Quality of this Forum

by stevieb1 120 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  aChristian

  2,

  You wrote: Noah's flood = local. That's NOT what the bible says.

  I guess you meant to say, "That's not what I understand the Bible to say." For, as you pointed out, "You read it and get one thing, I read it and get something else."

  For a thorough discussion of the issue of whether or not the Bible could be describing a local flood, you can go to the thread entitled "space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 BC" located here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17590&site=3 On page 2, 4th post down from the top, I present a case for the Bible describing a local flood. This subject matter is discussed on and off throughout the thread.
• 

  aChristian

  IW,

  Even though we will never agree on Paul. : )
• 

  NameWithheld2

  aChristain, no need to go into the flood thing again, I was simply using it to point out that while you say the bible is a fine guide to 'finding god' that that guide is in fact quite the archaic, contradictory, and just plain weird book that people will probably argue over for another 2000 years. Like I said, there are as many 'understandings' of the bible as there are people reading it. Hardly sounds like a 'guide' a loving god would make for humanity. If electronic / appliances came with 'guide' books written like the bible, people'd be killing themselves the world over from not understanding how to operated anything!

  FWIW, since I think the bible is at best a collection of myths and legends, I obviously don't beleive that there was some global flood. But that IS what the bible describes - a flood that wipes out the 'entire earth'. All people and animals. It's pretty cut 'n dry (no pun intended) on that.
• 

  aChristian

  2,

  You wrote: That IS what the bible describes - a flood that wipes out the 'entire earth'. All people and animals. It's pretty cut 'n dry.

  It's hardly cut 'n dry. If you had read the information I had asked you to read you would have seen that the Hebrew word usually translated as "earth" in the Genesis flood account, giving most readers the idea that our whole planet was flooded, is much more often translated as "land" elsewhere in the Old Testament. As in "the land of Canaan" and "the land of Nod." With this fact in mind, the translators of the New American Standard Bible have translated this Hebrew word several times as "land" rather than "earth" in the Genesis flood account. When we substitute the word "land" for "earth" in the Genesis flood account we begin to see that the Bible is really describing a flood which destroyed all life in the land of Noah.

  I hope that before arguing this point further that you will read the material I directed you to. I also hope you have not made your other judgments in the same way, before thoroughly considering all the relevant information available to you.
• 

  IslandWoman

  aChristian,

  LOL Yes!!

  I stand by what I said, "You are dangerous" to some xJWs who think they are happy in their disbelief. Intelligent persuasion coupled with a "turning of the other cheek" is powerful stuff!

  Still, I will not agree on Paul.

  I would though like to hear your thoughts on why Luke chose to place parts of parallel illustrations to Matthew 24, in Luke 17 instead of Luke 21. I know this thread is not the place, but just thought you might someday post your thoughts on that and on Matthew 24 and Luke 21 in general. I would be interested in what you have to say.

  IW
• 

  NameWithheld2

  aChristian, I read that post regarding the flood. I find that whole topic pretty interesting anyway, mainly due to the fact that I at one time beleived that somehow the entire planet's animal population was housed on a ricky old boat of insignificant size. Again, as I stated, since I think the bibles at best a collection of myths, I have no doubt that this flood story could be prompted by a large local flood somewhere, sometime. Floods happen all the time. Until we invent a time machine and go back to take a peek ourselves I guess we'll be stuck arguing over what some Hebrew fellow might or might not have been thinking thousands of years ago when he was writing in a language that we don't use anymore.

  IW, don't count your chickens before they're converted. I have yet to be swayed in the least bit from my 'disbelief'
• 

  aChristian

  Plum,

  You wrote: [The Bible says] "This good news of the Kingdom will be preached through out all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations AND THEN the end will come." ... So before the end will come, everyone must here the word of God.

  First of all, I don't even think JWs teach that. When asked how the end could possibly come soon since billions of people in lands like China and India have never heard the JW good news they use words like "community responsibility" to explain why it may not be necessary for every individual to hear their preaching.

