Ms_ladyblue
Well-known member
All this insanity in an already crazy world! What are we supposed to be learning here???it’s a constant process. I’m learning too.
All this insanity in an already crazy world! What are we supposed to be learning here???it’s a constant process. I’m learning too.
Off topic question for you, Bro TGP, in the revised NWT at Rev 9:7 it describes the locusts faces as “human” faces but in the prior translation of the NWT it said “men’s” faces. What did the original Greek actually say? Thanks in advance.
I was just referring to the terms that TGP uses. I am learning to understand what he is saying. Not saying I agree or disagree but I hear him.All this insanity in an already crazy world! What are we supposed to be learning here???
@DrivenI was just referring to the terms that TGP uses. I am learning to understand what he is saying. Not saying I agree or disagree but I hear him.
Wow. Interesting info. Thanks.The word is anthropon so men's faces. It would actually make sense in the interpretation of released watchers context to describe them with women's hair because one of several layers of Paul's mentioning head coverings was because in the first century due to the poor quality of medical science in Roman times a woman's long hair was viewed as analogous to a man's testicles (there's a chapter in reversing hermon on this) and so a woman without a headcovering at church was seen as comparable to a priest entering the tabernacle nude. Describing the locusts as having uncovered women's hair especially in an androgynous chimeric cthonic context could suggests uncleanness if the locusts are the 200 released for 150 days corresponding to the flood.
Genesis 7:24 And the waters continued overwhelming the earth a hundred and fifty days.
One more question. Is the word anthropon ever translated as “human” instead of “men” or could it refer to either a man or a woman?The word is anthropon so men's faces. It would actually make sense in the interpretation of released watchers context to describe them with women's hair because one of several layers of Paul's mentioning head coverings was because in the first century due to the poor quality of medical science in Roman times a woman's long hair was viewed as analogous to a man's testicles (there's a chapter in reversing hermon on this) and so a woman without a headcovering at church was seen as comparable to a priest entering the tabernacle nude. Describing the locusts as having uncovered women's hair especially in an androgynous chimeric cthonic context could suggests uncleanness if the locusts are the 200 released for 150 days corresponding to the flood.
Genesis 7:24 And the waters continued overwhelming the earth a hundred and fifty days.
I’m assuming she won that debate40 years ago I tried to explain to my fiance that wedding rings were pagan and so we shouldn't go there. Besides, we could save some money. That's when I became a pagan.
Hi RTAWReasons not to marry with a state marriage license
State marriage license: is it biblical?hushmoney.org
This article is the epitome of the best explanation of how Satan HAS CONFISCATED Jehovah's property.
And there are times I personally feel one must make a judgement call.
The preacher who wrote this article might be a broken clock, but he would still be right twice a day, I believe this is one of those times.
This video is an argument against lawful marriage. My last wedding cost under $200 (a state ceremony) that included the reception and the dress, flowers etc, so those engaged in the celebration can marry legally without it costing much, it is a choice, Many weddings at the Kingdom Hall can be even cheaper since the brothers get together provide the foods music the ceremony for free as a gift of brotherly love. So brothers why this daft argument? It tells me some of you have never been in the ‘truth’. Have not seen brotherly love in actionI've always known this. Modern marriage is a huge money making scam. It primarily has nothing to do with Jehovah or commitment anymore. A cheap wedding can cost many thousands of dollars. Stupid dresses, huge over priced cakes. I don't think that's what Jehovah means by marriage. Adam and Eve could be said to have been married. But they were just committed to each other. They didn't need all that other crap. The meaning behind the marriage is infinitely more important than a stupid ceremony and a piece of paper.
Just an FYI, I can't stand this guy in the following video. He's a regressive beta male loser. But I pretty much agree with this video regardless. Like someone mentioned earlier, even a broken clock is right twice a day -- assuming it's not digital, broken digital watches are always wrong, which may explain why the digital world is so full of _ _ _ _. But I digress.
Isn’t marriage celebration also for the benefit of the friends? It’s not like we have a slew of things we celebrate.This video is an argument against lawful marriage. My last wedding cost under $200 (a state ceremony) that included the reception and the dress, flowers etc, so those engaged in the celebration can marry legally without it costing much, it is a choice, Many weddings at the Kingdom Hall can be even cheaper since the brothers get together provide the foods music the ceremony for free as a gift of brotherly love. So brothers why this daft argument? It tells me some of you have never been in the ‘truth’. Have not seen brotherly love in action
Paz, I haven’t seen RTAW on the forum for months. Also he studies but is not baptized.This video is an argument against lawful marriage. My last wedding cost under $200 (a state ceremony) that included the reception and the dress, flowers etc, so those engaged in the celebration can marry legally without it costing much, it is a choice, Many weddings at the Kingdom Hall can be even cheaper since the brothers get together provide the foods music the ceremony for free as a gift of brotherly love. So brothers why this daft argument? It tells me some of you have never been in the ‘truth’. Have not seen brotherly love in action