Posts by aChristian

9

women in the bible

by blindfool in

the latest debate at bdf's home seems to be about a womans place in a church.

can some ex-jws, or current jw's, give me the scriptures used by the wtbts to keep women from serving as leaders in the congragations?

how about some examples of women used by god to spread his message.. thanks everyone!

aChristian

That was the condensed version for those here who do not have time to thoroughly consider this subject matter. : )

9

women in the bible

by blindfool in

the latest debate at bdf's home seems to be about a womans place in a church.

can some ex-jws, or current jw's, give me the scriptures used by the wtbts to keep women from serving as leaders in the congragations?

how about some examples of women used by god to spread his message.. thanks everyone!

aChristian

The passages to which I believe you are referring are 1 Cor. 11:3-10, 1Cor. 14:34,35 and in 1 Tim. 2:8-15.

However, my recent study of the scriptures has convinced me that these words written by the apostle Paul which are most often criticized as being "sexist" and "chauvinistic" did not actually reflect the apostle Paul's own beliefs about how women should be treated in the Christian Church.

These words in the New International Version of the Bible read as follows:

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (1 Cor. 11:3-10)

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Cor. 14:34,35)

"I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (1Tim. 2:8-15)

Many Christians have long had a very hard time understanding how the apostle Paul could have written words such as these. Why? Because Paul encouraged Christians to, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:1) And the Bible reveals that Jesus always treated women with respect and gladly discussed spiritual things with them. ( Luke 10:36-42; John 4:7-27) And because Paul was the same man who said that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28) And because we know that Paul accepted both women prophets and women deacons. (Acts 18:26; 21:9 Romans 16:1) And, we can't help but ask, how did Paul expect women to serve as prophets if he did not allow them to teach or even speak in church, as 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:12 would seem to indicate?

With these things in mind, I will here discuss what I believe is strong evidence which clearly indicates that Paul was, in these passages, actually citing false teachings then being promoted by others for the purpose of correcting those false teachings.

I believe that Paul's words in 1 Cor.11:3-10 described a teaching promoted by some in Corinth which the Corinthians sent to Paul for his critique. Paul's words in verse 2 serve as an obvious tip-off that Paul was about to directly quote and then comment upon a false teaching that was then circulating in the Church. For in that verse Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you."

I believe the next words he wrote, recorded in verses 3-10, were those in which Paul then quoted the false teaching which the Corinthians had sent to Paul for him to comment on. That teaching was this: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

The contents of the next several verses, 11-16, clearly show them to be Paul's rebuttal to the false teaching he had just referenced. For the words in these verses clearly rebut the arguments advanced in verses 3-10. Thus they can only be understood as being Paul's own explanation of the true Christian position on this issue, the position which Paul was really promoting. That position was this: "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God."

After quoting those who demanded that women wear head coverings to show their submission to men Paul said, "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ... LONG HAIR is given to her AS a covering." So, Paul was saying women do not need head coverings as some false teachers were demanding. Furthermore, Paul clearly pointed out that men and women were equal in the faith. "For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God." (verse 12). This argument by Paul clearly refuted the false teachers' statement made in verses 3 and 8 that, "The head of woman is man," because "man did not come from woman, but woman from man."

I am convinced that the now common "male chauvinistic" understanding of Paul's words developed in large part due to the way in which Paul wrote. Paul's use of sharp contrasts in place of clear transitional phrases is largely responsible for causing some of what he wrote to be widely misunderstood. However, Paul's words would have been perfectly understandable by those to whom he originally addressed his letters. For they knew what Paul had previously taught on such matters. And they knew the teachings of others which they had asked Paul to comment on. However, when a third party, such as ourselves, reads the letters which Paul wrote they do not have such "inside" knowledge. And without it, it is sometimes difficult to recognize when exactly Paul was quoting false teachers and when he was actually setting forth true Christian teachings. Because of such difficulties in understanding Paul's letters many of the words Paul actually wrote for the purpose of refuting false doctrine later became widely used to promote false doctrine. And in the process Paul, God and the New Testament have acquired very undeserved reputations as being "anti-woman."

