One of Jehovah's Witnesses needs your help

[Tonus]

It's been not quite 2000 years - how do you make it the end of Day 6? 

That's the magic of Bible chronology, Chas.  You can pick any numbers from any parts of the Bible and end up with the result you want.  It's probably not a coincidence that nearly all attempts at Bible-based numerology come up with the same result: "soon."

[Crossless2.0]

Thanks Tonus for the correction.
The tree should have had figs since it had leaves.
Anyway, it got cursed because, like Israel it did not produce what it was supposed to.

End times can be counted since Jesus came.
A day with the Lord is as a thousand years and we are at the end of Day 6.

Like I said, 2 Peter 3:8.  Christians have been hiding behind that verse for two thousand years to avoid admitting their God-man was wrong.  They're so predictable it's boring.

---

End times can be counted since Jesus came.
A day with the Lord is as a thousand years and we are at the end of Day 6.

It's been not quite 2000 years - how do you make it the end of Day 6? 

I think Professor is a young-Earther.  If Adam/Eve were around ~4000 B.C.E., then according to his wacked-out views we are at the end of Day 6. 

[robvalue]

Jesus is magic, if he wanted a fig he could just magic up a fig. Instead he goes ape shit on a fig tree he knows is out of season.

Conclusion? He's insane, or wants us to think he's insane. He should not be trusted with the price of ham.

[Crossless2.0]

Jesus is magic, if he wanted a fig he could just magic up a fig. Instead he goes ape shit on a fig tree he knows is out of season.

Conclusion? He's insane, or wants us to think he's insane. He should not be trusted with the price of ham.

Would you trust a practicing Jew who sold ham?

[Aractus]

Why we can know for certainty that it is absolutely not the word of a divine being.

Okay, as for my previous post - the archaeological record shows that the events recorded that include the Patriarchs, the slavery in Egypt, the Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan did not happen. As Min posted, you should look at "The Bible Unearthed" or any other publications by Israel Finkelstein who is a well respected bronze/early iron-age era Israeli archaeologist. He did however determine that Solomon was a real person, however his kingdom did not amount to anything like the extravagance suggested in the Old Testament.

The New Testament does not have the kinds of massive faults that the Old Testament has. The NT books were all written much closer to the time they claim to report, although a handful of them were probably written in the second century. The later works in particular are thought to be Revaluation, 1 and 2 Peter, the pseudepigraphical Pauline epistles, and the book of Hebrews. There are a number of scholars who also argue for a later date of the gospel of John, however there are quite early copies of John and that suggests that it was in circulation by the end of the first century.

It does, however, contain inconsistencies. For instance, Mark 5 says that Jesus cast a "Legion" of daemons out of a man and cast them into a herd of pigs who then drown in the Sea of Galilee. The location given is Gerasa. Matthew 8 records the same event, but this time there are two daemon-possessed men that are healed, and this time the location is Gergasa. Now it really doesn't matter that there's an extra gentleman who gets healed in Matthew, but what does matter is that both locations are real physical cities, and here's a map:



As you can see, Gerasa is nowhere near the Sea of Galilee. Therefore Matthew changed the location to what is believed to be either Hippus or Gadara - which are much closer to the Sea (in fact Hippus is right next to and therefore fits the description to a T). Anyway you look at it this is a contradictory account - they can't both be right. Either it happened in Gerasa as Mark and Luke claim, or it happened in Gergasa as Matthew claims.

Mark 5:13: "So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the pigs, and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and were drowned in the sea."

NOT possible, it was nowhere near the sea.

There are a few more instances of clear contradictions like this in the NT - if it was divinely inspired then there wouldn't be contradictory accounts.

[Vox Populi]

All I really have to say is the JW Bible is a mess. It's been rewritten (like other bibles also) but in specific terms of there faith. It's all BS (JW bible & others).
Everyone above has given some great links that I myself find interesting and am looking at them at the moment.

[Aractus]

The fact that they only read from the NWT and KJV is a concern. The NWT on the whole isn't a bad translation (neither is the KJV), but they do both have their problems. The NWT translators were biased by their theology. Ideally you would want to have as many people with as diverse as possible a theology to participate in an accurate translation. They also inserted Jehovah's name dozens of times in the NT where it says "Lord".

[Tonus]

They also inserted Jehovah's name dozens of times in the NT where it says "Lord".

More than 200 times, I believe.  What's really interesting is that they also released something called a "Kingdom Interlinear" version that has the original language with a translation on one side, and the NWT version on the other side, which shows a number of areas where the NWT diverges from the original.  Almost as if they knew that the members wouldn't bother to notice, or wouldn't dare bring up the discrepancy if they did notice.  That, or it's one of the most amazing examples of a lack of self-awareness that I've ever seen.

[Desert Diva]

Have a read about Kissing Hank's Ass.

This is exactly how I feel about what your Bible says.

[Minimalist]

He did however determine that Solomon was a real person,

Really?  I don't recall that.  In fact, "Solomon" is not attested anywhere archaeologically. 

My only complaint with The Bible Unearthed is that Finkelstein goes off the rails at the end when he treats "Josiah" as a real person even though he, too, is not attested anywhere in the archaeological record.

He should stick to his method.

BTW, the Assyrian king Shalmanessar V [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalmaneser_V  ]

Shalmaneser V (Akkadian: Šulmanu-ašarid;

Solomon?  Sulmanu?  I'd say that if you were looking for a source for that particular legend you need go no further than Assyria.  Shalmaneser ( which is derived from Greek, not Akkadian) was a great and rich king....unlike the overlords of whatever Jerusalem may have been called at the time which was a miserable little one-horse town if that.