  You may also want to read the context of Christ's words. In verse 14 we find that He said what you quoted Him as saying. However, His words which immediately followed, those recorded in verses 15 and 16, make it clear He was actually referring to a work which would be done prior to the time Rome destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. Christ's words in context are these: 14: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 15: So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand-- 16: then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

  Paul makes it clear in Col. 1:23 that he considered Christ's words spoken in Matt. 24:14 to have already been fulfilled in his day. (Colossians was written before Jerusalem's destruction.) To the Colossians Paul wrote, "This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven." Now we know that at the time Paul wrote those words the good news of Jesus Christ had not yet been preached in "inhabited" places such as North America and Austraila. So, Paul must have understood Jesus' prophecy of a worldwide preaching work, and his words describing the completion of such a work, to refer to a work that had been done in "all the nations" then known to Christ's apostles to whom He spoke the words recorded in Mathew 24:14.

  With such things in mind we have no reason to believe that it is biblically required that everyone on earth must hear the good news of Jesus Christ before He returns. If this understanding is correct, that Christ is returning to judge only the Christian world, then Christians, who all have the same "one hope," will then have plenty of people to rule over as they serve as kings with Christ for 1,000 years. And they will also then have plenty of people to help come to know the true God as they serve as His "priests." For that is, after all, what priests do.

  The Bible does not tell us exactly what will happen in the future. Because it does not, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and my beliefs on this subject matter, which I have just presented, can only be considered speculation. However, I believe that Jehovah's Witnesses should be made aware that there are other ways to understand God's clearly stated intentions to have the meek inherit the earth (Ps. 37:11), and His intentions to have all Christians rule with Christ for 1,000 years, than to change the good news preached by the apostles which offered the same "one hope" to all Christians. (Eph.4:4-6; Gal.1:8,9)
• 

  NameWithheld

  One quick question ... so since 'god' is returning to take over the earth, how come it's YOUR god that's coming? Why isn't the Muslum god coming instead? Or Buhda, etc? Why does YOUR god take presedence over the rest of the world's gods? Just because you were raised in a certain part of the world?
• 

  aChristian

  In this thread I have presented what I consider to be very strong evidence that the God of the Bible created our universe, a God we know today by the name "Jesus Christ." According to the Bible Jesus Christ promised to return. Now, if you can present me with convincing evidence that "the Muslum god" "Or Buhda, etc" created our universe, and then show me where he promised to return, I will be glad to consider it.
• 

  aChristian

  IW,

  You wrote: I would though like to hear your thoughts on why Luke chose to place parts of parallel illustrations to Matthew 24, in Luke 17 instead of Luke 21 ... and on Matthew 24 and Luke 21 in general.

  It is possible that Luke related some of Jesus' words out of the actual chronological order in which He spoke them. It is also possible that Jesus spoke the same exact words, or very similar words, on more than one occasion. Have you ever listened to a political candidate give a stump speech at a whistle stop? Of course, you know they give that same speech at every stop. Jesus preached to His disciples and to various crowds of people for several hours every day for three and a half years. He probably repeated several of the same speeches many times over.

  I believe that in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 Jesus was primarily telling His disciples of things which would take place before the end of the Jewish nation. As you know its capital city, Jerusalem, was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. In Matt. 24:1,2 and in Luke 21:5,6 we can clearly see that Jesus was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem to come when His disciples asked Him, "When will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7) I believe Matthew records additional questions which they also asked. "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" (Matt. 24:3)

  Clearly the various so-called "signs" that we are living close to the time of Christ's return, such as "wars" and "earthquakes" were not meant to be understood as any such thing. Jesus, in fact, said just the opposite. He told his disciples not to understand such things as signs of anything. He said, "When you hear of wars and revolutions do not be frightened. These things must happen first. But the end will not come right away." (Luke 21:9)

  In Matthew 24 and Luke 21 (and Mark 13) Jesus was answering several different questions, most of which dealt exclusively with the destruction of the Jewish nation to come which He had just predicted. However, I believe some of the questions Jesus was asked, and some of the answers He gave to those questions referred, at least in part, to events that are yet to come upon the earth.

  There are Christians who do not believe in a literal return of Christ. They believe we all personally experience Christ's return when we meet the Lord on Judgment Day. They say that all of Jesus words in Matt. 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 referred to events which entirely took place before Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. This school of thought is called "Preterism" and its adherents are called "Preterists." Some call those like me, who understand that most of Jesus' words in the passages we have just discussed referred to events in the first century, "partial Preterists."