Why do so many people talk about the Bible as if it were one thing? Perhaps still adhering to a concept of canon, even those who no longer recognize it as authoritative. The Bible is more of an anthology of the best literature of ancient Judea and early Christianity. It has poetry, legal texts, historiography, proverbs, philosophy, correspondence, homilies, songs, and fiction. A library of such diverse books should not be judged by the same standard. I would not doubt that it has some rather accurate reproduction of the early Jewish law codes, and I would not doubt that some of the historiography is just as accurate as other (socially vested) ancient historiographies were. But why should a piece of fiction be judged on the same standard of "accuracy" as nonfiction? An apologist would be reluctant to admit the presence of fiction in "holy writ" on the basis of canonicity assumptions, but neither should a critic regard the whole anthology as equally "inaccurate" by assessing the whole thing on the same basis as a given piece of fiction. And what is wrong with there being fiction in the Bible? Every culture has its tradition of fiction writing, and the ancient Jews certainly had tales and short stories and novellas as their ANE neighbors did, why should these stories not be among the most honored collection of literature the Jews produced? Only a much later belief demands that the whole collection be regarded as infallible and true in a literal sense (rather than the kind of metaphorical truth one finds in fiction, such as in the parables of Jesus, which are -- naturally -- stories designed around moral points). Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is riddled with inaccuracies, but it is still worth reading! There is also much Judeo-Christian literature beyond the artificial borders of the Bible canon that is worth reading as well.
How accurate can the Bible really be?
by Snoozy 55 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Word
The Bible is only a vague image of the new world that is underway
nvrgnbk,
Bring it on already!
In due time my friend, in due time
-
nvrgnbk
In due time my friend, in due time
Back at ya!
-
hibiscusfire
Lore:
Sometimes people read 1st out of context and 2nd with the intent to find fault. They would pounce on just anything without understanding. We need guidance from a higher souce.
( 1 Chronicles 3:18-20) "19 ... and the sons of Ze·rub´ba·bel were Me·shul´lam and Han·a·ni´ah (and She·lo´mith was their sister); 20 and Ha·shu´bah and O´hel and Ber·e·chi´ah and Has·a·di´ah, Ju´shab-he´sed, five." That's right! Count 'em, five! (This is the part where faith kicks in and you only see five sons...)
Pedaiah had Zerubbabel and Shimei; Zerubbabel had Meshullam and Hananiah. Shelomith was their sister. And then five more—Hashubah, Ohel, Berekiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-Hesed.
(2 Samuel 6:23) says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" & (2 Samuel 21:8) "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
OrMerab (compare 1 Samuel 18:19 and 25:44, 2 Samuel 3:14 and 6:23)
(Joshua 15:33-36) "33 In the She?phe'lah there were Esh'ta?ol and Zo'rah and Ash'nah, 34 and Za?no'ah and En-gan'nim, Tap'pu?ah and E'nam, 35 Jar'muth and A?dul'lam, So'coh and A?ze'kah, 36 and Sha'a?ra'im and Ad?i?tha'im and Ge?de'rah and Ged?e?ro?tha'im; fourteen cities and their settlements." This time faith kicks in and you don't realise that if they can't even count to fifteen, they probably wouldn't even know what 70 weeks of days even is, let alone converting it into years.
Gederah (or Gederothaim). There that makes 14.
(Gen 2:17) "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die."
(Gen 5:5) "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Although judging by the Bible's math skills, that's probably a couple hundred years off.
On the day Adam and Eve ate of the tree God said that they would surely die. And that is exactly what happened. They did die. If they did not eat they would have lived forever. Besides God took pity on them and gave them a chance to live. Don't you know God is merciful?
(Matt 1:16), "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." (Luke 3:23) "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
Luke 3:23 When Jesus entered public life he was about thirty years old, the son (in public perception) (as was supposed) of Joseph, who was—
son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melki, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai, son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda, son of Joanan,
son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim, son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, son of Jesse, son of Obed,
son of Boaz, son of Salmon, son of Nahshon, son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez,
son of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor, son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg,
son of Eber, son of Shelah, son of Kenan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech, son of Methuselah,
son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Kenan, son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.Joseph had to cover for Mary. How would she explain the birth of Jesus to the people. God asked him to do a noble deed. Compare the other verses in Matthew.
