For those of us who still believe in God...

by MrMoe 90 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Faraon

  Dwiltshire,
  

  And what about the readers of this account that read it say 4,000 years ago would they have understood it to mean the whole globe when they didn't even know the Earth was round like a ball.
  I think we have to remember what people back then actually knew and what they didn't know to come to a correct or at least better understanding of what Noah, or Shem meant.

  This fable was supposedly written, not by Noa or Shem, but by Moses, over a thousand years after the flood. (Many authorities think the OT bible, was in fact, written about 500 BCE by many different authors, each of whom wrote sections of different books.) This old fable, even if written as early as Moses, would not have validity due to the passage of time. Remember that even Abraham’s father and other of his relatives did not worship Jah. Moses himseld did not even know who this god was. The Hebrew slaved did not recall him. I Am That I Am is in fact the name of an Egyptian deity.

  The bible is supposed to be inspired by God. If s/he in fact inspired it. He or She could not make mistakes. Ask any Jehovah's Witness or common household fundie. They will tell you the bible makes no mistakes and does not contradict itself. They will even tell you that their god said in the bible that the Earth is a sphere.
  Nowhere in the bible is claimed that the flood was only an account by Noah or Shem. The flood’s myth is stated as a fact coming from Moses writing.

  How did Noah or Shem measure the height of the flood?

  How did they know that the waters were raised twenty feet over the tallest mountain, not nineteen or twenty one?

  If they were eyewitnesses, any second year student of law would rip their testimony to shreds and the judge would send them to jail for contempt of court.

  JRP
  
• 

  D wiltshire

  Faraon,

  I guess we have different sources for our information about who wrote the flood account, and when written, that has lead us to different conclusions.

  Just one question, what about the story of a flood (or at least a similar story) found in almost all cultures. Do you think this might point to the posibility that there really was a flood that almost wiped out all humanity except 8.
• 

  anewperson

  Mr Moe, this is why I believe in God.

  ATHEISM, REASONING EFFECTIVELY ABOUT IT: You might start by noting that logically we can't see the energy source for this universe but nor would we want to as that might radiate us to death (Ex 20:33). Too, the source for this universe has provided us earth, food, water, life, intelligence, and therefore since a good father is a good provider it really is not illogical to call such a Source our Father. The word God can be used as an abbreviation for "the source of this universe that provides for us in a fatherly manner."

  Next you can note that the creative Days could have been billions of years because in Hebrew yohm (day) as in English can refer to a period as in "in Rome's day." Also early humans may have had an atmosphere which was then able to screen out fast-aging radiation better, and there may have been plants, yes, even a tree providing antioxidant richer fruits etc for prolonging life.

  Too, the statement that Eve was made from a rib is no stranger than to read that men can now clone creatures from individual cells. Since we can now "resurrect" movie stars electronically, why consider the resurrection hope as a totally impossible dream? Why must scientists or anyone at all disbelive that God could float an axe on water when men today float million ton vessels in water or the nothingness of space?

  Some say the sun could not have "stood still" for Joshua, yet clouds with ice have sometimes reflected light from over the horizon. Some say that if Bible censuses of the same tribe differ that proves it and God false, but they don't note that verses can vary due to children or elderly people being listed in one census but not others that are just for able-bodied men.

  Sincere skeptics may note that a verse says a certain city was destroyed in one chapter but in another chapter seems to say it was still existing, yet they may not have figured it out that there could have easily been two cities with the same name. Or they may note that one verse says Christ did no baptizing while another says his disciples did the baptizing, not noting that even today we may say a certain man build a skyscraper when in fact not himself directly but
  workers on his behalf did so, so that both such statements are correct.

  Some will call God cruel because humans die but ask them if it isn't true that God wanted the first humans to live on forever, that He warned them how to avoid death but they ignored Him. Some will denounce that he permitted slaves in ancient times, and for this note that Christ said God had also permitted men to divorce women not because He wanted such but because he knew that to not allow it would lead to even greater cruelty, and so in similar manner He permitted but regulated slavery so that it would not be as viciously imposed as
  it would otherwise have been.

