What If ... Earth Version 2.0

Neil at play on Earth v1.0

In a previous post, concerning the inconsistencies between the two accounts of creation in the book of Genesis, I touched on the gap theory which suggests there is an undetermined period of time between the two accounts.

It is a theory. But there is, according to proponents, biblical support for the theory:

• The word "was" in Genesis 1:2 is more accurately translated "became". Such a word choice makes the gap interpretation easier to see in modern English.
• God is perfect and everything he does is perfect, so a newly created earth from the hand of God should not have been without form and void and shrouded in darkness. Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 45:18 1 John 1:5
• The Holy Spirit was "renewing" the face of the earth as he hovered over the face of the waters. Psalms 104:30
• Angels already existed in a state of grace when God "laid the foundations of the Earth", so there had been at least one creative act of God before the six days of Genesis. Job 38:4-7
• Satan had fallen from grace "in the beginning" which, since the serpent tempted Adam and Eve, had to have occurred before the Fall of man. Isaiah 14:12-15, Ezekiel 28:11-19, John 8:44
• Space, time, water, and the rock which constitutes the main body of the earth, existed before the period of six days began in Genesis 1:3

Not the most compelling evidence by any means but it does at least give plausibility to the theory.

But, and this is a really big but of Kim Kardashian proportions, what if there are two accounts simply because God messed up the first time?

There is absolutely nothing to support such an idea. Or is there? Well, no, not really. But hypothetically there is evidence to suggest that God created Earth v1.0, realized a major flaw and to cover his ass scrapped version one and we are now living on Earth v2.0.

Biblical scholars suggest that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Depending on who you listen to depends on how old the earth is. James Ussher puts the start of creation at 4004BC, Saint Bede suggests 3952BC as the start of creation, John Lightfoot says the start of creation was 3929BC, and Johannes Kepler puts his money on 3992BC as the start of creation.

Yet reports from the archaeological world suggest there was a dinosaur called Nyasasaurus parringtoni (or Neil to his friends) roaming Africa some 230,000,000 years ago. If the biblical scholars are correct the beginning, according to the Bible, happened some 229,995,996 after Neil had been roaming around Africa.

Six days is all it took to create everything - from nothing to man - and on the seventh day God rested. An eternal God needs to rest after just 6 days of work? Unlikely, but after 230 million years and 6 days he might.

It makes more sense. Earth v1.0 is created, as in Genesis 1:1-31, and then along come the dinosaurs. These beasts eat everything - trees, bushes, small animals, and finally man and woman. Basically anything that is edible and not nailed down got devoured by the dinosaurs.

God is sitting up in Heaven and sees what the dinosaurs have done and gets pissed off. So without even blinking an eye he decides to get rid of the dinosaurs. But he can't drown them, they are too tall. It is not like when he drowned mankind in the flood of Noah's time. Dinosaurs are too tall to be drowned. So he decides to kill them all and bury the evidence. Millions of dinosaurs buried takes up a lot of room and by the time he is finished the whole earth is just a big lump of dirt.

So instead of just giving up, he decides he'll start again and create Earth v2.0 and this time not put any dinosaurs on it. Thus, Genesis 2:4-25 is in actual fact the second creation of earth using the remnants of Earth v1.0 as a starting point. And the reason the second description is 11 verses shorter? Because he already did it once - no point repeating himself and telling you something you already know. The description for Earth v2.0 doesn't need the same level of detail.

As I said, there is absolutely very little to prove the idea of an Earth v2.0, but the dinosaurs were around millions of years before the biblical scholars suggest that creation happened. Something has to have occurred in the time between the two.

Practice What You Preach

I was sorting through some files and noticed a paragraph in one of the documents. The document was entitled The Golden Age - Calendar Of Jehovah God. The paragraph in particular originally appeared in the May 1, 1935 Watchtower.

