by Anony Mous 85 Replies latest watchtower bible
Sinners in the hands of an angry god, indeed.
As was stated on this forum sometime ago, Jesus didn't pay a ransom, he just had a bad weekend.
Be that as it may, none of it makes sense. The obvious answer is there is no god and it's all a fairy tale. To think otherwise is to be trapped forever in absurd Monty Phythonesque logic.
First of all, djeggnog, I'm sorry I don't have the patience to wade through gigantic blocks of dense text. It is exhausting. I can be long-winded myself, so, I sympathize. I'm just letting you know I'm not deliberately being unresponsive to each and every point you make. I'll pick my battles carefully:)
1.Text is Scripture. Going beyond text is private interpretation.
The words in the text either MEAN what they SAY or they don't.
If they DON'T, they don't. Making them say something OTHER is distortion for interpretation purposes. It is an agenda.
Example?
Jehovah stated something clearly understandable AS IT WAS SAID: "in the day you eat you shall surely die."
Your attempt at apologetic is a contortion of logic. "AS IF" is speculative twisting of plain meaning.
It was as if they, on the very day that they sinned against God, had died as far as their right to live in God's household.
"Oh, really?" Did Jehovah say "In the day you eat of it you will surely die as far as your right to live in my household and you will lose sonship." ???
NO. Plainly no.
But, you say that is what Jehovah REALLY MEANT.
How did you obtain the authority to speak for God?
May I presume tell you why you have to resort to interpretation and apologetic, in my opinion?
Because, on the day Adam ate of the fruit he did not die. He lived 930 years AND THEN he died.
Case closed. Period.
Anything beyond the text is interpretation.
Terry - Good post.
I think Adam did die - in spirit - and the spirit is more important than the flesh. Just as later Christ said that his words were spirit, when he was speaking about life and death, and eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
But that is what I understand. That is not what the passage directly says.
Peace,
Tammy
@Terry:
First of all, djeggnog, I'm sorry I don't have the patience to wade through gigantic blocks of dense text. It is exhausting.
That's fine, @Terry. I would point out to you that it was because you did raise a few issues in yuor last message to which I felt compelled to respond that I responded in the way I did, but at least now I know by your telling me here how you lacked "the patience" to read my response to those issues that you yourself raised that I shouldn't have assumed that you wanted those issues you raised to be taken seriously. Even if you should have found reading through any of my posts to be "exhausting," please keep in mind that they are not written for your sake, but for the sake of the lurkers that are reading this thread, both your messages and mine. You can always read them later when you aren't as exhausted. Or not.
It was clear to me from your lack message that you didn't know how the word "ransom" is used in the Bible, what the word means, or how this word is applied with reference to the payment Jesus made on behalf of mankind, so I spelled things out for you in my response in such a way that you would no longer have to wallow in the ignorance in which you were, the ignorance in which you continue to be since you didn't bother to read my explanation of what the ransom consists.
1.Text is Scripture. Going beyond text is private interpretation.
The words in the text either MEAN what they SAY or they don't.
If they DON'T, they don't. Making them say something OTHER is distortion for interpretation purposes. It is an agenda.
What if you read a verse in the Bible that should turn out to be a riddle, such as the scripture from Daniel's prophecy recorded at Daniel 9:24-27, and the wording of the text in one portion of this Bible passage makes it impossible for you to comprehend the meaning of the text, without your having knowledge of other scriptures in the Bible that could help you figure out such a riddle? Would your taking a moment to figure out what that portion of Daniel's prophecy means be a case "of private interpretation" on your part if your interpretation of it should be based on other scriptures you will have read in the Bible? Here's the text I have in mind that is taken from Daniel 9:25:
"... from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks."
Do you remember reading in Luke's gospel (at Luke 3:15) that "people were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John: 'May he perhaps be the Christ?'" Now why would the Jews have been "in expectation" as to whether John the Baptist was the Messiah, or the Christ, if they had not determined that the 69 (7 + 62) weeks were not to be understood as a literal 69 weeks, especially in view of the fact that (1) they were not aware of the Messiah's making an appearance during the fifth century BC, some 69 weeks after "the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" was given in 455 BC, and (2) they were aware that Jehovah God had in the past spoken of a "day" as being for a "year"? (Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6)
More than what most Jehovah's Witnesses are today, first-century Jews were students of God's word, so one would expect Jews to have been able to figure out the meaning of something that would have been regarded as a mystery to, say, a Gentile, that had no real knowledge of the Bible or the history of the Jews. (Compare Acts 8:30-35) Actually, the Tanukh itself even footnotes Daniel 9:25 in pointing out that the "seven weeks" and "sixty-two weeks" weren't to be understood as being literal weeks, but were to be understood as being weeks of years.