  The preceding and other Bible-related items like it are avaible to those in this egroup: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jahchristian
  although anyone is welcome to request a copy. All are also welcome to immediately reprint and use this item.
• 

  seven006

  Moe,
  The difference between science and religion is Science has evidence of things and then tries to build a story around it. Religion has a story and then tries to build evidence around it. You say the Red Sea has sulphur deposits in it so the story of Sodom and Gomorah must be true. That is no big surprise, so does most of the entire worlds surface. Sulpher is one of the most abundant elements found on the whole planet. The Great Salt Lake in Utah is loaded with it. I don't remember reading that god tried to destroy Salt Lake City with showers of sulpher but maybe he just missed it.

  Moe, read a little about history and science outside of the watchtower publications and you just might surprise yourself.

  Here is a link to some basic information about sulpher. http://georgiagulfsulfur.com/history.htm

  Big hug woman

  Dave
• 

  Naeblis

  Why did God murder babies?
• 

  Faraon

  Dwiltshire,
  :I guess we have different sources for our information about who wrote the flood account, and when written, that has lead us to different conclusions.

  Agreed.

  :Just one question, what about the story of a flood (or at least a similar story) found in almost all cultures. Do you think this might point to the posibility that there really was a flood that almost wiped out all humanity except 8.

  I really don’t know what to tell you about this point. Many religions have a cataclysmic event. Does this mean that their gods are also the true gods?

  The flood is a fascinating story that storytellers would love to repeat. This story would naturally be copied into many religions. There are variations, though, as you would expect a myth to have: animals are not spared, number of saved people, shape of the saving vessel, which happens to be egg-like in many of them, and so on.

  Other religions’ fables make more sense, like bringing along “seeds of life” instead of fully grown animals”

  The following is from Joseph Wheless’s “Is it God’s Word?”, Chapter 3.
  

  "When the heavens above were not yet named, Or the earth beneath had recorded a name, In the beginning the Deep was their generator, The Chaos of the Sea was the mother of them all."

  Out of this primeval chaos the great god Bel brought forth Ansar and Kisar, the upper and lower firmaments; in a death-struggle between Bel-Merodach, the supreme creator god, and the chaos-dragon Tiamat, the latter was slain, and out of its divided body the earth and the seas were created by the victorious Bel, who established their laws and orderly government. The heavenly bodies were next set up to rule the day and night and to determine the seasons; plants and animals were then created; and finally, in innocence and purity, the first parents, Adamu and his wife. Then followed their temptation by the dragon Tiamat, their fall and curse, the subsequent sinfulness of the people of the earth, and the ensuing Deluge, which destroyed all except the pious Khasisadra or Xisuthros and his household, who escaped in an ark which he was warned by the friendly god Ea to build, and into which he took with him, by divine command, "the seed of all life," to preserve it for future regeneration. The waters overwhelmed mankind; the ark stranded on Mt. Nizir in Armenia; the Chaldean Noah sent out, one after the other, a dove, a swallow, and a raven, the last of which returned not, having found dry land; whereupon the pious Xisuthros went forth from the ark and made a thanksgiving sacrifice of some of his animals, but not so improvidently as did Noah; the repopulation of the earth proceeded; and the presumptuous people began the building of a great Tower of Babel to reach to heaven, to the wrath of the great god Anu, the Father.

  "In his anger also the secret counsel he poured out; To scatter abroad his face he set; He gave command to make strange their speech; Their progress he impeded."

  
  The Babylonian myths definitely precede the Jewish who learned them while in captivity in Babylon.

  Jews and Babylonians even shared the same basic language. The bible was not written in an Egyptian dialect, as you would expect the language of slaves in captivity for over 300 years to be, but in a Chaldean dialect and by a person who was supposed to have been raised far from the influence of slaves.

  JRP
  
• 

  Frenchy

  Hello, Moe.
  First of all, I believe.

  If I understand you correctly you are asking for hard, tangible evidence of the God of which the Bible speaks, something that you can look at, examine, test, and then know conclusively that he exists.

  I have many times earnestly beseeched God in prayer to give me a sign that would let me know that he exists and to tell me what it is that he wants of me. To date there has been no miraculous manifestation, no voices, no feeling of his presence, certainly nothing at all like AGuest’s experience. I find that since the greater number of us do not experience what she describes here, nor can she truly share with us this experience, it does the rest of us little good. It is rather a cause for disappointment to those who tend to believe her. They are wondering why they cannot have this marvelous experience themselves. For that reason I view such testimonies as delusional.

  There have been several good questions asked here, some mockingly and with language that pains those of us who still do believe, but good questions nonetheless. I realized after a time that the Society did not have the answers to those questions. Oh, they offered explanations that helped define their doctrines but these are not the answers. Yes, I’ve given the talk “Evidence of God in the World Around Us” (many, many times) but the ‘evidence’ offered as proof of the existence of God falls short.

  For me, the answer was the questions. As has been noted here, faith appears to be something we need in order to please God. (Heb. 11:6) Answered questions become matters of fact and once fact is upon the scene, faith is gone. I have reasoned that right now, in our stage of development, we need to cultivate faith. Adam and Eve wanted knowledge and they were told that the knowledge would kill them. Was that statement false, I ask myself? Are we not all dying now? And yet, what is it that I ask for? I am still asking for knowledge. That ‘tree’ is gone now and what we are left with is partial knowledge and yet it’s enough to kill us.

  James once remarked that the demons believed (knew) in God and shuddered. That point was lost on me for a time. Now I know that knowing is not sufficient, perhaps not even needed, (Jesus’ words to Thomas) perhaps at times an impediment. The Pharisees looked very hard for evidence in the law that Jesus was the Christ and were unable to accept him for lack of a type of evidence which they sought. Ordinary people found him, children found him, women found him.

  Could it be that by preparing our hearts to be like that of children (Matt 18:3) in order to ‘receive’ Christ that we have, in effect, fulfilled the whole purpose of the law and Christ and become what it is that we are to be and thus fulfilling this part of our destiny?

  In conclusion: Moe, I will say to you that you will not find the evidence which you seek, in scientific finds of the ark or any other artifact or geological find. Those things, when discovered, are intriguing but at the same time distracting. If and when you find God you will find that he was there in your heart all along. It’s as Acts 17:27 states: “…for them to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us.” This is not to say that God is only a good feeling in your heart but that good feeling that’s there was placed there by Him.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  Abaddon

  I have to say that Shelby is proving to be rather more tolerable than I had anticipated; I know that might sound a little harsh, but my experience of people who claim to have a direct line to god is rather negative.

  I'll side with Mommy here Shelby, you certainly have a style of your own, even if it's a little like that old black lady in STephen King's 'The Stand' (I'm sure your not old and whizzened like she was, but your styles, down to the 'Lord child' are like two peas in a pod.

  You actually seeming to be quite nice aside, I am afraid that I can't accept your subjective reality, no matter how real it is to you, without some form of verification.

  Barring a visit, I do have some questions.

  You refer several times to praying to 'Jah of Armies'.

  Now call me a softie, but I always had this fond idea of god as someone of LOVE, not of armies. If he is god, does exist, etc., then I think it goes without saying that he can whip our butts six ways before Christmas.

  Thus 'Jah of Armies' seems a little redundant and actually is a little off-putting. Surely 'Jah of Love' would be better? If god cannot offer us unconditional love (without holding a large stick behind his back), then what exactly can he offer us?
• 

  bboyneko

  Thus 'Jah of Armies' seems a little redundant and actually is a little off-putting. Surely 'Jah of Love' would be better? If god cannot offer us unconditional love (without holding a large stick behind his back), then what exactly can he offer us?

