Posts by aChristian

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Joseph,

The creation story in Gen. 1:1,2,9,10 clearly tells us that "in the beginning" the earth was completely covered with water and that God then caused "dry ground" to rise from that global ocean and the "waters" to drain from earth's newly rising land masses into "seas." Scientists tell us that mountains were born at that time. But you say that since the creation story does not specifically mention the word "mountains," but only describes land masses rising from a global ocean, that the writer of Psalms 104:5-9 must have been blending together the creation story and the flood story which does mention mountains.

This is an assumption that is in total conflict with the context of Ps. 104:5 and 6. For verse 5 tells us when the events in verses 6-9 took place. It tells us they all took place at the time God "set the earth on its foundations." This was obviously "In the beginning." (Gen. 1:1)

Thus we can only understand, as all Bible commentaries tell us, that Ps. 104:6-9 refers to events described in the first chapter of Genesis, not to events described in the 6th, 7th and 8th chapters of Genesis. I believe that your assumption here is a very poor one. For you admit that the Psalmist had Genesis 1 in mind when he wrote Ps. 104:5-9, which refers to the earth originally being covered with water, and to the original formation of earth's land masses. You also admit that scientists now tell us that mountains were formed at the time the waters of earth's global ocean first began to recede from its newly forming continents. Yet you say that, even though the writer of Genesis somehow understood this part of the history of ancient earth, the writer of Ps. 104:5-9 could not have understood any additional details about those same events, such as the fact that God made the mountains at the same time He made the rest of earth's land masses. A Bible reader who flips a few chapters back and reads Ps. 90:1,2 will probably disagree with you. For there the Psalmist clearly connects the time when "the mountains were born" with the time God "brought forth the earth and the world."

Your make a similar assumption concerning the words of Ps. 104:9 which refers to waters which will "never again" "cover the earth." You say the Psalmist must have had the waters of Noah's flood in mind, because similar words are used in the Genesis flood account but not in the Genesis creation account. But in making this assumption you miss the connection between Ps. 104:5 and 104:9. In 104:5 the Psalmist had already said that the way God had made the earth to begin with would stand forever. This then, in his mind, must have included God's removing earth's global sea from it's land masses when He formed continents and mountains. The Psalmist was in this passage, as all Bible commentaries tell us, referring back to Gen.1:1,2,9,10. There we are told how God cleared the land of water to form our continents. And since the Psalmist tells us in verse 5 that the way God made things in the beginning would remain forever, he is able to assure us in verse 9 that God would never allow the land masses He had cleared of water to again be covered with water.

The passage of scripture you use to prove that the Bible teaches that a global flood occurred actually says that God would have never allowed such a thing to happen!

The assumptions you made to connect Ps. 104:5-9 with the Genesis flood and to disconnect it from the creation story contained in Gen. 1 were extremely tenuous. If I had made the same kind of assumptions to support one of my arguments you would have jumped all over me.

Joseph, I get the idea that you enjoy debating. I don't. Though I am always willing to defend God and His word against serious challenges. But I don't see any here. I have taken everything you have thrown at me on this subject. And it doesn't appear you have anything left. That being the case, I'm going to bow out of this discussion for a while and find something more productive to do. Maybe you can bait Faithful into getting back into it.

Gweedo,

I think your take on things is fair and understandable. As I've said before, I think your heart is in the right place. Thanks for a good discussion.

34

The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman in

there are a variety of playing cards and a variety of games to play with them.. the bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.. the "hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by jesus.

they picked the design.. the "christian greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the christ.

they also picked the design.. the whole thing is a sad joke.

aChristian

"Larsguy" the "Messiah" has done it again. He has hijacked a thread which had nothing to do with himself and turned it into a thread all about himself. So, off we go again.

One of "Larsguy's" favorite "proof texts" that Christ would return as a sinful man, is "the second wave offering being with leaven." (Lev.23:17)

As I have said, I and others have pointed out to "Lars" many times before how the symbolism in this passage of scripture are widely understood by Christian Bible scholars. However, no matter how many times we point this out to "Lars" it seems to go in one ear and out the other and he again posts the same foolishness about how "the second wave offering with leaven" proves Jesus would return as "a sinful man." So I know this will have no impact on "Lars" since it never has had any other time he has been explained these things. But just in case anyone else here is interested I will here explain how the symbolisms contained in '"the second wave offering with leaven" are understood by nearly all Christian Bible commentators except "Lars."

To begin with, wave offerings were just that, offerings. Things which were offered up to God. Things which were sacrificed. Things which people gave up. They were not things that God sent down to man. They were things which people gave up to God. So, for "Lars" to say that the two wave offerings were meant to picture God sending mankind His Son, at the time of His first advent and at the time of His second advent, makes no sense.