I'll now comment on 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35. Though I normally use the NIV, I'll use the KJV here because in this passage the NIV is missing an important element. (The New World Translation, The Revised Standard Version and others may also be used here. For they contain the same important element.) There we read: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church."

Here again, like 1 Cor. 11:3-10, we can see that Paul was quoting the words of false teachers for the purpose of rebuking them. How can we see this? By simply reading the three following verses, 36-38. There Paul wrote: "What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

Paul identifies false teaching with either strong rebuke or by clearly pointing out the error and correcting it. Or by doing both. But he does so, as I mentioned earlier, while using minimal transitional phraseology. Here that transitional phraseology is extremely minimal. In fact, it consists of only a single word. But for Paul it only took one word to identify a false teaching. That word was one very strong word of rebuke. In case you missed it, that word was, "What?"

Though missing from the NIV, this "particle of distinction between two connected terms," as Strong's Greek dictionary defines the Greek word used at the beginning of verse 36, is translated as "What?" in the KJV and the Amplified Bibles and as "What!" in other translations of the Bible. By Paul's use of that Greek word to begin his thoughts recorded in verse 36 it certainly appears that Paul was expressing both shock and outrage at the blatant sexism which some false teachers were then promoting as Christian doctrine. For those who question if that is truly the sentiment which Paul meant to convey by the first word he used in verse 36, the many words of rebuke which followed Paul's "What?" show beyond a doubt that he was disgusted that such chauvinistic teachings were being promoted in Christian congregations. And he reminded the Corinthians that, unlike the false teachers who were demeaning Christian women, "The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (verse 37) One of the things to which he obviously here referred was his consistent teaching that in Christ, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

It is also worth noting that the content of this passage (1 Cor. 14:34,35) itself clearly indicates that the sentiments expressed therein could not have been those of Paul. For verse 34 says that women "are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." But, as I am sure you know, Paul was the apostle who continually preached Christian freedom and how Christians were not under either the Mosaic law or the pharisaic oral law, to which Paul must have here referred since the Mosaic law contains no such commands. Thus the idea that Paul would have used the authority of Jewish law to support his teachings seems, to put it mildly, most unlikely. So it seems quite clear, that when discussing here and elsewhere the idea that women should be treated differently than men within the Christian Church, Paul was citing the false teaching of some legalistic Jewish Christians. He was not presenting his own beliefs and teachings.

This also raises an interesting question. How was the text in Paul's letters originally formatted? I do not believe the actual text of any of Paul's letters has been corrupted over the years, I do believe it is entirely possible that Paul may have formatted, italicized or bolded his original written words. (As I understand it, the Greek language in Paul's day did not use punctuation marks.) I believe he may well have done so in a way that made it perfectly clear to any who read his original letters, when exactly he was writing his own words and when he was quoting the false teachings of others.

Imagine, for instance, if Paul had written:

let your women keep silence in the churches
for it is not permitted unto them to speak .......

WHAT was it from YOU that the word of God first went forth or has it come to YOU ONLY

Though the words have not changed, it is much harder now for us to miss what Paul was clearly saying to such false teachers. And I tend to believe Paul's original letters employed a similar means of making his meaning quite clear, a means which was lost, not in translation but in transcription.

The evidence also indicates that 1 Timothy 2:8-15, like 1 Cor. 11:3-10 and 14:34 and 35, were words written by Paul quoting false teachers. In the last verse of 1 Timothy chapter 1 the apostle Paul was explaining to Timothy about Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme." Thus we have reason to believe that in the early part of 1 Timothy chapter 2 Paul was actually refuting some of the teachings of these men. Then in verse 7 Paul pointed out forcefully that, "I am telling the truth, I am not lying - and am a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles." These words of his in verse 7 indicate that he was there contrasting his position as a teacher of truth with the false teachers he had just been discussing and whom he would now quote.