The Golden Age, 1935

The section that caught my eye reads: "Avoid wild speculation as to at what time and in what manner things future will come to pass." But the full paragraph reads:

"TO HAVE a correct system of reckoning time is desirable. It is well known that the calendars heretofore used have been incorrect and unsatisfactory. For this reason The Golden Age published facts concerning a system of reckoning time, obtaining the important data from the Scriptures, and some from astronomy. Seeing there is a danger of giving importance to this and to the exclusion of weightier matters, this note of warning is here sounded. God's people should keep in mind the "pyramid" delusion and the speculations that accompanied the study of chronology, and the pitfalls into which these things led many. Do not fall into a similar trap. It is of far more importance to understand our commission and to perform it than to understand at just what time Adam was created. Be reasonable and moderate. Avoid wild speculation as to at what time and in what manner things future will come to pass. Be sure that you always are guided by the counsel of the Lord's Word. The statements in The Golden Age are not dogmatic, but are worthy of due and careful consideration." (The Golden Age, 1935) (Originally - Watchtower May 1, 1935, page 142)

My first thought was that it was 'damage control' seems the 1874, 1878, 1914, and 1925 dates had all been and passed. A 100% failure rate on prophesying the end times.

I continued sorting through files but I couldn't get the "Avoid wild speculation as to at what time and in what manner things future will come to pass." section out of my head.

As I thought on it the realization dawned on me. It was pure hypocrisy. Here was a publication telling the Jehovah's Witnesses not to speculate about things in the future yet from the very beginning Presidents, and the Governing Body, had been filling publication after publication with all these prophecies of what was going to happen towards the end times. And each time a prophecy fails the reason for the prophecy changes. 1914 as an example was often prophesied as the end of the present system. When it came and went it was changed to 1914 Jesus silently returned.

I'll end with a prophecy of my own. When October 2014 comes and goes and we are all still here, the Jehovah's Witnesses will start 'hardcore' preaching that 2034 is the end. It is only a guess, but back in 2003 they already started laying the foundations in the Watchtower magazine:

"Noah received the warning of the upcoming catastrophe decades in advance, and he wisely used the time to prepare for survival. "After being given divine warning of things not yet beheld," says the apostle Paul, "[Noah] showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household." (Hebrews 11:7) What about us? Some 90 years have passed since the last days of this system of things began in 1914. We are certainly in "the time of the end." (Daniel 12:4) How should we respond to warnings we have been given? "He that does the will of God remains forever," states the Bible. (1 John 2:17) Now is therefore the time to do Jehovah's will with a keen sense of urgency." (Watchtower Magazine, December 15, 2003)

"Jehovah has kept these warnings in front of his people by means of timely reminders through the spiritual food provided by "the faithful and discreet slave." (Matthew 24:45-47) Moreover, every nation, tribe, tongue, and people are called upon to "fear God and give him glory, because the hour of the judgment by him has arrived." (Revelation 14:6, 7) An integral part of the Kingdom message preached earth wide by Jehovah's Witnesses is the warning that God's Kingdom will soon remove human rulership. (Daniel 2:44) This warning is not to be taken lightly. Almighty God always keeps his word. (Isaiah 55:10, 11) He did in Noah's day, and he will in our day.—2 Peter 3:3-7." (Watchtower Magazine, December 15, 2003)

What The Hell?

The Jehovah's Witnesses are famous for changing the ideology on certain subjects. All you have to do is go through their history and see how often they have changed their stance on blood. You could spend a few years to decipher all the twists and turns in their publications as to why Armageddon has been delayed.

But the one thing I thought they had always remained firm on was the fact that there was no Hell. I was wrong.

In modern times the Jehovah's Witnesses have often referred to their publication "What Does The Bible Really Teach?" when asked questions about their religion. And Hell, or the lack of it, gets a mention in chapter 6, "Where Are The Dead?", on page 64:

"What the Bible teaches about the condition of the dead is comforting. As we have seen, the dead do not suffer pain or heartache." (What Does The  Bible Really Teach?, 2005, page 64)

"As noted earlier, some religions teach that if a person lives a bad life, after death he will go to a place of fiery torment to suffer forever. This teaching dishonors God. Jehovah is a God of love and would never make people suffer in this way." (What Does The  Bible Really Teach?, 2005, page 64)

What Does The Bible Really Teach?, page 64

Remember that last quote. It becomes important as we travel back to 1920, when Joseph Franklin Rutherford was President of the Watch Tower Society.