What does make sense is to understand that the first wave offering without leaven was meant to picture, not Christ's coming but His going. It makes sense to understand that the first wave offering was meant to picture the sinless human life which Jesus Christ offered up to God in payment for our sins, before He ascended to heaven. Remember, Jesus Himself said that no human being had ascended into heaven prior to His own ascension to heaven. (John 3:13) Jesus was the first person to ascend to heaven. After ascending to heaven Jesus appeared before God and presented Him with the value of the sacrifice He had just made. (Heb. 9:11,12,24) Thus, Jesus' sacrificial death and subsequent ascension to heaven were well pictured by the first wave offering without leaven.

But what about the second wave offering with leaven? What did that picture? Most Christian commentators tell us that it prefigured the lives of the saints, many of whom have died martyrs deaths. That God acknowledges the sacrifices many of His servants have made is shown by the fact that their souls are shown in Revelation crying out to God from "under the altar," since their blood had been symbolically shed on that altar. (Rev. 6:9,10)

The Bible tells us that there are two resurrections yet to come. We are told that the first of those resurrections is made up of all of God's faithful servants. At that time God will acknowledge the sacrifices all of them have made to Him. So then, if the sacrifice of Christ's sinless life was pictured by the first wave offering without leaven, then it certainly makes good sense to understand that the sacrifices of the sinful lives of God's servants, who are all resurrected following Christ's own resurrection, were pictured by the second wave offering, the one with leaven.

Of course, good sense is something false Christs like "Larsguy" are always sorely lacking.

Another of Larsguy's favorite "proof texts" that Jesus would return as a sinful man is Zechariah 3 which tell s us about a time when the High Priest Joshua wore dirty robes. Larsguy says this too pictures that Jesus would return as a sinful man. It does not. The common sense understanding of this passage of scripture has also been presented to Larsguy, AKA "Crazy Larry," many times. But again, it goes in one ear and out the other.

However, in this case Larsguy is partially correct. Zech. 3 does contain strong messianic elements. However, all of Zech. 3's messianic elements pertain to Christ's first coming, not to His second. The High Priest Joshua's wearing dirty clothes pointed to the time when Jesus, in order to "justify many," would "bear the sin of many" and be "numbered with the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:11,12) This, of course, took place when Jesus Christ "bore our sins in his body on the tree." (1 Peter 2:24) As we know, very shortly thereafter Christ was "given all power in heaven and on earth" by his Father (Matt. 28:18), just as Zechariah's dirty clothes were immediately replaced with rich clothing and royal headwear. (Zech. 3:4,5)

The rest of Crazy Larry's twistings of the scriptures are so far off base they do not require comment.

34

The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman in

there are a variety of playing cards and a variety of games to play with them.. the bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.. the "hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by jesus.

they picked the design.. the "christian greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the christ.

they also picked the design.. the whole thing is a sad joke.

aChristian

Pete,

You asked: What is proof something did not occure? This is not logic or scientific.

I am well aware of that fact. I was responding to a somewhat surprising statement made to the contrary by FD. He wrote, "If an unbeliever proves definitively that something you believe cannot possibly be true ..." I was the one who pointed out to him, as you have to me, that what he suggested is not possible.

You wrote: The proof you would have to have that these events occurred in the life of Jesus would have be very weighty. More than the need to believe.

You seem to be assuming that I have not based my beliefs on strong evidence, that I have based them on only a "need to believe." You are mistaken.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Gweedo,

As you have already said, you would not believe in God if Jesus Christ Himself appeared right in front of you and allowed you to examine the holes in His hands and in His side, as He allowed Thomas to do. So then, why are you so interested in understanding how every passage of scripture should be understood. After all, you believe the Bible is entirely the work of a bunch of not too bright men and nothing more. Aren't you just doing as Joseph does, trying to find what you think might be inconsistencies and contradictions in either the Bible, my understanding of the Bible or both, in order to make either the Bible, my understanding of the Bible or both look foolish?

You referred to several passages of Genesis in which the Hebrew word 'eres is used. You asked when that word should be understood to mean "the land," in the sense of a limited geographical area occupied by a particular group of people, and when it should be understood as meaning "the earth," in the sense of our entire planet. On the small chance that your questions might have been sincere, I'll answer them briefly. Of course, in doing so, I can only give you my opinion. For no one can say for certain in all cases when 'eres should be understood the first way and when it should be understood the second way. In many cases the context makes this matter absolutely clear in one way or the other. In other cases, such as in the passages you have cited, there exists some disagreement between various Bible scholars on this matter.

The fact of the matter is that Bible scholars and Bible translators are sometimes not sure when 'erers in a particular passage, such as those you cited, should be translated as "the land" and when it should be translated as "the earth." In fact, the translators of the New American Standard Bible were so confused over this issue when translating the Bible's flood account contained in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8, that they there translated 'eres several times as "the land" and several times as "the earth," going back and forth between the two in the story of Noah's flood. This should certainly show you that even the world's foremost Bible scholars and experts in the ancient Hebrew language cannot now answer the questions you posed to me with any degree of certainty. So, as I said, I can only give you my opinion.