With this in mind, Paul's words in 1 Tim. 2:8 through the end of Chapter 2 can be seen to be a false teaching he was quoting for the purpose of exposing it as such. There Paul wrote, "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

In the very next verse (1 Tim 3:1), in referring to what he was next to write, Paul wrote, "Here is the trustworthy saying." With these words, "Here is the trustworthy saying," Paul clearly indicated, as he did elsewhere when using that same phrase (1 Tim. 1:15; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11), that he had previously been referring to either people or ways of thinking which were not trustworthy.

As mentioned earlier, Paul's scant use of transitional phrases, clearly distinguishing his own teachings from the false teachings he sometimes cited for comment, is largely to blame for the problems we now have in understanding the passages we are here discussing. And Paul's use of such transitional phrases is certainly quite scant in this passage of scripture. Fortunately, however, we here have additional reason to understand that Paul must have here been citing the doctrine of false teachers. What reason is that? We know that Paul could not have here been presenting his own beliefs because he had already shown in 1 Cor. 11:12 that the argument, "Adam was formed first, then Eve," (1 Tim. 2:13) in no way proves that man is superior to woman. For, as Paul there pointed out, "As woman came from man, so also man is born of woman." So, why would Paul present an argument which he himself had previously shown to be flawed? ( 1 Timothy was written after 1 Corinthians ) The evidence shows that he would not and that he did not.

Thus we must conclude that 1 Timothy chapter 2:8-15 contain the false teachings of Hymenaeus and Alexander, and that Paul there quoted their teachings for the purpose of indicating to Timothy that he considered them to be neither "true" nor "trustworthy."

Something which also helps us to identify the teachings recorded in 1 Tim. 2:8-15 as being those of false teachers is the fact that they are full of regulations and restrictions typical of legalistic Jewish-Christian sects which were already beginning to spring up in the first century. Such sects promoted a form of prayer, during which the men only raised their hands, common to the first century Jewish religion. They also promoted a dress code for women but not for men and in effect dictated a women's lifestyle, (leaving more money for the men or contributions for the leaders by eliminating expensive jewelry) all on the pretense that God was being served by such.

As I read the words of 1 Tim. 2:11,12, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent," I recall the movie "Yentyl" with Barbra Streisand. Anyone who saw that film can appreciate the effect such doctrine had and has on women and why Paul would condemn those who promoted it.

These are the passages in the New Testament which are most often criticized for allegedly containing "sexist" thinking. Other passages which are sometimes attacked as being sexist are, I believe, very unfairly criticized. In such passages women are encouraged to be good wives and mothers and are instructed to willingly submit to their husbands at home and in their own personal lives. By doing so it is said Christian wives might be able to help win over their unbelieving husbands and be a good example of Christian humility to all. However, women are never told that they must submit themselves to men within the Church. Wives willingly submitting themselves to their husbands within their homes and women submitting themselves to men in general are two very different things. It should be remembered that Christian slaves were also encouraged to continue willingly submitting themselves to their masters. (Eph.6:5, 1 Pet.2:18) This did not mean that Paul and Peter considered slave masters to be superior to their slaves in any way. Neither does it indicate that Christian slaves were not allowed to hold teaching positions in early Christian congregations. For within the Christian Church Paul said there was "Neither slave nor free." (Gal. 3:28)

Paul's intent in instructing Christian wives to continue submitting themselves to their husbands and Christian slaves to continue submitting themselves to their masters was to cause Christians and Christianity to become well spoken of among the nations. Paul asked Christian wives and Christian slaves to willingly surrender outside of the Church what they were given inside of the Church, full equality with their husbands and their masters. He asked them to do so in order to help spread the good news of Jesus Christ, who, as Paul and the other apostles reminded them, also suffered unjustly for them. (See 1 Pet. 2:18-21)

