for correctly adding the period to follow the three ellipses. ;)
Click to expand...
Technically, there is only one ellipsis in the quote: an ellipsis is made up of three periods as shown in Overitall's comment. The next issue is whether there should be a space between the periods or not. The Chicago Manual of Style holds that the ellipsis is to be written with spaces between each period, and there is always a space after the ellipsis. AP Style, commonly used by journalists, says that no spaces should occur between the dots in ellipses. Spaces before or after the ellipsis should only be used if it is necessary to sufficiently separate them from other words. The Oxford Style Guide does not use standard spaces between the dots in an ellipsis, but it does require a space before and after the ellipsis. MSWord follows the Oxford/AP rules while OpenOffice uses the Chicago Manual.
 
Somerville said:
Technically, there is only one ellipsis in the quote: an ellipsis is made up of three periods as shown in Overitall's comment. The next issue is whether there should be a space between the periods or not. The Chicago Manual of Style holds that the ellipsis is to be written with spaces between each period, and there is always a space after the ellipsis. AP Style, commonly used by journalists, says that no spaces should occur between the dots in ellipses. Spaces before or after the ellipsis should only be used if it is necessary to sufficiently separate them from other words. The Oxford Style Guide does not use standard spaces between the dots in an ellipsis, but it does require a space before and after the ellipsis. MSWord follows the Oxford/AP rules while OpenOffice uses the Chicago Manual.
Click to expand...
Academics is thataway------------------------------------->
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom