Tyler

The following paragraph is a lot simpler than it sounds read the second paragraph for the actual question this is background detail that may help: I currently have made an Excel sheet and without going into too much detail I want to simplify it. Currently Column D is the number of recommended days for a task and Column H is how many days were actually taken. Right now I have the sheet so you put how many days you took in Column H and then manually put how many days behind or ahead of the recommended time in either column J or K (ahead or behind respectively) and then it finally calculates where you are on whole in column L.

If I tell Excel to simple Subtract Column D from Column H it will output the right answer, but only once someone enters data; until then it will put the recommended days in the "Relation to Schedule" column causing an erroneous total. I want it to only do the calculation if Cell E has an "X" in it. I tried doing the formula =D2-H2 if E=X but that just turned the cell into #name. What formula do I need to put there to get it to do what I want?

I am doing a bit of research and thought I'd do a somewhat informal poll here on Y!A about what you consider appropriate to wear when attending your worship services. The following options are general categories please select the one you think most applies to general occasions (so if you dress up for special occasions don't factor that in unless that is the only time you attend).

1. A button down shirt, slacks, sport coat, and tie (essentially a full suit or equivalent) and dress shoes for guys

A dress or skirt/blouse and nice shoes for women

2. Just a pair of casual clothes (not jeans and a t-shirt) such as slacks and a polo (applies to both genders)

3. Anything is really fine such as jeans, t-shirts, athletic wear, etc.

In light of reading the prophecy in Ps. 37 (particularly verses 10,11, 29) who will go to heaven. If righteous ones are possessing the Earth, Biblically speaking, who is going to heaven?

I am doing a research paper for my English class on the research question of "Is the religious intolerance experienced by Jehovah's Witnesses in the last 100 years exceptional compared to other religions?"

The teacher has said that magazine and news paper articles can't be used, all information should be from scholarly journals and books. I am having a hard time finding articles in scholarly journals that discuss the subject. I know in the Jehovah's Witnesses publications there is plenty of information. I know the book "Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" has some information; but would the Watchtower and Awake! be considered journals or magazines. I have heard them referred to as magazines and as Bible Journals. Also would any of their other writings be considered credible sources of information for a research paper?

John 17:3 says: This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

In your opinion which religion that claim to be Christian (so include ones people debate the Christian status of like the LDS Church and Jehovah's Witnesses) religion is the most educated/focused on continual education about God and Jesus? I'm not looking to focus on if your personal belief is that the education they are receiving fits with how you interpret the Bible. This also isn't about which denomination has the highest percentage of college graduates because the scripture this poll is based on is based solely on Spiritual Education. So in short what Christian religion is the most focused on taking in knowledge of God and not just having a "if you believe that is enough to be saved" mentality.

I just found this out, apparently I missed that news tidbit. Does anyone know anything about his situation or who he is other than that he sent a letter to his wife thanking "Jehovah, my God Jehovah".

I see so many people claiming the WTBTS is simply out to make money based off the donations of its members and people distributing magazines. How do you rectify this claim with a few of the following facts:

The time, effort, and cost of translating into so many languages. Why can you only get the Readers Digest in 21 languages? It is a commercial magazine out to make a profit. The Watchtower is in 182 languages, if the WTBTS was out to make a profit, why translate into so many "unprofitable" languages.

Jehovah's Witnesses actively promote simplifying your lifestyle and not making yourself rich the focus in life. If they really wanted money, they would encourage members to make as much money as possible because if the individual members have more money the WTBTS would get more donations.

Who is the one using all this supposed wealth. All of the Governing Body live and spend most of their time at the headquarters in Brooklyn, the eat the same food, share the same living space, and work the same schedule as all the other bethelites. If they're reaping all this money why are they not using it?

Many people attack C.T. Russell and claim he was getting rich off the Watchtower. If this was the case why did he spend so much of his own money on running the WTBTS. Much of the funds for the Photodrama of Creation ($250,000 then equivalent of ~$5.5 million today) were personally donated by him. While he did have a nice house in California he left all of what was left of his funds to the WTBTS which was not much by the time he left, he used all his money on furthering theocracy rather than on himself.