The scriptures reveal that in the early Church men usually took the lead in most matters, as they still tend to do today. And Paul's letters were written with that fact of life in mind. But this does not mean that women were then or should be today excluded from being appointed as servants in their Churches. This can be seen by reading 1 Tim. 3:8,11. There Paul wrote, "Deacons are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine .... In the same way, their wives (or "deaconesses" as in some manuscripts- see footnote in some Bibles) are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything." This, of course, reminds us of what Paul wrote to the Romans: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (or "deaconess") of the Church which is at Cenchrea." (Romans 16:1)

Some use Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2, where he said that "an overseer must be ... a husband of but one wife," to support their teaching that, though Paul may have permitted women to serve as "deacons" in their congregations, he did not permit them to serve as "elders." To this I say, Bunk! Why? Because it is obvious from their context that Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2 did not exclude women from serving as "elders." How is this fact obvious from that verse's context? Because the context of 1 Tim. 3:2, namely verses 1-7, clearly shows that Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2 were meant to be understood only in a very general way.

We can see this by the fact that he said, "An elder must be ... the husband of one wife." Thus those who say that this verse proves that an "elder" must be a man must also say that an "elder" must be married. However, very few of those who say that this verse proves Paul only permitted men to serve as elders say that it proves that Paul only permitted married men to do so. For those who say that would also have to believe that Paul did not permit widowers to serve as elders. For a widower is not "the husband of one wife." Also to be considered is the fact that Paul said that an elder must have "children who obey him." (verse 4) So, according to the "an elder must be a man, because Paul said they must be husbands" logic, all elders must also have children, but not just any children, children who still live at home. For only such children are required to "obey" their parents. But is it really reasonable to believe that in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 Paul was saying that all elders had to be married men with young children? No, it is not. For to believe this we would also have to believe that Paul required that elders give up their positions in their congregations when and if their wives ever died and when and if their children ever died or grew up and moved out on their own. For then those elders would no longer be "husbands of one wife" and then they would no longer have "children who obey them."

These things show that the only reasonable way to understand 1 Timothy 3:2 is to understand that in that verse Paul was simply indicating that the majority of the time elders were going to be men. Why? Because at the time Paul wrote his letter to Timothy few women had enough education to be "able to teach," which is what elders largely did. (verse2) Also in the first century, before the advent of birth control, disposable diapers, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers and TV dinners, the vast majority of women were far too busy at home to be able to take on the responsibilities of teaching and shepherding a congregation. Because of such things Paul knew that few women in the first century would be able to serve as "elders." However, as I have here shown, Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 no more disqualify women from serving as elders than they disqualify widowers and men without small children from serving as elders.

With these things in mind we have no reason to believe that women were prohibited by Paul from serving as elders in early Christian Churches. And, that being the case, we have no reason to believe that they did not do so. The fact is we have some pretty good reasons to believe that they did, in fact, do so. For the fact that women did at times serve as "elders" (aka "Bishops" or "overseers") in the early Church is supported by strong historical evidence.

Consider the following: An early mosaic in a Roman basilica portrays a female figure titled "Bishop Theodora." A Christian inscription from 2nd or 3rd century Egypt reads: "Artemidoras...fell asleep in the Lord, her mother Paniskianes being an elder (presbytera)." The bishop Diogenes in the 3rd century set up a memorial for Ammion the elder (presbytera, feminine form). A 4th or 5th century epitaph in Sicily refers to Kale the elder (presbytis, also feminine.)

Other passages which are sometimes said to brand Paul as a sexist are Titus 2:3-5 and 1 Tim. 5:11-14.

Titus 2:3-5: "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

These do not appear to me to be sexist remarks. Though I can see that there here exists an opportunity to take offense, if one is looking for such an opportunity.