You asked about Gen. 1:22, 28. I would translate 'eres in these two verses as "the earth," as in our entire planet. You asked about Gen. 8:17 and 9:1,18,19. I would translate 'eres in these four verses as "the land," as in the limited geographical area Noah and his immediate descendants lived in. I would spend more time telling you why I believe this way, but I suspect I would only be giving you more to criticize.

5

IsThe "Slave Class" Biblical?

by stevieb1 in

i'm currently involved in an in-depth study of the wt society's doctrine of the "faithful and discreet slave" of matthew 24:45-47 and hope to present my research to an inquiring jw elder.

i am trying to counter some of the claims made in the following reference:- insight on the scriptures vol 1, pp.

805-806. here is a quote from p.806 which adequately describes the society's understanding of the "slave class" .

aChristian

Notice that Christ asked, "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed (past tense) over his domestics (those in his household), to give them their food at the proper time?" These words clearly apply to an appointment Christ had already then made. For Christ had appointed all of his followers to care for the needs of their fellow Christians.

Then Jesus said, "Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings." That these words apply to a time when Christ would appoint faithful Christians over far more than just his household also seems clear. When Christ returns he will appoint Christians over "all his belongings." No longer will they be in charge of just his household belongings.

The Watchtower Society maintains and asks us to believe that Jehovah's Witnesses now make up all in Christ's household, all his "domestics." That is hard for many to believe. But the Watchtower organization then goes much further. For it maintains that Christ already has fulfilled the second part of this illustration. They tell us Christ already has returned and "on arriving" he appointed the Watchtower Society "over all his belongings." But in order for us to believe this we have to believe that Jehovah's Witnesses not only make up all of Christ's household, but also now make up all that belongs to Christ. But how can this be? The Bible tells us that Christ now has authority over more than just Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, it tells us that after Christ's resurrection he was given "all authority" "in heaven and on earth." Has Christ given all of this authority to the Watchtower Society? Evidently not. For if they now had the power to do so they could, for instance, order the French government to leave them alone.

The Watchtower Society claims that Christ has already returned. And it claims to be "the faithful and discreet slave" after the time of Christ's return. But if this were a correct understanding of Jesus' illustration the Watchtower Society would now have control of far more than the lives of Jehovah's Witnesses. They would have control of "all his belongings" which would include control of everything, "in heaven and on earth." Since they do not, it is clear that Jesus was not referring to the Watchtower Society when he spoke of "the faithful and discreet slave" whom he will appoint "over all his belongings" at the time of his return.

Another important aspect of this subject matter to discuss with JWs, in fact more important than the precious one, is this: How does the Watchtower Society or anyone else actually know that Christ ever made any such appointment? How did the men who run the Watchtower Society find out he had done so? Did Christ tell them he did so while appearing to them in a dream or vision? Did he send an angel to deliver this news to them? If he did not, how did they find out that Christ had appointed them to be his "Faithful and Discreet Slave" and thereafter act as his sole channel for distributing Bible truth on the earth?

Many Jehovah's Witnesses are likely to answer this question by saying, "His appointment seems obvious. After all, look at how much better Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Bible than other so-called Christian sects. Look at our preaching. Who else preaches like we do? Look at the love we have among ourselves." However, even if all these things are true, do they really prove that Jesus Christ ever made such an appointment? After all, every Christian sect believes their group has the most truth and believes their group is the one most approved by Jesus Christ.

If Jesus himself never actually told the men who run the Watchtower Society that he was then declaring them to be faithful, and that he was then appointing them over all his belongings, was it right for them to tell the world that Christ himself had done those things? Since Jesus Christ himself made no such announcement, the men who ran the Society in 1919 had no way of being certain that Christ had ever really made such an appointment. And, neither do the men who run the Society today.

The parable of the faithful and discreet slave informs us that when Christ returns he himself will judge which of his servants have faithfully taken good care of all he entrusted to them. With this in mind, is it the place of Christ's slaves to proclaim themselves to be faithful? No, it is not. Christ said he will judge his slaves. For a slave to judge himself as faithful and then tell all the world that Christ himself made that judgment is a very presumptuous thing to do. And God assures us in His Word that, "I shall actually cause the pride of the presumptuous ones to cease." (Isaiah 13:11 NWT)

34

The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman in

there are a variety of playing cards and a variety of games to play with them.. the bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.. the "hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by jesus.

they picked the design.. the "christian greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the christ.

they also picked the design.. the whole thing is a sad joke.

aChristian

: THE SECOND WAVE OFFERING IS WITH LEAVEN!!!! Get it?