All these things considered how is it people still ignorantly claim the Watchtower is nothing more than a pyramid scheme for making a profit for its governing body. Even Ray Franz never claimed something that absurd (to my knowledge I've never read his literature, but it's something I assume would come up as proof if someone were serious in their claim as quotes from him come up in other arguments.)

I see so many people claiming the WTBTS is simply out to make money based off the donations of its members and people distributing magazines. How do you rectify this claim with a few of the following facts:

The time, effort, and cost of translating into so many languages. Why can you only get the Readers Digest in 21 languages? It is a commercial magazine out to make a profit. The Watchtower is in 182 languages, if the WTBTS was out to make a profit, why translate into so many "unprofitable" languages.

Who is the one using all this supposed wealth. All of the Governing Body live and spend most of their time at the headquarters in Brooklyn, the eat the same food, share the same living space, and work the same schedule as all the other bethelites. If they're reaping all this money why are they not using it?

Many people attack C.T. Russell and claim he was getting rich off the Watchtower. If this was the case why did he spend so much of his own money on running the WTBTS. Much of the funds for the Photodrama of Creation ($250,000 then equivalent of ~$5.5 million today) were personally donated by him. While he did have a nice house in California he left all of what was left of his funds to the WTBTS which was not much by the time he left, he used all his money on furthering theocracy rather than on himself.

All these things considered how is it people still ignorantly claim the Watchtower is nothing more than a pyramid scheme for making a profit for its governing body. Even Ray Franz never claimed something that absurd (to my knowledge I've never read his literature, but it's something I assume would come up as proof if someone were serious in their claim as quotes from him come up in other arguments.)

I saw this Pew Forum Poll and thought I'd do a bit more research on my own. Take the quiz here:

http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-kno...

It is a 15 question quiz about general religion. So take the poll and then answer with the following (I'll put my stuff in for example)

Score:15 (out of 15)

Religion: Jehovah's Witness

Age:17

Please don't lie or not post because you scored low, I just want to get a slightly better breakdown of numbers than the survey stated. Please star this question to get enough people to take it to get a good sample size.

I frequently hear the claim from atheists that atheism is not a religion--although I disagree I think it meets all the criteria of a religion--but if we want to stick to that argument, why do so many atheists hang out on the "Religion & Spirituality" forum when there is an "Other Society and Culture" forum on here that would fit their definition of atheism more aptly.?

In the Bible Isiah 13:19-22 and Jeremiah 50:39 both prophesy that the city of what was the city of Babylon would remain desolated.

Joshua 6:26 says that the one who tried to rebuild Jericho would lose his firstborn when he laid the foundation and his youngest when he erected the doors.

If atheists really wanted to put an end to this debate (at least to Jews and Christians (Muslims would claim those scriptures were some of the ones perverted by Christians and ignore what happened)) Why not just build a city on top of the ruins of one of these ancient cities. There are certainly enough influential atheists to provide the funding. It will be just like the test Elijah had with the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings chapter 18. One will definitively be proven true, the other will be proven false.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that in conjunction with Acts 21:25 Christians should abstain from blood transfusions. The scripture clearly states "abstain from blood" with no qualifiers or cop outs as to specific uses. The most common argument I see against the Witnesses stance is that science has progressed beyond what could have been envisioned then.

Using that reasoning is the same as saying God doesn't really have the power he claims he has and thus you are blaspheming him with this reasoning.

Also the passage refers to more than one topic, this prohibition does not only refer to direct consumption hence the command afterward to avoid things strangled, if it was only referring to consumption the statement abstain from blood would have been unnecessary.

So how do those of you preferring to not abide by this command rationalize it other than blaspheming God or taking the scripture out of context?

I have a question. Many people attack the New World Translation for the insertion of the word [other] into a few verses to, as the appendix of the NWT explains, to clarify the meaning of the scripture. This is attacked by trinitarians as trying to conform the Bible to their doctrines, however how do you explain the meaning of scriptures like John 8:54 where Jesus shows a clear distinction between himself and the father.