In 1920 Rutherford published a booklet entitled "Millions Now Living Will Never Die". Talking about demons, on page 59 it states:

"God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to tartarus, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved  unto judgment." (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, page 59)

Millions Now Living Will Never Die, page 59

Yep, Rutherford claims that the demons will be cast down to tartarus. Where is Tartarus? Hell. Well, actually it is, according to Greek mythology, the deep abyss that is used as a dungeon of torment and suffering for the wicked and as the prison for the Titans. As far below Hades as the earth is below the sky, Tartarus is the place where, according to Plato in Gorgias (c. 400 BC), souls were judged after death and where the wicked received punishment.

This means, according to their own publications, that in 1920 the President of the Watch Tower Society can say there is a Hell (or a Greek mythological version), but by 2005 this place does not exist.

It leads to two questions:

• If this Tartarus no longer exists what happened to all the demons that were supposedly to be held there until judgment?
• If the 2005 version is right, then back in 1920 Rutherford 'dishonored God' by teaching about Hell.

For a religion that has only been around since the 1870s they have changed their views on many subjects over and over again.

When Windows XP Dies

Microsoft are ending support for Windows XP on April 8, 2014. But with so many people still using Windows XP, 12 years after its release, (37% of all computers according to one report) what can they do when support ends?

The nice simple option is upgrade to Windows 7. Backup all your documents and files to an external device (USB thumb drive or external hard drive) and install Windows 7. There are possibilities to upgrade but the people I have spoke to upgrading from XP to 7 have said it is not worth it and just to install Windows 7 as a completely new Operating System. Then after it is installed and updated (put aside at least an hour) you can then transfer your files back into Windows 7, and start installing all your software again. At the time of writing this Windows 7 was selling for around $80, and support for Windows 7 will continue until January 14, 2020.

I didn't suggest upgrading to Windows 8 purely because the people I know that got it with new machines eventually just downgraded to Windows 7. It is an option though, just do the research.

The other option is forget Windows and go with Linux.

I know a few people reading this will instantly be thinking: "Linux? I don't want to learn programming the computer I just want to use it. All those commands through the terminal scare the shit out of me." Good news - Linux today can be used without ever touching the terminal. Some things are easier in the terminal, but nowadays Linux can be tweaked, adjusted, and fixed with GUI tools just like you are used to.

Which distribution do you go with? I have no clue. This question is a loaded question. Ask anyone who has used Linux which distribution is the best and chances are they will say the one they are using. If they don't why are they using it more to the point?

The real question should be: Which distribution is the best for someone who has never used Linux and is switching from Windows XP?

The answer to that question is somewhat easier. But there are still choices.

ZorinOS (http://zorin-os.com/), currently on version 7, by default is set to look and feel like Windows. It even has an option to make it look like, and behave like, Windows XP. And with the software center you'll be able to find all those programs you had in Windows.

Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/), using the long-term support release of 12.04, will look and feel nothing like Windows. The default GUI, called Unity, is a sidebar. This can be changed. I hated Unity when it first came out but after using it for a few months I hated having to work on Windows machines. That is personal preference though. The biggest reason to switch to Ubuntu, when switching from Windows XP, is the Ubuntu community. It is massive, and chances are that what you want to do, or fix, has already been done or fixed by someone.

Linux Mint (http://linuxmint.com/), which is a derivative of Ubuntu. It uses a more familiar desktop environment as default which will please Windows users making the switch. It has the reliability of Ubuntu and as such also has the same resources when needing advice or answers.

Fedora (http://fedoraproject.org/), currently on version 19, by default comes with the Gnome desktop which will appeal to Windows users. Fedora is a well polished Linux distribution. I know a few people that switched from Windows to Fedora and have not looked back.