Also consider that Noah was instructed to take seven of each clean animal into the ark, even though they weren't even allowed to eat meat yet, plus the distiction between clean and unclean animals wouldn't be made untill after the exodus
Kindly provide the verses as your evidence please. Thanks
Speeking of clean animals, did you know that bats are in fact birds, and not mammals?
(Deuteronomy 14:11-18) "11 “Any clean bird YOU may eat. 12 But these are the ones of which YOU must not eat: the eagle and the osprey and the black vulture, 13 and the red kite and the black kite and the glede according to its kind; 14 and every raven according to its kind; 15 and the ostrich and the owl and the gull and the falcon according to its kind; 16 the little owl and the long-eared owl and the swan, 17 and the pelican and the vulture and the cormorant, 18 and the stork and the heron according to its kind, and the hoopoe and the bat. "
So what? Who invented the word mammal anyway? A bat has wings and flew around like a bird. Do you eat it? No. Why? Because God said not to. Do you eat those other 'birds' mentioned above? ...and look how long ago that was! Then God must be real. Why would He say that if it was good. Do you really think man would know that?
(James 1:13) "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." & (Gen 22:1) "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."
Tempting someone and testing one's faith are two different things.
Multiple choice time, what where Jesus last words?
A: Luke 23:46: And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. B: John 19:30: When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. C: Lore 33:41: And Jesus, forgetting that this was actually part of the plan all along, said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
He said both and He gave up the ghost. What does Lore have to do with the bible?
(Leviticus 11:20) "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." (Leviticus 11:20) "Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to YOU." This is an example of translation error, one says fowl the other says bugs. Either way it's translated it's wrong. Fowl have two legs, not four. And bugs don't have four legs, they have six.
So what? Maybe you should study this a bit more. How many feet does a lizard have? Ever thought about reptiles with wings? How about dragons? Do you know all the animals, insects, birds or fish that ever existed?
(Matthew 13:31-32) “The kingdom of the heavens is like a mustard grain, which a man took and planted in his field; 32 which is, in fact, the tiniest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the largest of the vegetables and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and find lodging among its branches.” First off, there ARE smaller seeds, like the orchid for example. (You'd think he'd know if he actually designed them right?) Second, the mustard plant is not a tree.
Check out the black mustard, which grows to heights of 3.7 m/12 ft in Israel.
I don't need to keep going to prove anything except to prove God. God bless you!
hibiscusfire
-
hibiscusfire
By the way Lore:
-
hibiscusfire
By the way Lore:
First off, there ARE smaller seeds, like the orchid for example.
I didn't know the orchid was a vegetable.
hibie
-
eclipse
(Matt 1:16), "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." (Luke 3:23) "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
Luke 3:23 When Jesus entered public life he was about thirty years old, the son (in public perception) (as was supposed) of Joseph, who was—
son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melki, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai, son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda, son of Joanan,
son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim, son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, son of Jesse, son of Obed,
son of Boaz, son of Salmon, son of Nahshon, son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez,
son of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor, son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg,
son of Eber, son of Shelah, son of Kenan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech, son of Methuselah,
son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Kenan, son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.Joseph had to cover for Mary. How would she explain the birth of Jesus to the people. God asked him to do a noble deed. Compare the other verses in Matthew.
That still does not explain why there is that discrepancy between the two scriptures. Son of Heli does not appear ANYWHERE in Matthew.
And you still cannot explain why the bible writers did not realize that they were writing about JOSEPH'S heritage,
NOT JESUS', since Jesus was born from MARY.
unless they they did not believe in the 'immaculate conception'.
Matthew 1:1-16
1 A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah [a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15 Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. -
Brain Dead
The perils of human ignorance are written within the scriptures of the bible......................... Homer 3 : 16
-
LtCmd.Lore
Sometimes people read 1st out of context and 2nd with the intent to find fault. They would pounce on just anything without understanding. We need guidance from a higher souce.
OK, bring in the higher power! Preferably one that can count though.
