New NWT deception at Genesis 8:22 to indicate earth remains forever.

by jwfacts 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  johnamos

  reading into Scriptures what is not there. For instance, how are you quoting Matthew 25:46 "And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.” as discussing living forever on a paradise earth?

  Psalm 37:29The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it.

  Personally, I feel the Bible strongly shows that there is no everlasting future for this planet,

  Psalm 37:29The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it.

  Matthew 25:46 "And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.”

  and the expectation of early Christians was heavenly

  That is very true but in their hope and expectation of heavenly life did that mean that there was no earthly life…

  Philippians 3:8 Why, for that matter, I do indeed also consider all things to be loss on account of the excelling value of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. On account of him I have taken the loss of all things and I consider them as a lot of refuse, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in union with him, having, not my own righteousness, which results from law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness that issues from God on the basis of faith, 10 so as to know him and the power of his resurrection and a sharing in his sufferings, submitting myself to a death like his, 11 to see if I may by any means attain to the earlier resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already received it or am already made perfect, but I am pursuing to see if I may also lay hold on that for which I have also been laid hold on by Christ Jesus. 13 Brothers, I do not yet consider myself as having laid hold on [it]; but there is one thing about it: Forgetting the things behind and stretching forward to the things ahead, 14 I am pursuing down toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God by means of Christ Jesus.

  1 Thessalonians 4:16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with the Lord.

  1 Corinthians 15:51 Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep in death, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed

  Matthew 24:31 And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

  Revelation 20:6 Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years.

  If Paul was trying to attain the first resurrection/earlier resurrection which is the upward calling (to heavenly life) and the fact that it mentions that there is a first/earlier resurrection would seem to indicate that there is at least another/2nd resurrection and if so then being that the first is the upward calling (heavenly) then would it not be fair to say that the 2nd is earthly being that it is stated that:

  Matthew 5:5 “Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.

  Ps. 37:29: “The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it

  Psalm 37:11 But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth,

  And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  How do you explain Psalm 102?

  25 Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands. 26 They will perish, but you will remain; Just like a garment they will all wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away.
• 

  Ruby456

  depends on what your perspective is. If you approach the verse from a perspective that heavenly life is the goal then you will agree with those translations that support your pov.

  I agree with Ray franz that the bible itself is inconclusive. however, as this is post deluge the verse would tend to be conveying confidence and permanence by means of the cyclical rhythms of harvesttime.
• 

  johnamos

  Texts such as Psalm 102:25, 26 that speak of the heaven and earth as ‘perishing’ and as ‘being replaced like a worn-out garment’ are not to be understood in a literal sense.

  At Luke 21:33, Jesus says that “heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away.” The sense of this expression seems to be like that of Matthew 5:18: “Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away [or, “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away”; Lu 16:17] than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place.”

  Psalm 102:25-27 stresses God’s eternity and imperishability, whereas his physical creation of heavens and earth is perishable, that is, it could be destroyed if such were God’s purpose. Unlike God’s eternal existence, the permanence of any part of his physical creation is not independent. As seen in the earth, the physical creation must undergo a continual renewing process if it is to endure or retain its existing form. The physical heavens and earth are dependent on God’s will and sustaining power and he intends to bring to ruin those ruining the earth. (Revelation 11:18)

  The words of Psalm 102:25, 26 apply to Jehovah God, but the apostle Paul quotes them with reference to Jesus Christ. This is because God’s only-begotten Son was God’s personal Agent employed in creating the physical universe. Paul contrasts the Son’s permanence with that of the physical creation, which God, if he so designed, could ‘wrap up just as a cloak’ and set aside. (Heb 1:1, 2, 8, 10-12)
• 

  Ruby456

  interesting verse slimboyfat - but I think this is simply offering a contrast between what is material and needs replacing and what does not need replacing. inconclusive again
• 

  Ruby456

  johmos - most of us here tend to think of the bible as conveying a sense of self awareness in what seems permanent and what seems temporary.
• 

  sir82

  not to be understood in a literal sense.

  I love this. This is exactly what every fundamentalist, JW or not, does.

  Scripture A supports fundamentalist's already-determined beliefs, therefore Scripture A is perfectly literal and stands on its own.
  

  Scripture B directly contradicts fundamentalist's already determined beliefs, therefore Scripture B is symbolic, and needs 2000 explanatory words and 18 cross-references to get the "true" meaning.
  
• 

  johnamos

  64 When Re·bek´ah raised her eyes, she caught sight of Isaac and she swung herself down from off the camel

  4 But this very John had his clothing of camel’s hair and a leather girdle around his loins; his food too was insect locusts and wild honey.

  24 Again I say to YOU, It is easier for a camel to get through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God.”

  24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!

  I would be willing to bet that she literally got down off of a literal camel and John’s clothing was literally made from literal camel’s hair but I would say that getting a camel through the eye of a needle or gulping down a camel is not to be taken in a literal sense...
• 

  cyberjesus

  The WT is misinterpreting the words of an unknown jew who invented a story of which there are no originals only copies of copies.

  Is as entertaining as talking to my son in regards to han solos daughter, if she will appear or not on the next episode cuz Disney is now ignoring the books... And the books were canon.
• 

  slimboyfat

  johnamos if the author of Psalm 102 wished to say that the difference between God and the earth is that the earth could perish whereas God cannot perish, then he could have said so. Instead what he wrote was that the difference between God and the earth is that the earth will perish and God will remain. Just because it's only a difference of a single word doesn't give you the right to rewrite it to say what you wish it would say.

  You're right that the fact this verse addressed to Jehovah in the Psalms is applied to Jesus in Hebrews is an additional problem for JWs that I hadn't even mentioned.