You must be not just mentally ill but also mentally retarded. Because I have explained to you several times what the second wave offering being with leaven was meant to picture. I have also explaind to you how you misinterpret all the other passages of scripture which you repeatedly quote to me. But you keep repeating your same twisted interpretations of them as if you have never told me them before.

All of your interpretations of scripture which you have concocted to convince yourself that you are Jesus Christ are absolute rubbish. You are not Jesus Christ. You are a very sick man. See a Doctor. But in any case, please never respond to one of my posts again. I'm tired of reading your same old garbage.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Joseph,

You asked: Speaking of the world-wide flood, aChristian, why haven't you responded to my post which described the Babylonian origins of the Biblical flood story?

Because at the time you made those comments I was as tired of you as I am now. Also because I felt whatever someone else then had to say about it was sufficient. I'll tell you what. You now know as well as I do that your Ps. 104:5-9 argument was a poor one. Show me you are an honest man by admitting it, and I will discuss your alleged "Babylonian origins" of the Bible's flood account with you.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Joseph wrote: This author, in blending the two stories, shows that he believed that Noah's flood covered the whole earth.

BALONEY! As I just clearly showed, Psalm 104: 5-9 is descibing events which ALL took place at the time God "set the earth on its foundations." This passage of scripture makes no reference whatsoever to Noah's flood. It entirely refers to events which took place over 4 billion years earlier, events which are described in Gen:1:2,9,10. Try reading a good Bible commentary. Matthew Henry's comes to mind.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Farkel,

You just said to Joseph, "You have spent much time presenting pretty good arguments that show how ridiculous the WORLD-WIDE flood story is."

Actually he has spent no time here doing that. He has spent all his time trying to discredit the belief that Genesis is describing a LOCAL flood.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Joseph wrote to Farkel: Make sure you don't overlook the post just prior to the last one by aChristian, the one in which I make my Psalm argument.

Real proud of that one, are you Joseph? Too bad. Because, as I will now show, that is your worst argument yet.

You quote Psalm 104:5-9 as proof that the Bible teaches that our entire planet was once completely covered with water. For once you are right. In fact here you are actually right twice. For the Bible does in fact teach that the our entire planet was once completely covered with water. And Psalms 104:5-9 does describe that time.

However, just like all of your other attempts to prove that the Bible teaches that Noah's flood was global, for the sole purpose of attacking the Bible's credibility, this one too falls apart when it is examined by anyone who knows the Bible. Or even by anyone who owns a good cross reference Bible, or even a bad one such as the JW New World Translation. When any of these people read Ps.104:6 they immediately recognize that this verse is not even referring to Noah's flood. It is referring to the time billions of years earlier, when God "set the earth on its foundations." (Ps. 104:5)

All Bible scholars know this. Even JW Bible scholars (though that is a bit of an oxymoron). For all cross reference Bibles, including the JW NWT, at Ps.104:6 refer Bible readers back, not to the Genesis flood account in Gen. 5-9, but to the Genesis creation account in Gen. 1. Specifically they all refer us back to Gen. 1:2. There we read, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Why do all Bible scholars know that Ps. 104:6 is referring to Gen.1:2? Because they, like Joseph, read the context of verse 6, namely verse 5 which tells us that the writer of this verse was referring to the time when God "set the earth on its foundations." But, unlike Joseph, the words which they read in Ps.104:5 actually caused them to stop and think for a moment.

Joseph used this passage in Psalms to prove that the Bible cannot be trusted in matters like its accounts of the history of the earth. However, it actually proves just the opposite. How so? Because this verse and the verse its writer was influenced by, Gen.1:2, tell us that at the time our planet was first being formed by God it was completely covered with water. And that is also what modern science now tells us.

Modern science tells us that about 4.4 billion years ago earth's atmosphere was up to 70 times as dense as it is today. The young hot earth was then filling its primitive atmosphere with water vapor at a prodigious rate. Yet the earth and its atmosphere were both too hot to allow condensation to take place. But then, as the earths surface and atmosphere cooled enough to permit the due point to be reached, rain began to fall. Rain then fell continually for thousands of years to produce an ocean which completely covered the earth. Finally the rain stopped and clear skies appeared above this global ocean. Then about 4.3 billion years ago land masses, including mountains, began to rise from earth's global ocean. (By the way, that's why there are now sea shells on mountain tops.) The water that had previously covered these mountains "fled" into "valleys" which we now call "ocean basins," and it will never again cover earth's continents.

Modern science tells us all this happened just as the writer of Ps.104:6-9 recounted to his God, "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth."

By the way, Joseph, cross reference Bibles also cross reference those last couple sentences with Gen.1:9,10. There we read, "And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.' And it was so. God called the dry ground 'land,' and the gathered waters he called 'seas.' " You really should get yourself a cross reference Bible, Joseph. Using one before making a post like you just made could save you from some similar embarrassments in the future.