( 1 Chronicles 3:18-20) "19 ... and the sons of Ze·rub´ba·bel were Me·shul´lam and Han·a·ni´ah (and She·lo´mith was their sister); 20 and Ha·shu´bah and O´hel and Ber·e·chi´ah and Has·a·di´ah , Ju´shab-he´sed , five." That's right! Count 'em, five! (This is the part where faith kicks in and you only see five sons...)
Pedaiah had Zerubbabel and Shimei; Zerubbabel had Meshullam and Hananiah. Shelomith was their sister. And then five more —Hashubah, Ohel, Berekiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-Hesed.
That's a pretty stupid way to count.
But according to the New King James Version, it is translated http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%203:19-20;&version=50 ; " 19 The sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei. The sons of Zerubbabel were Meshullam, Hananiah, Shelomith their sister, 20 and Hashubah, Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-Hesed—five in all."
I might go look for a Greek dictionary and see what was actually said. But if nothing else it shows that it was translated poorly and/or they count like idiots.
(2 Samuel 6:23) says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" & (2 Samuel 21:8) "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
Or Merab (compare 1 Samuel 18:19 and 25:44, 2 Samuel 3:14 and 6:23)
(1 Samuel 18:19) 19 However, it came about that at the time for giving Me'rab, Saul’s daughter, to David, she herself had already been given to A'dri?el the Me?hol'ath?ite as a wife.
(1 Samuel 25:44) 44 As for Saul, he had given Mi'chal his daughter, David’s wife, to Pal'ti the son of La'ish, who was from Gal'lim.
(2 Samuel 3:14) 14 Further, David sent messengers to Ish-bo'sheth, Saul’s son, saying: “Do give over my wife Mi'chal, whom I engaged to myself for a hundred foreskins of the Phi?lis'tines.”
(2 Samuel 6:23) 23 So, as regards Mi'chal, Saul’s daughter, she came to have no child down to the day of her death.
Mereb and Michal are two different people. Mereb was the oldest of Saul's two daughters. She is the one Saul offered to David. But Michal was in love with him.
(1 Samuel 18:17-20) 17 Finally Saul said to David: “Here is my oldest daughter Me'rab. She is the one that I shall give you as a wife. Only prove yourself a valiant person to me and fight the wars of Jehovah.” But as for Saul, he said to himself: “Do not let my hand come to be upon him, but let the hand of the Phi?lis'tines come to be upon him.” 18 At this David said to Saul: “Who am I and who are my kinsfolk, my father’s family, in Israel, so that I should become son-in-law to the king?” 19 However, it came about that at the time for giving Me'rab, Saul’s daughter, to David, she herself had already been given to A'dri?el the Me?hol'ath?ite as a wife. 20 Now Mi'chal, Saul’s daughter, was in love with David, and they went reporting it to Saul, and the matter was to his liking.
They are two different people... But even if, hypothetically, Merab and Michel WERE the same person, it wouldn't change the fact that Michel died without ever having children, and yet somehow had five sons.
(Joshua 15:33-36) "33 In the She?phe'lah there were Esh'ta?ol and Zo'rah and Ash'nah , 34 and Za?no'ah and En-gan'nim , Tap'pu?ah and E'nam , 35 Jar'muth and A?dul'lam , So'coh and A?ze'kah , 36 and Sha'a?ra'im and Ad?i?tha'im and Ge?de'rah and Ged?e?ro?tha'im ; fourteen cities and their settlements." This time faith kicks in and you don't realise that if they can't even count to fifteen, they probably wouldn't even know what 70 weeks of days even is, let alone converting it into years.
Gederah ( or Gederothaim). There that makes 14.
It doesn't say "Or" it says "And". Besides, Gederah and Gederothaim are two different places. Gederah is in South West Palestine, while Gederothaim is in the low country of Judah, farther to the North East of Gederah.
http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/gederah.jsp?l=G&p=1
http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Gederothaim
http://gederothaim.idoneos.com/
That's 15....
Where did you get that explanation from though? I wouldn't trust that source any longer if I were you.
(Gen 2:17) "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die."
(Gen 5:5) "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Although judging by the Bible's math skills, that's probably a couple hundred years off.On the day Adam and Eve ate of the tree God said that they would surely die. And that is exactly what happened. They did die. If they did not eat they would have lived forever. Besides God took pity on them and gave them a chance to live. Don't you know God is merciful?