That is just 4 possibilities, the actual possibilities is an almost endless list. The good thing is that almost all Linux distributions come with the option of downloading a live version. Whether it is a live CD/DVD/USB you start your PC and boot from the live version. Try it out and if you don't like it you just reboot and Windows XP is still there. Find one you like and you can usually install it. You want to get really adventurous most of the Linux installations offer the choice of installing alongside Windows. So you can have the best of both worlds.

Or, and this is really just a way-out-there option, you could install Linux then within Linux run a virtual machine running Windows XP. That way if you can't find the right software in Linux you can run Windows without ever leaving Linux.

Overall the best bet, if you want to switch, is to try something out via a live medium and find what works best for you. Everyone has their own opinion about what is the best Linux distribution, but ultimately only you will know what you like.

Genesis: Two Versions One Book

If Moses was the star witness, for the prosecution, in a trial chances are the defendant would be found not guilty and walk free.

That statement may be wrong. It assumes that the accepted authorship of the book of Genesis is Moses, and that he wrote the book approximately between 1445 BC - 1405 BC. Actually when he wrote it is not important just the fact that he wrote it is.

Genesis starts with the creation narrative. Then it appears to repeat the narrative with additional details There is the problem, the two just do not match up. No matter how you look at it they appear to be two different events. And this can be proven just by reading the Bible.

The first set of details is from Genesis 1:1 - 2:3. The second set of details is from Genesis 2:4 - 2:25. For clarity in referencing the two I shall refer to them as Version 1 and Version 2. All Bible quotes are from the King James Version of the bible.

First Inconsistency

Version 1: "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good." (Gen 1:9-10)

Version 2: "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." (Gen 2:6)

In Version 1, the earth emerges from the waters and is therefore saturated with moisture. In Version 2, the 'whole face of the ground' requires to be moistened.

Second Inconsistency

Version 1: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." (Gen 1:20-21) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Gen 1:24-26)

Version 2: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Gen 2:7) "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Gen 2:19)

In Version 1, the birds and animals are created before man. In Version 2, man is created before the birds and animals.

Third Inconsistency

Version 1: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (Gen 1:20)

Version 2: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Gen 2:19)

In Version 1, birds are made out of the water. In Version 2, birds are made out of the ground

Fourth Inconsistency

Version 1: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Gen 1:27)

Version 2: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Gen 2:7) "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" (Gen 3:22)

In Version 1, man is created in the image of God. In Version 2, man is made from dust of the ground and does not become like God until Genesis 3:22 where he eats the forbidden fruit.

Fifth Inconsistency

Version 1: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen 1:27-28)

Version 2: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." (Gen 2:28) "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." (Gen 2:15) "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." (Gen 2:21-22)

In Version 1, God creates 'male and female' and 'blessed them'. This is the last 'creation' before resting on the seventh day. In Version 2, the male is created, placed in the garden and names all the animals, and then the female is created from the rib of man.

So what happened? Many theories, ideas, and myths exist to explain the differences between the two versions. They are:

• The two accounts were written by two different people at two different times and then united to form one piece of text.
• The man and woman in the first version is Adam & Lilith. The man and woman in the second version is Adam & Eve. This draws on some ancient mythology that Lilith was the first wife of Adam and for one reason or another was expelled from the garden to be replaced by Eve.
• Te first version is before dinosaurs. The second version is after dinosaurs. Referred to as the 'gap theory', instead of being two accounts of the same event it is two separate accounts with the first one being thousands if not millions of years before the second.

So why the differences? Biblical scholars say that the first account is a complete account of the whole of creation. Whereas, the second account is more focused on the creation of man. This may be true but it does not explain the differences.

It doesn't matter really. Nobody can even begin to say when creation took place. Dates range from 4004 BC (Ussher), 11,013 BC (Camping), 12,500 BC (Crawford), and 20,000 BC (Bunsen). If Moses did indeed write Genesis in 1405 BC it would be anywhere from 2,959 to 18,595 years after the event.

And lets not forget the evolutionists. It is all a lie and two atoms happened to collide and started a massive chain of events.

Periodicals Parodied

In a recent post I did a mock-up of a Watchtower cover as a parody. And the first thing that was mentioned by a friend was the font was all wrong on the Watchtower text.

