Shiwiii

Good question. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't even know God's name.

You are not looking at the whole scripture,  it is talking about making idols,  that is why the word craftsman is used. If it were just throwing decoration on then you wouldn't need a craftsman. Continue with verse 4 into verse 5, it tells plainly that it is a wooden statue. You are taking a part of a verse to make a law, in a sense. Take the chapter as a whole

I've already addressed Jeremiah 10, and it clearly speaks of producing idols. You've given no further scripture to support your interpretation. Amos also doesn't address the decorating of trees. You can assume that the pagans did so, but it just isn't in the scriptures.  The scriptures spoke of making idols. You are using a strawman argument at this point.

You do realize that the whole chapter of Jeremiah 10 is about the idols that people fashioned out of wood, silver and gold. This chapter is talking about how foolish these idols are that men have made, these gods of wood that "cannot speak and must be carried because they cannot walk"(verse 5) We are not to fear them because they will perish (verse 11). Verse 14 and 15 make fun of these "every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; for his molten images are deceitful, and there is no breath in them. 15 They are worthless, a work of mockery..." 

This has nothing to do with decorating a tree, it has more to do with fashioning an idol from it. 

I really don't get what being a baptist has to do with these cookies. All Baptists do not believe that the future is told by fortune cookies. 

It really is crazy how this thread has evolved. I think I'm done with cookies and their sneaky god-like spiritism fortunes! 

yes, men created yoga and the automobile. 

1 hour ago, JaniceM said:

apparently he didn't want his people decorating them like the nations around them just because it was enjoyable.

Apparently?  how is this demonstrated? 

You are implying that a fortune cookie and its content is like that of a god? 

Your quote from Isaiah has more to do with their action of worshiping some god or gods, than it does with wondering if a generic note in a cookie is going to be true. Don't get me wrong here, I agree that if someone were to put all of their faith into what the little slip of paper in the cookie says then they are off their rocker in the first place. I hardly think many people do this. Some do I'm sure, but not most. 

49 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

Doing something enjoyable may not always be pleasing to God . . .  

Right, it may not be unpleasant either. 

1 Timothy 4:4 "  For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, ⁵ because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."

1 hour ago, JaniceM said:

God has allowed men to rule and make laws, decisions on various matters.  The Bible does not say stop at the red light and go on green.  I agree at least moral laws should be based in harmony with God's laws.  A couple of verses come to mind.

Right, but stopping at a red light is not against God's laws. Neither is eating a cookie or opening one. 

Why don't you give us your opinion,  since this is a discussion, and you brought it up

Give me a break   bending your body to its capacity and getting a work out, however that may entail is what our bodies were designed for.  If people are looking for a direction from men, then they will get it, and be controlled.  Relax,  take it for exercise and enjoy it. If your mind is taking you outside of God, then yeah, that's not cool.  But if you are doing something that you enjoy for a workout,  what scripture disallows this? 

.  "On a wider scale, God has allowed husbands, men and/or superior authorities to make laws or guidelines for the benefit of society as a whole"

Not outside of what God has said. That is my point.  God has inspired the apostles to write what He wanted, nothing more and nothing less. To question things beyond what God has said,  is to allow men to rule instead of God. 

"we are left to inquire of others"

I disagree,  we as adults should inquire the Bible first

Yes, however we are guided by the Bible no? Does the Bible give us direction on eating and drinking?  Yes!  In two ways:

1 Corinthian 10:27-31 (both are represented here)

It is only when men have attached additional laws or rules does this come into question.  Colossians 2:8 tells us to beware of these things. Instead of focusing on what men say, focus on Jesus.

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

There should really be no reason why we are not rejoicing that secular, historical, archaeological evidence for 587 BCE once again shows the Bible to be accurate and sound from a historical perspective.

Exactly, and shouldn't all evidence confirm the Bible and the Bible all evidence. That is of course if one believes the Bible to be true, which I do. 

So now, if there is no support for 607, but there is for 587, then why the long held belief in 607? Is it just to make a date of 1914 ring true? It appears that way.

Yes, and that is what I addressed. If you must request permission,  then you are asking for the hard and fast rule. But who's rule? The topic IS what I addressed.

"Almost every reference to Ptolemy, especially in the Insight book, has a somewhat negative side added to it:"

Yes, however it is still claimed to be accurate in one instance and discredited in another.  That was my only point. Using it when it fits the theology and distancing themselves when they like. 

Back to the point. I agree with your findings here:

"It's as if the example above called: "10th Year of King So-and-So" was identified as 405 BCE and then another diary was found for the same king and it was called "15th Year of King So-and-So" and its astronomical phenomena exactly matched 400 BCE."