No that's not what happened, they ate of the tree, and LIVED all the way through that day and through the night. They did not die that very day... By no stretch of the imagination is 900+ years later, the same day that they ate the fruit.
That's like saying that I died the day I was born... You COULD say that, but you'd be lying/wrong.
Also, where does the Bible say that they would have lived forever? Where is that scripture?
Mercy is irrelevant, Yahweh is not a merciful god, and if he was, that was a very bad time to be merciful. And mercy or no, it doesn't change the fact that they did NOT die the day they ate the fruit... So whether he was being merciful or not is a non sequitur.
(Matt 1:16), "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." (Luke 3:23) "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli "
Luke 3:23 When Jesus entered public life he was about thirty years old, the son (in public perception) (as was supposed) of Joseph, who was—
son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melki, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai, son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda, son of Joanan,
son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim, son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, son of Jesse, son of Obed,
son of Boaz, son of Salmon, son of Nahshon, son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez,
son of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor, son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg,
son of Eber, son of Shelah, son of Kenan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech, son of Methuselah,
son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Kenan, son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.Joseph had to cover for Mary. How would she explain the birth of Jesus to the people. God asked him to do a noble deed. Compare the other verses in Matthew.
You are confusing MY argument, with the others in this topic. (Good points by the way Eclipse.) I'm not debating whether or not Joseph should be considered Jesus father or not. That is irrelevant to the contradiction.
You'll note that the one verse says that Joseph's father is Jacob, while the other says that Josephs father is Heli. Unless Jacob and Heli were gay, it doesn't work.
Also consider that Noah was instructed to take seven of each clean animal into the ark, even though they weren't even allowed to eat meat yet, plus the distiction between clean and unclean animals wouldn't be made untill after the exodus
Kindly provide the verses as your evidence please. Thanks
Sorry.
Noah was told to take seven of each clean animal:(Genesis 7:2-3) 2 Of every clean beast you must take to yourself by sevens, the sire and its mate; and of every beast that is not clean just two, the sire and its mate; 3 also of the flying creatures of the heavens by sevens, male and female, to preserve offspring alive on the surface of the entire earth.
Noah is given permission to eat animals, this is AFTER the flood:(Genesis 9:2-3) 2 And a fear of YOU and a terror of YOU will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into YOUR hand they are now given. 3 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.
The distinction between clean and unclean animals is made, hundreds of years later:(Leviticus 11:1-3) 11 And Jehovah proceeded to speak to Moses and Aaron, saying to them: 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘This is the living creature that YOU may eat of all the beasts that are upon the earth: 3 Every creature that splits the hoof and forms a cleft in the hoofs and chews the cud among the beasts, that is what YOU may eat.........
Speeking of clean animals, did you know that bats are in fact birds, and not mammals?
(Deuteronomy 14:11-18) "11 “Any clean bird YOU may eat. 12 But these are the ones of which YOU must not eat: the eagle and the osprey and the black vulture, 13 and the red kite and the black kite and the glede according to its kind; 14 and every raven according to its kind; 15 and the ostrich and the owl and the gull and the falcon according to its kind; 16 the little owl and the long-eared owl and the swan, 17 and the pelican and the vulture and the cormorant, 18 and the stork and the heron according to its kind, and the hoopoe and the bat . "
So what? Who invented the word mammal anyway? A bat has wings and flew around like a bird. Do you eat it? No. Why? Because God said not to. Do you eat those other 'birds' mentioned above? ...and look how long ago that was! Then God must be real. Why would He say that if it was good. Do you really think man would know that?
But we do agree that Bats are not birds. Correct?
If god created them, then you'd think he'd be able to tell the diffence...
(James 1:13) "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." & (Gen 22:1) "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."
Tempting someone and testing one's faith are two different things.
I disagree. Besides, it says that he "tempted" him. So who cares what "Testing his faith" means?
It says plainly that God does not tempt anyone. Correct?
Then it says that he Tempted Abraham. Correct?
Multiple choice time, what where Jesus last words?
A: Luke 23:46: And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. B: John 19:30: When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. C: Lore 33:41: And Jesus, forgetting that this was actually part of the plan all along, said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
He said both and He gave up the ghost. What does Lore have to do with the bible?