Looking at it he was totally correct. It was nothing like the actual text used. So I decided to see which font it actually was. The Internet let me down. Google had no worthwhile results and the few discussions about the Watchtower cover suggested Times New Roman which is what I had used and already knew to be wrong.

Luckily, MyFonts.com has a page where you can submit an image and it will try to identify the font. I pulled the current Watchtower and Awake magazines in PDF format into Photoshop and copied the section of each cover with the text.

The results were:

• Watchtower - URW Garamond Narrow Demi.
• Awake! - Granby EF.

Both of these are commercial fonts. But I thought about people who may be searching for the same answer, if they 'Google it' they will either get either a font that costs or a suggestion that is incorrect. I went through some font websites I had bookmarked and looked for free alternatives. The results for free alternatives were:

• Watchtower - Garogier (which can be downloaded here).
• Awake! - GranbyElephantBQ Regular (which can be downloaded here).

The free fonts, in my opinion, look close enough for the sake of parody although if you have any friends who are heavily into typography they will tell you the differences the second you show them - mine did.

Created using Garogier and GranbyELephantBQ fonts

Note 1: No copyright infringement is implied. The purpose of this post is merely for parody.
Note 2: The blog header was updated to reflect the font change using the free Garogier font.

Drink The Kool-Aid

Not an official Watchtower cover (Obviously)

Every now and again I read the Watchtower magazine and wonder: How can the Jehovah's Witnesses not realize their religion is nothing more than a cult?

The study edition of the November 15, 2013 Watchtower magazine has an article entitled "Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes - What They Mean For Us Today" on pages 16 to 20, and it screams cult. Question 11 asks:

"When would the prophecy concerning seven shepherds and eight dukes have its primary fulfillment?" (Watchtower (Study Edition), Nov 15, 2013, page 18)

Don't worry, as always there is no thinking involved, the answer is provided so you don't go looking and find out that it is all lies:

"The prophecy concerning seven shepherds and eight dukes (“princes,” The New English Bible) was to find its primary, or most important, fulfillment long after the birth of Jesus, the “ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times.” (Read Micah 5:1, 2.) This would be at a time when the very existence of Jehovah’s servants would be threatened by a "modern-day “Assyrian.” What forces will Jehovah, through his now-reigning Son, marshal to confront the fear-inspiring foe? We shall see." (Watchtower (Study Edition), Nov 15, 2013, page 18-19)

But once again, worry not, you will not be in suspense long as you 'will see' on page 20:

"The prophecy about seven shepherds and eight dukes has its major fulfillment in our day. The citizens of ancient Jerusalem were attacked by the Assyrians. In the near future, Jehovah’s apparently vulnerable people will come under attack from the modern-day “Assyrian,”whose intent will be to wipe them out." (Watchtower (Study Edition), Nov 15, 2013, page 20)

I already know what you are thinking, 'no mention of seven shepherds or eight dukes'. Patience, they are building up to that:

"The shepherds and dukes (or, “princes,” NEB) in this implausible army are the congregation elders." (Watchtower (Study Edition), Nov 15, 2013, page 20)

See, it was worth the wait. The elders are the shepherds and the dukes. But can they be trusted to lead in the battle? Why yes they can - according to the publication:

"When “the Assyrian” attacks, the elders must be absolutely convinced that Jehovah will deliver us. At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not." (Study Edition), Nov 15, 2013, page 20)

The elders, via the Governing Body, will  will give life-saving direction which may not seem rational. But don't question it, unless you want to be classed as an apostate, as long as you do what they say you will be fine.

"... if you knew what was ahead of you, you'd be glad to be stepping over tonight." (Jim Jones, Jonestown, November 18, 1978)

Got Blood?

Not a real Watchtower cover (Obviously)

I was reading some literature from the Jehovah Witnesses. Not sure why I was reading it but I was. The publication is entitled "How Can Blood Save Your Life?". You can read it on the official website, but for some reason there is no PDF download on the website. I found a link for the PDF version through Google.