We can only go by what we have, and not speculation on what might have been. So, like you said, there is NO  support for 607. What resources can even come close to supporting 607? I mean we have canons, cuneiforms and astronomers from that time, and even IF those don't exactly go in hamony with each other,  what evidence is there? If we discredit all of them, then isn't any date acceptable?  So do we throw out records if they do not agree with us? Then it becomes the opinion of men and who you choose to follow. I'd hardly throw out ALL historical evidence for the sake of man's wants or ideas.

Based upon the definition of charity, they don't qualify.  I noticed you wanted to comment, but not address the questions I raised. 

On 3/24/2016 at 11:09 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

And it seems children are very willing help if they are made aware of the need, with the BBC in 2013 reporting on a new survey which suggested that primary school children give up to £20 million each year to charity! 

Yes, did you happen to notice the different types of charities that those kids donated to? I looked through your links and noticed that these charities support not a single organization, but rather the good of all. That is in far contrast to the WTS. Does the WTS have a nursing home? Do they have women's shelters? Orphanages? Food banks? What form of assistance can you get from the WTS if you need it? I'm sorry but I just do not see the WTS as a charity.

Full Definition of charity

plural charities

It doesn't matter if it is stand alone or not, what matters is that it is being used to support chronology in one publication, and in the another it is being discredited for the exact same usage.  

I'd like to get back to the topic at hand. If in fact the WTS uses Ptolemy's Canon in support of 539 B.C., as we have seen in the Insight book, then what factors or references are used to end up with 607 vs 587? 

Yes, that is part of it, although this part directly accepts the evidence Ptolemy presents as inline with "other sources as well" which is being used here as accurate support.  If you go to pages 455-458 and read through from "Ptolemy's Canon" through to "from human creation to the present" to you will see collectively that the WTS supports Ptolemy's Canon in its use of supporting the dates and accuracy. Here is just a sample:

"But even though Ptolemy may have calculated accurately or recorded the dates of certain eclipses in the past (a modern astronomer found three fifths of Ptolemy's dates correct),"

"These astronomical diaries contain references to the reigns of certain kings and appear to coincide with the figures given in Ptolemy's canon."

"Finally, as in the case of Ptolemy, even though the astronomical information ( as now interpreted and understood ) on the texts discovered is basically accurate,"

"Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.c.E. , supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. ( Secular sources for Cyrus' reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.)"

I wasn't directing my comment at you, i was directing my comment towards the topic. It is all about control when one has to question everything based on another person or groups instruction. 

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Therefore the WTS has always been looking for a way to try to accept one part of the secular chronology without accepting another part of the same chronology.  Those attempts have never worked out, but this is what we'll need to discuss next.

Not only this, but the fact that the WTS only accepts secular chronology when it suits them and their teaching. In one publication they support the use of the Canon of Ptolemy ( Insight vol 1, page 454, under Persian Chronology) in finding the date 539 B.C. as well as being accurate (Insight vol 1, page 455). Now in the Oct 1 Watchtower under the article When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed? - Part one they discredit the Canon with this statement:

"In general, Ptolemy’s canon is regarded as accurate. But in view of its omissions, should it really be used to provide a definite historical chronology?" (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736).

We just saw in the Insight book that it IS used as an accurate source for chronology, according to the WTS. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. This is completely dishonest. 

I look forward to other information that hopefully will come out of this discussion and my learning more about what others feel. This topic is the foundation of the organization itself as it directly relates to 1914/1919, so it should be interesting. 

I believe this is a classic case of control/puppetry. If someone is going to instruct you right or wrong on things as trivial as this matter, and you accept it, then you deserve the control over you and have rightfully asked the question to those in authority. The next question that should be asked is if it is ok to wipe 3 or 4 times, or should it always be 7 wipes since 7 is the number of completion. 

Melinda, While I appreciate your additional thoughts on the matter, the fact still remains that there is no scriptural support against tattoos with the exception of for the dead. I do agree that there is better ways to express our individuality rather than a tattoo, but to put it on par with eating pork for example (a stumbling to a Jew) is going beyond what is written. Fashion called for women to adorn themselves with earrings, but you don't make the same argument against that. This "system of things" has influenced many people by means of fashion, hair color, painted nails, nose rings, etc. This is just another way to add rules, like the Jews did with the Sabbath, to people who will blindly follow them. Logic and freedom have been taken away when things are added to God's word that were not there, just to keep a group isolated. 

I also want to mention that  Deuteronomy 18:10-12  has nothing to do with tattoos, it has to do with spirit mediums. Either you are trying to tie "things Jehovah hates" to tattoos by means of what you were taught, or you think tattoos are magical. Again  Proverbs 6:16-19 has nothing to do with the topic at hand, other than to try and (weakly) support your idea of "things Jehovah hates",   Revelation 22:15 ,  Malachi 3:6 ,  James 1:16, 17 and  John 17:3 , I have no idea why these were even referenced, no baring on the topic at all. Don't get me wrong, the whole Bible is relevant to us, but not when taken out of context to support a group instead of God. I've already addressed Romans 12:1&2. 

Questions of readers????? You know that those are made up right?