JW Insider

Not that libraries or science-related databases will always be perfect, but "research" is so different now from when I was in school or getting research assignments at Bethel. Today, interest in a topic starts with a link that is usually purposely worded to attract attention by being provocative. Even major newspapers now use "click-bait" to get someone to read an article about a scientific report or discovery. A serious report about the effects of various carbohydrates on various types of cancer would get a title like: "New Report Shows Sugar Causes Brain Cancer." Maybe it does, but things like this happen even if that idea was never in the report at all. And then it will get repeated in other newspaper and television reports and YouTube channels and long advertisements on websites that purport to be from a respected doctor. Almost no one will actually read the report, sometimes not even other scientists who will also need to make "educated guesses" and assumptions, because they would get nowhere these days if they had to read every word on every subject that came before them.
Getting to the truth of the matter in research is sometimes harder now than it was back in the days when research required a lot more legwork.

Not that libraries or science-related databases will always be perfect, but "research" is so different now from when I was in school or getting research assignments at Bethel. Today, interest in a topic starts with a link that is usually purposely worded to attract attention by being provocative. Even major newspapers now use "click-bait" to get someone to read an article about a scientific report or discovery. A serious report about the effects of various carbohydrates on various types of cancer would get a title like: "New Report Shows Sugar Causes Brain Cancer." Maybe it does, but things like this happen even if that idea was never in the report at all. And then it will get repeated in other newspaper and television reports and YouTube channels and long advertisements on websites that purport to be from a respected doctor. Almost no one will actually read the report, sometimes not even other scientists who will also need to make "educated guesses" and assumptions, because they would get nowhere these days if they had to read every word on every subject that came before them.
Getting to the truth of the matter in research is sometimes harder now than it was back in the days when research required a lot more legwork.

The flood and the water canopy before the flood also changed the atmosphere.  Scientists do not compensate  their calculations for this because they do not even recognize there was a canopy or a flood.
Scientists  compensate their calculations to fit in with recorded history...... especially in archeology and paleontology. Scientists usually send the sample for testing with a description of the "layer" of the earth the sample came from.    When this is not done -  then the same sample will have a date which can vary with millions of years.
These days one can find anything on Youtube....  type in  carbon dating debunked or carbon dating i is false and pick and choose to watch (some will be credible and some will not be).
A few years back I watched one where they sent out the exact same sample to about eight different labs - the dating came back with thousands of years between them.    Carbon dating is extremely accurate up to 400 years.
 
 

Not at all. Respecting the teaching of older men in the congregation is a longstanding theme in the Christian Scriptures.
(1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13) . . .Now we request you, brothers, to show respect for those who are working hard among you and presiding over you in the Lord and admonishing you; 13 and to give them extraordinary consideration in love because of their work.. . . (3 John 9, 10) 9 I wrote something to the congregation, but Di·otʹre·phes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not accept anything from us with respect. 10 That is why if I come, I will call attention to the works he is doing in spreading malicious talk about us.. . . (1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. Honor is not worship.
(Romans 12:10) 10 In brotherly love have tender affection for one another. In showing honor to one another, take the lead. (1 Peter 2:17) 17 Honor men of all sorts, have love for the whole association of brothers, be in fear of God, honor the king.
(1 Peter 3:7) . . .Assign them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one, since they are also heirs with you of the undeserved favor of life, . . .
(1 Timothy 5:3) . . .Give consideration to [Greek, "honor"] widows who are truly widows.
 
This idea of "double honor" is scriptural and has nothing to do with worship.
 