At Matthew 15:14, Jesus said about the Pharisees: "Blind guides is what they are." Was Jesus saying that the Pharisees were literally blind? Would it be a case of private interpretation on my part to conclude that Jesus was here using a figure of speech to say that they were blind in the sense of their understanding of matters being impaired?
At Matthew 23:23, 24, Jesus said that the Pharisees would "strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!" Was Jesus saying that the Pharisees would literally 'gulped down' or drank a camel? Come on now! Would it be a case of private interpretation on my part to conclude that Jesus was here using yet another figure of speech, especially when both gnats and camels were considered unclean to the Jews and they wouldn't be eating (or drinking!) either of these things? Jesus was merely describing the Pharisees as being all about show: They would adhere to the smaller and less important things (the "gnat"), such as tithing, while refusing to adhere to the bigger and more important things (the "camel"), such as mercy.
My point here is that "going beyond text," as you put it, @Terry, does not constitute "private interpretation" if the interpretation one applies is based on Scripture.
Example?
Jehovah stated something clearly understandable AS IT WAS SAID: "in the day you eat you shall surely die."
You do know about Jehovah that he "calls the things that are not as though they were," right? (Romans 4:17) Adam was living when at his "sentencing hearing" the sentence of death was imposed upon him (as well as upon his wife, actually), but when that sentence came down, he was judicially dead to Jehovah, and disowned by Jehovah as his human son. As far as Jehovah was concerned, Adam was as good as dead.
The Bible is silent as to whether Jehovah ever communicated with Adam again after He had imposed sentence on him, but, by way of example, although Timothy McVeigh was certainly alive back on August 14, 1997, when the Hon. Richard P. Matsch, the judge in his capital murder case in which he was found "Guilty" on 8 of the 11 counts for which he was tried for capital murder by a jury on June 13, 1997 (he was actually responsible for the deaths of 168 people!), imposed the sentence of death on McVeigh for his role in the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombings, McVeigh judicially died on that day, for he was as good as dead, even though his was actually executed on June 11, 2001. On August 14, 1997, McVeigh was 29 years old when he judicially died and was a good as dead when Judge Matsch imposed the death sentence on him, but McVeigh actually died some four years later on June 11, 2001, at age 33.
Whatever the processes are that would have sustained Adam's life indefinitely, on the day of his being sentenced by Jehovah to death, those processes were interrupted, so that, for the very first time in his life, the organs in his body began to atrophy, and over time, following the onset of aging, Adam's body deteriorated, so that he finally died at the age of 930. (Genesis 5:5) You know, @Terry, Jehovah could have executed Adam immediately, but I'm very grateful that he loved me way back then so that he didn't do so, which allowed me to be born, for had Adam been immediately put to death, I would not be here today. And if I'm being honest here, neither would you.
@Terry wrote:
Your attempt at apologetic is a contortion of logic. "AS IF" is speculative twisting of plain meaning.
@djeggnog wrote:
It is important to keep in mind that Adam wasn't just evicted from his garden home in Eden, but from living anywhere on this planet. Not only was Adam and his wife both sentenced to death, Adam lost his sonship. As Jesus explained, "the slave does not remain in the household forever; the son remains forever." (John 8:35) It was as if they, on the very day that they sinned against God, had died as far as their right to live in God's household. With the lost of his sonship, Adam's eviction from Eden meant that he had no right to live anywhere on Planet Earth.
@Terry wrote:
"Oh, really?" Did Jehovah say "In the day you eat of it you will surely die as far as your right to live in my household and you will lose sonship." ???
Yes, really. At least you took the time out from all of your exhaustion to have at least read just this portion from one of my posts. I'm really stoked about this, @Terry.
NO. Plainly no.
Actually, plainly yes.
But, you say that is what Jehovah REALLY MEANT.
Yes, I did.
How did you obtain the authority to speak for God?
I presume to speak for God by the authority granted me as a substitute for Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:20) In fact, I was granted this authority by the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom "all authority" both "in heaven and on the earth" was given by Jehovah God, to make disciples, and teach them to observe all of things that Jesus commanded of his followers, and it is my charge to "preach the word ... with all long-suffering and art of teaching." (Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Timothy 4:1, 2)
In my endeavor to always have "the mind of Christ," I have come to learn much about Jehovah, since Jesus "is the one that has explained him" to us. (1 Corinthians 2:16; John 1:18) This "art of teaching" requires that when presenting myself to others, I am mindful of the fact that I do this with my "power of reason" as a sacred service to Jehovah God. (Romans 12:1) One of things that we learn from the Bible about God's wisdom is that it is "reasonable." (James 3:17)
Whenever I make reference to God's word, as I do now, these are not my own words, but I am speaking "God's wisdom in a sacred secret" according to how God's spirit leads as I explain what the various things we read in it mean to those that desire to know. (1 Corinthians 2:7) When prophesying about the things that pertain to Jesus Christ, the spirit in the holy prophets may have wanted to understand what these prophecies meant, but their meaning wasn't revealed to them as it was to those of us to whom the good news was declared by means of God's holy spirit. (1 Peter 1:10-12)
With reference to the holy spirit, when Jehovah's Witnesses say that they are led by holy spirit, led by God's spirit or have God's holy spirit, what we are saying is that we are observing God's word in our lives and subjecting ourselves to the spiritual guidance that Jehovah provides to us in the Bible. Again, these are not my own words, but it is by means of God's spirit that I am speaking to you now.