Additionally, if you believe in the trinity you also believe Jesus is a hypocrite. Jesus attacked the Pharisees because they made a show of praying by offering elegant prayers in public to draw attention to themselves. If Jesus were truly God, then all the time he spent praying--both privately and privately--would be a hypocritical show of himself. So Trinitarians do you realize you are calling Jesus a hypocrite?

have seen a lot of answers pertaining to questions about Jehovah's Witnesses attacking the use of the New World Translation as being "The Watchtower Bible" and that it is not the same as other Bible Translations/Versions. If Jehovah's Witnesses really based their teachings on some quasi-Bible explain two things.

The beliefs in the lack of a trinity, abstaining from blood, not celebrating Christmas/Easter/other holidays, mortality of the soul, etc. all predate the New World Translation by 30+ years when the Bible Students were using the King James Version.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publishes literature in over 500 languages. The Watchtower is published each month in 181 languages; yet, the New World Translation is only (currently) translated into 84 languages (and of them 35 languages are only the New Testament). That means that over 100 language versions of the monthly Watchtower, and 400 languages of publications quote from a translation other than the New World Translation.

That stated, how can they possibly retain the uniformity of beliefs worldwide if their doctrines are only supported by "their translation"?

I have seen a lot of answers pertaining to questions about Jehovah's Witnesses attacking the use of the New World Translation as being "The Watchtower Bible" and that it is not the same as other Bible Translations/Versions. If Jehovah's Witnesses really based their teachings on some quasi-Bible explain two things.

The beliefs in the lack of a trinity, abstaining from blood, not celebrating Christmas/Easter/other holidays, mortality of the soul, etc. all predate the New World Translation by 30+ years when the Bible Students were using the King James Version.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publishes literature in over 500 languages. The Watchtower is published each month in 181 languages; yet, the New World Translation is only (currently) translated into 84 languages (and of them 35 languages are only the New Testament). That means that over 100 language versions of the monthly Watchtower, and 400 languages of publications quote from a translation other than the New World Translation.

That stated, how can they possibly retain the uniformity of beliefs worldwide if their doctrines are only supported by "their translation"?

Do you realize that by being caught up in traditions that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible (praying to Mary, confessions, calling a priest Father, etc) that you are doing the exact same things the Jews were doing in Jesus time. They had lost God's favor because they were more concerned with their traditions and looking holy (like covering up child abuse because it looks bad) that they allowed themselves to reject God's teachings. Have you realized that by doing this you could be rejecting God's true followers because you are doing the same thing as first century Jews?

If you exclude the scripture at John 1:1 which is widely debated over how it should be translated, what support do trinitarians have Biblically not doctrinally for believing in the Trinity. If I wrote a story and said "I asked my father if it was his will that I buy an iPad" no one would assume me and my father were the same being, but as soon as you read something in similar context in the Bible it becomes a trinity (despite no reference to the holy spirit when scriptures like John 1:1)

If someone who believed in evolution helped to prevent a species from going extinct, or enforced limits on hunting, or helped fund animal shelters wouldn't they be going against natural selection by aiding a weaker species to survive?

I noticed someone providing evidence of human evolution from monkeys that we share 96% of our DNA with primates, so therefore we must be directly related and have evolved into humans from primates. So if I use this reasoning I can type up a story of the same approximate length and save it on my hard drive, then I can take a copyrighted book and print and re-sell it because 95% of the data in the save file is formatting that is required to show the document, the other 5% is the unique data that makes my book and the artist's book different. But if I use the same guideline as evolution, they must essentially be the same thing so the artist can file no claim against me right?

I just thought I'd make an interesting observation for people to comment on. It seems many people that use the Bible think the Old Testament isn't very applicable now that there is a newer version. However 2 Tim. 3:16&17 says: "16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

When that was written the Bible at that time was the Old Testament. Just thought that was an interesting point to those who refute the Old Testament as of no value today (Christians that is not the atheists who I'm sure will try to spread their anti-Bible agenda)