The basis of the publication is the reasoning, and justification, as to why the Jehovah Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions. The publication starts by reminding everyone that God said you must not eat blood in Genesis 9:3-6. They quote the New International Version.

I always have a problem when the Jehovah Witnesses quote a Bible other than their own. After all they claim their Bible is the best translation of the Holy Scriptures. So why quote another version of the Bible?

"Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." (NIV, Gen 9:3-6)

"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. Only flesh with its soul - its blood - YOU must not eat. And, besides that,YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man." (NWT, Gen 9:3-6)

The NIV uses the term lifeblood whereas the NWT uses blood. So the reason for the NIV quote is because it is already instilling the idea that giving blood (lifeblood) is giving your life away. But the bigger problem is that if the Jehovah Witnesses think the NIV version is so good why does their translation not use the same wording? Simple - lifeblood is not in Genesis. Read the oldest manuscripts possible and using correct translation lifeblood is not there. The Jehovah Witnesses should know this because they translated their own Bible. So the NIV version gets used, even though they know it is incorrect, simply to push an idea down your throat from the start. Nothing about life-saving transfusions just eating blood.

Next from the publication comes the classic Jehovah Witness passage from the book of Leviticus - Leviticus 17:10-14. This time quoting the Tanakh (The Jewish Bible) instead of the NWT.

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel: No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof; therefore I said unto the children of Israel: Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." (Tanakh, Leviticus 17:10-14)

"As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people. For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for YOU to make  atonement for YOUR souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: No soul of YOU must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst should eat blood. As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off." (NWT, Leviticus 17:10-14)

Once again the idea that their own translation wasn't good enough is a problem. But the biggest problem is that the publication uses an incorrect translation of the Tanakh. I actually had to check this one out. But the majority of texts of the Tanakh state: "eateth any manner of blood" whereas the publication chose to use the version which fits more to their ideal: "partakes of any blood". Why? Because eating blood is too specific, they need to force the idea that taking blood of any kind is a sin according to God. This idea is proven in the text of the publication, where it goes on to say:

"Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but it had special meaning to God." (How Can Blood Save Your Life?, page 4)

They were told not to eat blood. Nothing in the Bible quotes used by the Jehovah Witness publication states anything about transfusions.

Moving on to page 5, the Jehovah Witnesses quote yet another Bible rather than their own:

"did no wrong, [and] no treachery was found on his lips." (Knox, 1Peter 2:22)

"He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth." (NWT, 1Peter 2:22)

The passage is talking about Jesus. The publication then goes on to quote Acts 15:1-21, this time from their own Bible, which ends with:

"but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (NWT, Acts 15:20)

Read the whole bit. Any Bible will do. The general point is the same in all versions and the point is whether or not the gentiles need to be circumcised or not, after discussion it is not. But, and here is the kicker, Acts 15:21 goes on to say:

"For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath." (NWT, Acts 15:21)

It is saying the gentiles should follow the law of Moses.Well, they already gave the law of Moses, concerning eating blood, in the Leviticus 17:10-14 quote previously stated. And that particular quote concerns eating blood and nothing whatsoever to do with medical, possibly life-saving, blood transfusions.

On to page 6, which is where I finished reading (more than later). The publication gives proof that transfusions are from ancient times. OK I was being somewhat sarcastic. The two examples given STILL deal with blood being eaten or drunk - nothing about a medical transfusion into the vein. The first is the son of King Esarhaddon who drank blood. The second example is a writing from Tertullian. Yet again no mention of blood transfusions, but to cure epilepsy they would 'take the fresh blood of wicked criminals ... and carry it off to heal their epilepsy.' No mention that the blood was most likely drunk. And definitely no mention that the blood of criminals was only used after 400AD because of a prohibition of gladiatorial combat.

King Esarhaddon was king between 681 - 669BC. Tertullian lived from 160AD to 225AD. Nothing even close to first blood transfusion which took place in 1628.