I needed a third option, who ever heard of a two option multiple choice?
He made a statement, bowed his head, then died. Is there any particular reason that Luke or John didn't bother to accurately write down Jesus last words? The scriptures pretty much speak for themselves there. I'm not sure how the error could be anymore obvious.
So let's try another in the same style. This time you can do your own research.
Question: Where was Jesus three days after his baptism? Look it up and tell me your answer.
(Leviticus 11:20) "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." (Leviticus 11:20) "Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to YOU." This is an example of translation error, one says fowl the other says bugs. Either way it's translated it's wrong. Fowl have two legs, not four. And bugs don't have four legs, they have six.
So what? Maybe you should study this a bit more. How many feet does a lizard have? Ever thought about reptiles with wings? How about dragons? Do you know all the animals, insects, birds or fish that ever existed?
Lizards have four feet. But who said anything about lizards? It's either Birds or Bugs. (Fowl means bird, FYI.)
(Matthew 13:31-32) “The kingdom of the heavens is like a mustard grain, which a man took and planted in his field; 32 which is, in fact, the tiniest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the largest of the vegetables and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and find lodging among its branches.” First off, there ARE smaller seeds, like the orchid for example. (You'd think he'd know if he actually designed them right?) Second, the mustard plant is not a tree.
Check out the black mustard, which grows to heights of 3.7 m/12 ft in Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_mustard
Just because it's tall doesn't mean it's a tree. It's a spice.
By the way Lore:
First off, there ARE smaller seeds, like the orchid for example.
I didn't know the orchid was a vegetable.
Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds. He didn't say it was the smallest of all vegetable seeds. What Bible translation are you using?
Lore! You're the BEST! I was arguing with Mr. Witness last night about just this topic and you have given me some FANTASTIC references!! THANK YOU!!
Cool, let me know how it goes! I'd love to try some of these in a face to face discussion someday. Lore
-
writetoknow
What is considered a good relationship with someone you love? Trust, sadly few people have had a relationship with anyone they could trust let alone JW's.
When a person puts trust into anything it is an act of faith. People risk there lives constantly because they trust something or someone. There is a pay off for doing so. That pay off rather it friendship or love or the experience of climbing a mountain or going to the moon requires putting trust in something.
If people weren't willing to take risks and they relied only on fact before doing something most people who never have a child. If you run the numbers the risk, the cost, pain, possible health issues, and problems of having a child is not worth it logically and factually. However, most people do take that risk and enjoy a life of love frienship and experiences that no logically price can be place on. In fact, a good parent will give up their life for their children. Simply not logical!
That is why a person cannot understand God without His Spirit it is not possible accept on a logical factual bases and that make no sence. It does not add up there are too many contradiction for a factual physical human mine to accept.
That is why God is Love that is "spiritual" and not understood no more then a parent loving their child can logical be explaned without it become dry fact and make a person look foolish for do so. And that is why history has shown amazing examples of courage and sacrifice by people loving God. It make no sence to the physical person that counts cost of love.
Furthermore, that is why people that have a personal relationship with God and His Son cannot be understood by people that don't. Knowledge is not enough nor is knowledge a personal relationship. And that is why Christ stated that he would send his followers a comforter in the Holy Spirit that would teach them all things. And that is why people that have the Holy Spirt can see God and feel His love for them and it is as real as a Fathers love for His children. That is, the Holy Spirit can't be seen but felt and it comforts doubts and fears.
With a Christain that has Gods Spirit there is a peace that surpass all knowledge. But to a physical person wanting an iron clad contract with God, that is, finding fault toget out of the contract. The child of God understand that words can get in the way of a relationship, but love is trust and love never fails. Love does not require a contract because it is base on love not on performace.
And that is why Christain will always look foolish they not only have faith but they give God trust and He reveals Himself too them and walks with the daily. Trust activates God's love as it does in any relationship.
And that is why there is no evidence, fact or argument that can distroy a child of God's faith. The real problem is people on this site put their faith into the Watchtower Society. That faith was destroyed by logic and facts so they must assumes that there is no faith and they assume again that has something to do with God and Christ.