Sure! If we think he is "presiding in a fine way" or presiding over us "in the Lord." (For me, he is not, although I respect the fact that he appears to be presiding in some ways that are better than previous Popes.) There is nothing wrong with showing respect toward the Pope. He is one of those "men of all sorts." It's not worship. But again we consider the type of honor we show based on how their faith has turned out (Heb 11), whether they are related to us in the faith, whether their position makes them a "superior authority." (For many years, historically, Christians in certain countries would have had to consider the Pope a kind of "king." Note the end of 1 Peter 2:17, above.)
This is not true. We can choose the ideas that encourage us and build us up, and keep talking about these. No one forces us to accept what our conscience won't allow. If we focus on what we agree with, the rest of the congregation is built up. We need not focus on those ideas we don't agree with. Personally, I think it's important to communicate our questions and concerns about questionable teachings, too. But this is not up-building in the congregational setting. It's not the purpose of the meetings.
(Philippians 4:8, 9) 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. 9 The things that you learned as well as accepted and heard and saw in connection with me, practice these, and the God of peace will be with you. (Hebrews 10:23-25) . . .. 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near.
I believe there is a time and place for everything, and even a time to tear down, rather than build up. A time to speak and a time keep silent:
(Ecclesiastes 3:1-7) 3 For everything there is an appointed time, . . .  a time to plant and a time to uproot what was planted; 3 . . . a time to break down and a time to build; . . .  5 a time to throw stones away and a time to bring stones together; . . . 6 a time to seek and a time to give up as lost; a time to keep and a time to throw away; 7 a time to rip apart and a time to sew together; a time to keep quiet and a time to speak; (Matthew 9:16, 17) 16 Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old outer garment, for the new piece pulls away from the garment and the tear becomes worse. 17 Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins. If they do, then the wineskins burst and the wine spills out and the wineskins are ruined. But people put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” I've used this particular forum as a place, outside the congregation, for the time and place to speak up about things I have sought, and things I have given up on. It's a place to discuss whether certain deeply entrenched things should be thrown out, preserved, or whether they should just be patched up.
(Edited to add: If JW.ORG had a place for comments it would be a mess, but I look forward to a time when this is possible in some way. In the meantime, I'll try to refine and question my own beliefs here or another place where I might find persons willing to discuss questionable issues.)

Good catch! I noticed that too, but did not want to start a 607 discussion. The Watchtower has accepted C-14 to get within about 100 years for some manuscripts, including the DSS, and to defend a more Biblical date for Hezekiah's tunnel, and also accept the limits of C-14 dating only for things in the last few thousands of years, etc. But it is rarely accepted as the only piece of evidence on which to draw a conclusion:
*** w13 2/1 p. 14 What Is the “Gospel of Judas”? ***
Carbon-14 dating authenticated the codex as likely coming from the third or the fourth century C.E. However, the scholars surmised that the Coptic text of the “Gospel of Judas” had been translated from its original Greek at a much earlier period. What was that original period and setting in which the “Gospel of Judas” was composed? *** w59 4/15 p. 243 Christianity’s Origin and the Dead Sea Scrolls ***
Not without good reason these scrolls have been described as the “greatest manuscript discovery of modern times.” They have been definitely dated as of the second century B.C. by experts in the fields of archaeology, paleography (the science of deciphering ancient writing) and the carbon-14 process. Previously the oldest-known Hebrew witness to God’s Word had been the Nash papyrus  . . . . *** w09 5/1 p. 27 Did You Know? ***
Dr. Amos Frumkin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says: “The carbon-14 tests we carried out on organic material within the plaster of the Siloam Tunnel, and uranium-thorium dating of stalactites found in the tunnel, date it conclusively to Hezekiah’s era.” An article in the scientific journal Nature adds: “The three independent lines of evidence—radiometric dating, palaeography and the historical record—all converge on about 700 BC, rendering the Siloam Tunnel the best-dated Iron-Age biblical structure thus far known.” *** w97 6/15 p. 10 Jerusalem in Bible Times—What Does Archaeology Reveal? ***
Did they exist in David’s time? Was this the water tunnel used by Joab? Dan Gill answers: “To test whether Warren’s Shaft was in fact a natural sinkhole, we analyzed a fragment of calcareous crust from its irregular walls for carbon-14. It contained none, indicating that the crust is more than 40,000 years old: This provides unequivocal evidence that the shaft could not have been dug by man.” The WTS general position on carbon dating is still described here:
*** g86 9/22 p. 21 The Radiocarbon Clock ***
The Radiocarbon Clock There was also a discussion started here:
Can we trust carbon 14 dating?
 

Also:
Smartphones Tablets Internet Sugar

July 28 1945 - A US Army B-25 bomber crashes into the Empire State Building between the 78th and 79th floors. An engine plunges down an elevator shaft, sparking a fire in the basement. Eleven people in the building were killed, in addition to the three man bomber crew. Elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, which still stands as the Guinness World Record for the longest survived elevator fall recorded. Amazingly the building did not collapse.
 

9/11 information

Why did Building 7 of the World Trade Center fall? It was never hit by a plane.