Why I Stopped Reading

As I mentioned I stopped reading halfway down page 6. Because I already knew where the rest of the publication was going to go. It was going to take one publication that said blood transfusions were bad, and no matter how many publications said the risks of modern blood transfusions were minimal, they would stick with the one publication that supported their non-scriptural doctrine.

Also I started reading something else, concerning blood fractions. And that it was OK for a Jehovah's Witness to accept blood fractions. Actually it is a matter of conscience but you cannot be disfellowshipped for accepting blood fractions. This to me is a loophole and completely ridiculous. The Jehovah's Witnesses cannot donate or accept whole blood but they can accept fractions of blood. Where do they think these fractions they accept come from? And don't even get me started on the number of Jehovah's Witnesses that have dialysis treatment.

Scrabble Tiles For Photoshop

I downloaded some PNG files of Scrabble tiles to use. They were all a nice size (1000 x 1000) but the quality was so bad they were just not usable.

So I ended up making my own. They are not 3D objects, but with the shadow they served the purpose.

They are not the best but where I used them they look just right (I only used the wooden ones, the plastic texture and metal texture were just for fun). But in the interests of sharing I present them here. The actual tiles are 300 x 300 @300dpi. They are built from layers with the letters and number values being grouped layers. The font used was News Gothic Standard, although I believe there is a rounded version which would be more accurate.

Anyway, here they are, enjoy and use them however you see fit.

The PSD file can be downloaded here: Scrabble Tiles.

If anyone cares the wooden texture is actually Vermont Maple which the proper tiles are made from.

Increase The Flock At The Expense Of Integrity

Sometimes, all you can do is laugh. There is the occasional thing that comes from the Watchtower publishers that really makes you stop and just say: "Do these people really think anyone will fall for this?"

That is the question I asked myself when I saw Tract 82, entitled  "You Can Trust The Creator!", on the official Jehovah's Witness website. There is so much wrong with it that it is difficult to decide where to start. Obviously the title - Since when did the Jehovah's Witnesses start referring to God as the Creator? Never. They got their name because they feel that God should be called Jehovah. They have consistently banged the drum that God is Jehovah and not God, but now because they are appealing to Native tribes of America & Canada it is alright to forget the word Jehovah and refer to Jehovah as The Creator.

They even change bible quotes to match. On the front page they have:

"The Creator has spoken to mankind, and his words are written in a book. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)" (Tract 82, Page 1)

Which is purely an attempt to get the tribal natives to think that the Jehovah's Witnesses think just like they do. Which once a tribal native opens up the New World Translation, will find is a lie:

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (NWT, 2Tim 3:16-17)

The Creator is right back to being God. And how are the Jehovah's Witnesses going to react when the tribal natives start praying to the Creator, Wakan Tanan, The Great Spirit, The Great Mystery, The One, Grandfather, and many other names?

Page 2 is where the Jehovah's Witnesses pull no punches. All of a sudden great Chiefs were quoting exactly what the Jehovah's Witnesses are quoting. Wrong. Page 2 is taking the quotes of tribal Chiefs and mixing them together with quotes from the Bible, to make it appear as the Chief said the whole thing. There is no clear distinction between where one quote ends and another starts.

Head on to page three, and witness some of the most racist artwork the Watchtower has ever published.

Only tribal natives make it to Paradise on Earth all of a sudden

What is missing from the picture? Another nationality perhaps. In every piece of artwork the Jehovah's Witnesses have put out there is always a mix of nationalities and races. But in Tract 82 because it is an attempt to ensnare tribal natives not another nationality, or race, is anywhere to be found. Do the Jehovah's Witnesses think that tribal natives will have their own little slice of 'Paradise on Earth'? Of course not, but they portray it purely to appeal to the target audience that they will be forcing the pamphlet to. Actually, it is not just the artwork. The whole pamphlet has nobody but tribal natives in it.

In my view this pamphlet did more damage than good. If the Jehovah's Witnesses felt that tribal natives would fall for these tricks they obviously didn't spend enough time looking at the tribal people who would see through this 'insult' to their culture and spiritual practices.

Coffee Or A Motor Home?