  Yahweh Saba Oth is God's full name. (Yahweh of armies) Yahweh is a shortned form of that. Like if we called someone by the title: "He who causes The" we know it is incomplete. Causes the what? Here is a detailed explanation

  The name Yahweh is a third-masculine-singular, hiphil imperfect of the verb, hyh ("to be"). The hiphil vocalization gives the verb a causitive denotation, "he causes to be." As it stands, the verb lacks an object. What does he cause to be? The answer is found in 1 Sam 4:4 where Yahweh's full name is formally associated with his ark: "So the troops sent to Shiloh and brought away the ark of Yahweh Sabaoth, he who is seated on the cherubs." Yahweh causes to be the armies (saba oth). In what sense does he "cause them to be?" The idea here is not one of creation but of mustering them as their leader as he leads his troops into battle against the enemy as we find in this text and others. The strongest evidence that Yahweh was thought of as essentially a war god is found in Ex 15:3 where the meaning of his name is explicitly connected with his warrior attributes:

  Yahweh is a warrior,
  Yahweh is his name!

  Jehovah the war god. Old testament makes a little more sense now dosen't it?

  -Dan
• 

  AGuest

  Dearest Abaddon (honey, LOSE that label... it belongs to "Darkness", I PROMISE you...), may you have peace!

  You asked:

  Thus 'Jah of Armies' seems a little redundant and actually is a little off-putting. Surely 'Jah of Love' would be better? If god cannot offer us unconditional love (without holding a large stick behind his back), then what exactly can he offer us?

  First, my Father's love is NOT 'unconditional'. WhereEVER did you get that idea? ALL who give love... have 'conditions' on that love, yes? I mean, I will love you to a GREAT extent... but not above and beyond SOME things, dear one. My Father... and my Lord are the same. Indeed, did my Lord tell us HOW to love him... as well as HOW to love others? Those, dear ones... are 'conditions'. You betcha!

  As regards to my Father's name, please see my response to BBoy, below.

  BBoy, dear one... peace to you as well!

  You are correct in your statement of my Father's 'full's name, but the word of my Lord to ME... is that you are inaccurate in your translation. In TRUTH, my Father's name IS 'Yahweh Saba Oth'... and such name MEANS:

  'JAH the causes the armies to be', 'JAH brings armies into existence'.

  According to the voice of my Lord... 'JAH-VeH' (which has been misrendered into 'JeHoVaH' do to misplacement of improper vowels - earthling man, always trying to do things HIS way...), means "JAH... causes to be...", or "JAH breathes/brings into existence..." The "saba oth" parts mean "the armies". Thus, my Father IS... JAH OF ARMIES, as His name so states.

  However, while my Father IS a 'mighty warrior', and a God of war... it is NOT 'war' as we know it in this system of things. My Father is a God of 'war', in that IN THE SPIRIT realms, there is another... and others who have sided WITH that one... to bring 'war' against my Father... and His 'seed'. They will NOT be victorious, for my Father is the 'victor'.

  My own personal way of helping you all to see this is perhaps the movie 'Gladiator', where a certain general, while a mighty, VALIANT man of war, was, at HEART... a mere farmer, a peaceful man. And David... and my Lord... who were for 'peace', when others were for 'war'. My Father is, BEFORE being a warrior... foremost and FIRST... a 'farmer'... a 'cultivator' (John 15:1). He has sown 'seed'... and is doing ALL that He can to protect that 'seed' until it can grow... and be harvested. He will protect it... even if it means 'war'. And HE... WILL 'win'.

  The 'armies' then, that my Father 'causes' to be... are NOT simply militarial; rather, they are a VAST number... like locusts (and no, not the locusts which come out of the abyss, ya'll). But their 'number'... from angels to 'earthling man'... are like the sand of the sea. 'Army' then, denotes NUMBERS... much more so than it denotes military might.

  For the word of my Lord to ME is that it only took ONE angel, the Destroyer (Death; Abbadon) to wipe out the first born of Egypt... and 185,000 Assyrians. Indeed, what will 'myriads' do? It only took fire from the mouth of my Father to wipe out Gog... and Magog. My Father does not NEED 'military force'... for He has His SPIRIT.

  Zechariah 4:6

  However, do NOT be misled into thinking that such 'armies'... would not 'fight' FOR Him. They most certainly will; they have... and they will again.

  Naeblis, honey... peace to you. Please... go to the 'other' thread (by JUSTAMOM) we are 'active' on. Your answer is there.

  Again, I bid you all peace, and I am...

  YOUR servant, and a slave of Christ,

  SJ