Related Links:
Rare never seen again footage of Flight 93
FBI final report
Who was the foreign nation that supported the terrorists?
I know… people aren’t talking much about this anymore….. I felt the need to talk about it for this man:

 

So you are esentally saying that every Witness should be able to preach their own ideas to other Witnesses, and out on the ministry. How do you envisage that in practice? I mean give us an example of how this would operate.

Of course, per the title of this thread, it is THE subject. I hoped we could get into it a bit more here.
You made some interesting points and it shows you have really looked into the topic. I don't know enough about the topic yet to know what the evolutionist's counter-arguments would be. It's something I just don't try to get into with others, at least in person. Having the topic here might encourage those like you to keep contributing some good information.
From what I can tell, since the 1980's, the Society has COMPLETELY dropped the 7,000 year day idea, and they have said nothing against the possibility that some of these "days" could be millions of years long. So there is even the possibility that some fossils could be 541 million years old.
I didn't pay much attention to the previous thread from which this one broke off, but I see that you are using C14 evidence to date ALL fossils on the order of thousands instead of millions of years. Without looking, of course, I'm sure there is a counter-argument among scientists, and I'd be interested in looking it up to see which argument has the best evidence behind it.

True. I apologize to @The Librarian. I know that he or she had just broken off this particular topic to a new thread which is a bit of a hassle in itself. I pushed the envelope a bit, but mostly to just highlight how the Librarian was correct. Completely new topics can be frustrating. But to the small group participating in this topic, I think it was understandable that Watchtower doctrine of the seven thousand year day would come into this. That would inevitably lead to why there are changes to our doctrines. That would inevitably lead to a discussion of the spiritual guidance of the GB (because it was already a concurrent discussion among a couple of the participants, here).
On a serious note, I think it would be better to just say that there is a discussion about the GB that includes the topic of spirit direction already in progress, so that this part of the topic can be continued over there.

We all have the choices of many possible religions to follow. Or we can follow our own understanding which can be very dangerous. Wisdom is best found in a multitude of counselors.
This organization has not changed all its teachings. But if it had, I can't see how that matters so much unless they are currently lying about all the changes. Still, even if all the teachings have changed over time, this could even be a good sign that a filtering and refining work is going on.
Ultimately, with all the choices, I would still look for a religion that attempts to preach the good news. The content of that preaching might change . . . I would expect it to. But I would still look for a successful worldwide implementation of a preaching work based on the words of Matthew 24:14.  I would also look for a religion that stays out of nationalistic conflicts both internal and external. There are very few religions that promote neutrality and are all conscientious objectors to violence and killing for nationalistic purposes. My own understanding of God and his purpose would make me look for a religion that opposes the Trinity doctrine and opposes the doctrine of Hellfire and eternal torment.

I think that the exception has been pretty consistent. It has always been with respect to the primary goal of finding more ways to spread the Kingdom message more efficiently.
(Philippians 1:4-7) . . ., 5 because of the contribution you have made to the good news from the first day until this moment. 6 For I am confident of this very thing, that the one who started a good work in you will bring it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. 7 It is only right for me to think this regarding all of you, since I have you in my heart, you who are sharers with me in the undeserved kindness both in my prison bonds and in the defending and legally establishing of the good news. (1 Timothy 2:1-4) 2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all sorts of men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. 3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. JW attorneys have not worked with the goal of fixing this world through better laws and more inclusive civil rights, but I see no reason why this would be condemned. Cases have been argued right up to the supreme court of the United States and in high courts elsewhere with the goal of legally establishing the preaching work. (See especially Covington, Moyle and some more recent cases.)
So while it's true that Jesus did not push for social reform directly, he was concerned about protecting as many as possible from the situation that was about to come upon the lost house of Israel. Paul, however, used political leverage to help establish the preaching of God's Kingdom.

But they weren't were they? Paul admitted failings. Peter admitted failings. Paul chastised Peter, James and John. All of them had wrong ideas. We can think that they got all they needed at Pentecost to make them "perfect." But these failings lasted well beyond Pentecost. So we are forced to take a reasonable approach to what it means to be "perfect." There are scriptural principles which probably explain this saying of Jesus perfectly well in the context of the Christian congregation. For now, I think you will at least agree that the apostles were not perfect. Yet we can still imitate them in ways defined by scripture.
And the early teaching was that the great crowd were also anointed. Lately there have been articles that teach that many scriptures which were only recently applied just to the anointed, can now also be applied to the great crowd who have an earthly hope.
To the extent that they have exalted themselves, they are wrong. To the extent that they have tried their best be servants (a faithful slave class) they have perhaps seemed exalted, too. I don't think this is the criteria by which we accept or reject the doctrines they promote.