Starbucks sells approximately 4,000,000 cups of coffee a day in the United States. Based on a 24-hour day that is an astounding 166,666 cups an hour. Or 2,778 cups a minute. Or if you really want to get specific it is 46 cups of coffee every second of every day.

The average price of a cup of  'standard' coffee at Starbucks is $2.50. Which calculates at $115 every second. Or $10,000,000 a day. Or for those really wanting to know $3,650,000,000 a year. Or for those that really have nothing better to do than look at zeros it is $36,500,000,000 over a decade. Yep, $36.5 Billion over a decade.

But what if you just care about your own coffee costs. Well for starters it is a 5-day week, which will weigh in at $12.50 per week. Now, if you have 4 weeks of vacation that means you are spending $600 a year on 240 coffees.

If you start work at 18 and carry on until you retire at 65 you have 47 years of work in you. If you have a coffee every day and the price never goes up (fat chance of that) you will spend $28,200 on coffee.

But that is just the morning coffee on the way to work. But what if you get a snack every lunch, and have an after-work drink at the end of each day?

The average fast food lunch is going to cost you $5.50 a day. $1320 a year. For your whole career you kiss goodbye to $62,040. And that much needed after-work drink is going to cost you (if you drink a beer) $4 a day. 47 years later you will have spent $45,120.

Add it all up and for your whole career you have spent $135,360.

Instead of being addicted to caffeine, a few pounds heavier, and wasting a couple of hours each week at Alcoholics Anonymous you could have purchased something to enjoy your retirement in:

And still had $18,000 for gas.

Edited To Prove A Point (Or A Cross In This Case)

I was reading a website concerning the Jehovah's Witnesses and the usual 'stake' or 'cross' argument broke out. Someone, who never clearly stated their religious bias, said: "all those writing comments against the JWs should read their book Reasoning From The Scriptures". So I did. Admittedly not the whole book, just the pages concerning the cross/stake argument (pages 89-93).

click image for larger view

On some of the quotes I noticed heavy use of ellipses (the 3 dots that usually indicate an intentional omission, e.g. ... ). And curiosity got the better of me and I decided to check the first quoted material against the original.

It was a quote from The Imperial Bible-Dictionary. The Reasoning From The Scriptures publication quotes it as:

"The  Greek  word  for  cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a  stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. ... Even  amongst  the Romans the crux  (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole. - Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376."

Whereas the original text of The Imperial Bible-Dictionary states:

"The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a  stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even  amongst  the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part. But from the time it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a transverse piece of wood was commonly added: not, however, always then. For it would seem that there were more kinds of death than one by the cross: this being sometimes accomplished by transfixing the criminal with a pole, which was run through his back and spine, and came out at his mouth (adactum per medium hominem, qui per os emergat, stipitem, Seneca, Ep. xiv) In another place (Consol. ad Marciam, xx), Seneca mentions three different forms: "I see," says he, "three crosses, not indeed of one sort, but fashioned in different ways: one sort suspending by the head persons bent toward the earth, others transfixing them through their secret parts, others extending their arms on a patibulum." There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood. But this does not of itself determine the precise form of the cross; for crosses of three different shapes were known to have been in use." (The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, 1874, page 376)

The 'real' text decides nothing. It says that there were three shapes used. But the Jehovah's Witness quote not only is edited to match the idea of a torture stake, it also omits the ending which can be very roughly paraphrased as saying: "There were three shapes used. Nothing anywhere says which one was used. The only thing I can say is pick one."

click image for larger view

The whole definition goes into a lot more detail and is worth a read. The Imperial Bible Dictionary can be viewed, and downloaded, over at Google Books. The whole book seems like a treasure trove of information.

So it is not that the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong in their assertion of a torture stake, and for the sake of clarity it is not an incorrect assertion of the more 'traditional' cross shape. It is that, with careful editing, that will direct the Witnesses to the points they wish them to see only, instead of giving them the whole story and allowing them to decide, and think, for themselves. It is the typical misdirection employed by various people who only want you to see what they want you to see. Kind of like the magician who has all eyes on his right hand while the left hand palms the coin.