User talk:Logicalthinker33/Archive 1

Welcome!

 * }

Notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding I went through your notification. And I contacted the administrator for help.. The thread is Please help.The discussion is about the topic Logicalthinker33.--  Logical Thinker  05:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

=New book on Acts-GB quote= Quote from Governing Body in new Acts book on how they view themselves, do you have in English? I have only in other language. p. 110 - last sentence.Natural (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
 * Of course I have it on English . That publication is not available in my language. Nowadays I hardly get time to work in wiki. I thought you were a native English speaker. The quote is like this I would type it below.

The Governing body relies on God's Holy spirit for direction, Its members do not regard them-selves as the leaders of Jehovah's people. Rather, like all anointed Christians on earth, they "keep following the Lamb[Jesus Christ] no matter where he goes"-Rev. 14:4.

Its notable that GB do no regard them as leaders.--  Logical Thinker  07:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A statement ostensibly from the Governing Body about how JWs do not regard the Governing Body as leaders is not particularly neutral.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are statements from James Penton and Ray Franz against Jehovah's Witnesses neutral? The Wikipedia page accuses JW of many things, and also presents things in a way to offer a counter-Jehovah's Witness viewpoint. Statements such as this are needed to clarify and balance the way that Wikipedia editor's are skewing the "evidence". Natural (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
 * You've missed the point. There is nothing wrong with either sourced statement, but the fact remains that the Governing Body are ultimately leaders regardless of semantics.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your signature
I'm finding your signature way too distracting and disruptive in talk threads because of its size and content. The behavioral guideline for signatures at Signatures states that horizontal rules should not be used. Would you please modify yours to make it far less intrusive? BlackCab (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlackCab, please note that a horizontal rule:


 * is not the same as a HTML border style.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that the signature is distracting and obtrusive. BlackCab (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed it.--  Logical Thinker  13:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An improvement. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit
I undid your inappropriate edit here. The spurious JW chronology is not endorsed by "some historians" as you tried to ambiguously state. Absolutely no independent sources endorse the flawed JW chronology. The 'source' you cite is clearly a personal webpage that fails Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For further information, I have undertaken in depth research on this issue in which I considered every verse of the Bible that is relevant to the issue, including a tabulation of the entire Judean monarchy based solely on the Bible. (There are other books dealing with this issue, such as The Gentile Times Reconsidered which is reportedly quite good&mdash;I haven't read it as I prefer to 'make the truth my own' by doing my own research from scratch.) The 607 doctrine is quite impossible, and is therefore not suitable for articles dealing specifically with history. The controversy about the spurious date, recognized only by JWs is suitably mentioned at Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)