Matthew 5 v 48.  You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (NWT)
King James Version.  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. 
Perfection can possibly mean different things to different people, especially to God. 
Adam was created perfect, but he could not fly. If he had jumped off a mountain and tried he would have been in trouble. Does that mean he was not perfect ? I don't think so.  I think being perfect means being perfect for a specific job. 
The Anointed, that is the TRUE REAL Anointed ones, will be perfect for the work that God has for then to do. 

I don’t ‘like’ @JW Insider‘s comments too much because he usually manages to slip in a bit of mischief that I’m not too sure about, even if I don’t immediately spot it, so I don’t want to leave a track record as an ally. Having said that, Man! is he ever making good sense here...and the patience displayed...the angel on my right shoulder is saying: ‘Why can’t you be like that, TrueTom?’

I know one of the counter arguments to the preservation of blood vessels in fossils.   There is a paper which indicates that iron in blood can preserve blood vessels... if I remember correctly.  I looked at the arguments and it was so "scientific".    They took blood and "centrifuged" out the iron and then in perfect laboratory conditions proved that high levels of  iron can preserve these.   The problem is that no-where in nature does one find a centrifuge and no-where in nature does one find  large quantities of blood like that.   It also does not explain the carbon 14 and the other proteins such as collagen.
 

It is good to see that people have a sense of humour and we can indeed thank Jehovah for that. 
I have another topic but must have a cup of coffee first. I'm spending toooo much time on this computer, but it is spiritually upbuilding. 
Have a good day as much as possible. 
 

True. I apologize to @The Librarian. I know that he or she had just broken off this particular topic to a new thread which is a bit of a hassle in itself. I pushed the envelope a bit, but mostly to just highlight how the Librarian was correct. Completely new topics can be frustrating. But to the small group participating in this topic, I think it was understandable that Watchtower doctrine of the seven thousand year day would come into this. That would inevitably lead to why there are changes to our doctrines. That would inevitably lead to a discussion of the spiritual guidance of the GB (because it was already a concurrent discussion among a couple of the participants, here).
On a serious note, I think it would be better to just say that there is a discussion about the GB that includes the topic of spirit direction already in progress, so that this part of the topic can be continued over there.

To me - I feel like I am in school if I cannot stray off subject sometimes.  I am not writing a paper....  I am just in a discussion.  The mind always seeks new ideas to explore... So, I am not here to provide people with my research... or to prove something.  I just give them ideas to go and study for themselves. 
I always write from memory... things I have read.... It will take a lot of time to go find the proof  where I read it.
Unfortunately it will be a little harder to study the kind of fossil which loves tacos!  

I made tacos last night. I ate 4. My wife ate 4 (usually eats 2), and my sons came over and ate about 8 between them. I make tacos once every two weeks. Soft corn tortillas are very inexpensive, but I also buy a small box of the crispy "Ortega" hard shells. I find that shopping for the ingredients is simple, because I just imagine a taco and the order in which I always put the items on it. Problem is that the store is set up in such a way that I have to buy the ingredients all out of order. I buy a head of lettuce, a small bag of limes, 2 tomatoes, 1 onion, 1 jalapeno pepper, 1 bunch of cilantro, hard tortillas, salsa, hamburger, cheddar cheese, sour cream, soft tortillas. (Other spices and hot sauce etc are already in the house.) In my youth, I used to fry the soft tortillas in corn oil, but now, I have evolved. I just put a cookie pan in the oven and put a layer of soft tortillas on the bottom and then stand up the hard tortillas on top of them, and another flat layer of soft tortillas on top of the hard ones. This way the crispy ones will bake but will be protected from getting too brown on the portion that is nearest the electric elements of the oven. I can start shopping at 5pm and be completely done chopping the ingredients, cooking the hamburger, and baking the tortillas to serve tacos by 5:55.
I find that the leftover lettuce, cilantro, and salsa doesn't stay fresh enough for two weeks so I use it for salads and spaghetti sauce within the next week. Also, if there are any tortillas, cheese, onions, tomatoes, jalapeno, etc., left over I just sprinkle it all onto flat tortillas and bake them into "chips" for dessert, which can last through the next day.
Sunday morning I make scrambled eggs. But mostly, I like tacos. I'm kind of set in my ways. Like an old fossil.