May I presume [to] tell you why you have to resort to interpretation and apologetic, in my opinion?
Yes, you may, @Terry.
Because, on the day Adam ate of the fruit he did not die. He lived 930 years AND THEN he died.
Case closed. Period.
While I don't have any use for apologetics, I can assure you that what you say here is not the reason I must resort to interpretation. I've already given you my reason: No one can pick up the Bible and read it and come away from having read it understanding everything it says, for there are many prophecies in it that require a knowledge of the Bible to comprehend them, figures of speech, as I've already pointed out to you, that require someone knowledgeable about the Bible to explain them, and so forth. I already told you that Adam was judicially dead to Jehovah, that he had lost his sonship and was as good as dead on the day when God imposed the sentence of death upon Adam.
Have you ever told your wife, who had managed to leave her coat at a restaurant the night before, that you will swing by the restaurant, retrieve it and bring it home the next day on your way home from work? Do you realize that based on this declaration of yours that the person to whom you made this statement -- your wife in this case -- had every reason to put faith in your statement as if you had already retrieved her coast from the restaurant? Perhaps your wife tells someone on the phone, in passing, "Yeah, I wouldn't expect to be able to find that same coat again in the store, especially since it was a $300 coat that I found on sale for $125, but my husband is going to pick it up today from the restaurant at which we dined last night on his way home from work. Today, I had to wear my old coat, and it isn't as warm as my new one."
To be sure, Adam knew that he was slowly dying when he began to experience for the very first time aches and pains that he had never experienced before he judicially died. The fact that Adam died at the age of 930 years old doesn't discount the fact that Adam was dead in God's eyes. There are children today whose parents are still alive, but to whom they are dead as far as their children are concerned. They never make an effort to visit their parents, to call them, and they don't want to ever see or hear from them. Now if human beings can do this made in God's image and likeness can do this, then why do you imagine that Jehovah God wouldn't be able to do this? Jesus once stated concerning the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that to Jehovah God, these men "are all living to him." (Luke 20:37, 38) Again, @Terry, if Jehovah God can call "the things that are not as though they were" (Romans 4:17), then why can't he also call the things that are as though they were not?
Anything beyond the text is interpretation.
This is true; you will get no argument from me, @Terry. So what?
@tec:
I think Adam did die - in spirit - and the spirit is more important than the flesh.
Actually, Adam died when his spirit, the force of life that is sustained by breathing, left his body, so that he became, not "a living soul," but a dead soul. (Genesis 2:7) Adam became what anyone dead becomes, a nonexistent person, a corpse.
Just as later Christ said that his words were spirit, when he was speaking about life and death, and eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
Yes, Jesus did say, at John 6:63, that his words were "spirit," that is to say (in the event you do not know this!), that they were be understood spiritually, that they should take a right viewpoint. Jesus' words were not to be understood based on human reasoning, for the fleshly viewpoint, Jesus said, are "of no use at all," for the spiritual viewpoint is what "is life-giving." It is evident to me that you've read John 6:63 before, @tec, but what is also evident to me, and not just based on this post of yours, but other posts, is that you don't know what you're talking about, for you came away from having read it with an "understanding" that isn't even close to what Jesus was saying there at all.
Another scripture that I'm sure you have also read at least once is at John 8:32, where Jesus said that when one comes to "know the truth," that "the truth will set you free," free from such erroneous viewpoints as you have here expressed, @tec. You might have a few ideas, a few guesses, a few things on which you have speculated over the years with which you feel quite confident in espousing as "the truth," but once you know the truth, everything clicks into place. You never have any need to gloss over scriptures that are in conflict with your own unscriptural viewpoints.
Specifically, Jesus wasn't there in the passage at John 6:48-69 speaking about life and death, where he points out that he is "the bread of life," better than manna, and spoke about the figurative eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. He was there talking about the need for his disciples to exercise faith in the ransom that he was going to provide for their sakes and for the sake of all mankind.
But that is what I understand. That is not what the passage directly says.
If this is your understanding, then it would behoove you IMO to take a right viewpoint, and if not from me, then from someone else that knows the truth.
@djeggnog
Thanks for keeping your response short!
When presented with logic be sure to respond that being 'born again' 'spirit directed' and that 'Jesus indwells your body' gives you a huge advantage over mere mortals with high IQs.