I made tacos last night. I ate 4. My wife ate 4 (usually eats 2), and my sons came over and ate about 8 between them. I make tacos once every two weeks. Soft corn tortillas are very inexpensive, but I also buy a small box of the crispy "Ortega" hard shells. I find that shopping for the ingredients is simple, because I just imagine a taco and the order in which I always put the items on it. Problem is that the store is set up in such a way that I have to buy the ingredients all out of order. I buy a head of lettuce, a small bag of limes, 2 tomatoes, 1 onion, 1 jalapeno pepper, 1 bunch of cilantro, hard tortillas, salsa, hamburger, cheddar cheese, sour cream, soft tortillas. (Other spices and hot sauce etc are already in the house.) In my youth, I used to fry the soft tortillas in corn oil, but now, I have evolved. I just put a cookie pan in the oven and put a layer of soft tortillas on the bottom and then stand up the hard tortillas on top of them, and another flat layer of soft tortillas on top of the hard ones. This way the crispy ones will bake but will be protected from getting too brown on the portion that is nearest the electric elements of the oven. I can start shopping at 5pm and be completely done chopping the ingredients, cooking the hamburger, and baking the tortillas to serve tacos by 5:55.
I find that the leftover lettuce, cilantro, and salsa doesn't stay fresh enough for two weeks so I use it for salads and spaghetti sauce within the next week. Also, if there are any tortillas, cheese, onions, tomatoes, jalapeno, etc., left over I just sprinkle it all onto flat tortillas and bake them into "chips" for dessert, which can last through the next day.
Sunday morning I make scrambled eggs. But mostly, I like tacos. I'm kind of set in my ways. Like an old fossil.

I made tacos last night. I ate 4. My wife ate 4 (usually eats 2), and my sons came over and ate about 8 between them. I make tacos once every two weeks. Soft corn tortillas are very inexpensive, but I also buy a small box of the crispy "Ortega" hard shells. I find that shopping for the ingredients is simple, because I just imagine a taco and the order in which I always put the items on it. Problem is that the store is set up in such a way that I have to buy the ingredients all out of order. I buy a head of lettuce, a small bag of limes, 2 tomatoes, 1 onion, 1 jalapeno pepper, 1 bunch of cilantro, hard tortillas, salsa, hamburger, cheddar cheese, sour cream, soft tortillas. (Other spices and hot sauce etc are already in the house.) In my youth, I used to fry the soft tortillas in corn oil, but now, I have evolved. I just put a cookie pan in the oven and put a layer of soft tortillas on the bottom and then stand up the hard tortillas on top of them, and another flat layer of soft tortillas on top of the hard ones. This way the crispy ones will bake but will be protected from getting too brown on the portion that is nearest the electric elements of the oven. I can start shopping at 5pm and be completely done chopping the ingredients, cooking the hamburger, and baking the tortillas to serve tacos by 5:55.
I find that the leftover lettuce, cilantro, and salsa doesn't stay fresh enough for two weeks so I use it for salads and spaghetti sauce within the next week. Also, if there are any tortillas, cheese, onions, tomatoes, jalapeno, etc., left over I just sprinkle it all onto flat tortillas and bake them into "chips" for dessert, which can last through the next day.
Sunday morning I make scrambled eggs. But mostly, I like tacos. I'm kind of set in my ways. Like an old fossil.

Dear JW Insider. This is an open provocation to Librarian. You are  1 light year out of topic with tacos recipe :)))))))))

We all have the choices of many possible religions to follow. Or we can follow our own understanding which can be very dangerous. Wisdom is best found in a multitude of counselors.
This organization has not changed all its teachings. But if it had, I can't see how that matters so much unless they are currently lying about all the changes. Still, even if all the teachings have changed over time, this could even be a good sign that a filtering and refining work is going on.
Ultimately, with all the choices, I would still look for a religion that attempts to preach the good news. The content of that preaching might change . . . I would expect it to. But I would still look for a successful worldwide implementation of a preaching work based on the words of Matthew 24:14.  I would also look for a religion that stays out of nationalistic conflicts both internal and external. There are very few religions that promote neutrality and are all conscientious objectors to violence and killing for nationalistic purposes. My own understanding of God and his purpose would make me look for a religion that opposes the Trinity doctrine and opposes the doctrine of Hellfire and eternal torment.