1 Tim. 5:11-14: "As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander."

The early Church had the custom of financially supporting widows. Here Paul was advising Timothy to no longer put young women who had lost their husbands on the list of widows who would be supported by the congregation. Why did he so advise Timothy? For one thing, when this was done it gave younger widows who were fully capable of supporting themselves too much time on their hands, time which often ended up being used in nonproductive ways. For another thing, Paul felt that many of the younger widows who were unable to support themselves were capable of finding new husbands who would support them, and by so doing they would no longer pose a financial burden to the congregation. Paul could have, and probably would have, made similar comments about young widowers, if young widowers were being supported by their congregations. But they were not. So he did not. With these things in mind, I do not feel it is fair to label these comments by Paul as "sexist."

The fact is that, despite the efforts of false teachers to the contrary, we know for a fact that women did serve as teachers in first century Christian Churches. For Jesus instructed His apostle John to write to the Church in Thyatira for tolerating the false teachings of a woman named "Jezebel." Though Jesus said that He was displeased with what that woman was teaching, He did not say that He was displeased with the fact that a woman was teaching. That the Church in Thyatira had allowed a woman to hold a teaching position for what was apparently a long time clearly shows that women were almost certainly often allowed to teach in first century Christian Churches. (Rev. 2:18-25)

Some have asked, if this understanding of Paul's words is correct, why do the writings of many of the early "Church Fathers" indicate that they treated women as second class citizens of the Church? The answer to this question is that even during Paul's lifetime false teachers were busy trying to corrupt what Paul taught concerning full equality of the sexes within the body of Christ. By the time the early "Church Fathers" wrote on this subject the thinking of the false teachers who had been so busy promoting sexism in Paul's day had infiltrated most Christian Churches. This should not come as a great surprise. For the fact that a corruption of Christianity would take place after Christ and His apostles left the earth was predicted by both Jesus and Paul. (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43; Acts 20:29,30; 1 Tim. 4:1,2)

I now firmly believe that the man God used to write much of the New Testament did not, as is often alleged, promote sexism. Rather, I am convinced that the apostle Paul was actually a very strong promoter and defender of full equality of the sexes within the Christian Church.

31

Name some practices of the WTS that are'nt bibical

by Leander in

jw
friends

my personal hell has started since i told my wife i was stepping down and why i was doing so.

she has barely said 2 sentences to me in the last 24 hours, but i can understand her being upset so i'm trying my best to remain patient.. yesterday afternoon i told my cousin who is also one of my closest friends about my decision.

we ended up talking about it for more than 4 hours.

aChristian

I'll toss in a couple more. These are things JWs teach which cannot possibly be true. Whether or not they are "biblical" is a matter of debate.

1. JWs teach that the "Adam" and "Eve" of Gen. 2, 3 and 4 were the first human beings to ever walk this earth. And they tell us God created Adam in the year 4026 BCE. However, modern science tells us that this cannot possibly be true. Paleontologists, anthropologists and archaeologists all assure us that mankind has lived on earth far longer than 6,028 years. Scientists tell us that people just like us have lived on earth for at least 100,000 years. For instance, anthropologists assure us that North America has been continually inhabited for 15,000 years and Australia for 35,000 years. Several different very reliable methods of dating ancient materials and human habitations have been used to establish these facts. The JW teaching that people have lived on earth for only 6,028 years is absolutely ridiculous. But it gets worse.

2. JWs actually say that the surface of our earth have been continually inhabited for only 4,372 years. For they teach that a global flood completely destroyed our planet's surface, along with all evidence of any prior human civilization, in 2370 BC. Again, modern science tells us that this cannot possibly be true. That our earth has never been completely covered with water, since land masses first arose from its primordial global sea some four billion years ago, has been firmly established by modern science in more ways than I can possibly here begin to mention. For a discussion of this subject matter see the article "Problems with a Global Flood" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html These things being so, if the Bible's story of Noah's flood is a true story, it must have been a large local flood confined to Mesopotamia which destroyed the entire "land" of Noah, not the entire earth. "Earth" and "land" are the same word in Hebrew.

61

Flood Legends "Proof" of Global Flood...

by AlanF in

jw
friends

the march 1, 2002 watchtower contains a couple of articles on noah's flood and the application of this legend to "our day".

thrust of the articles is first to show that the flood was a real, earthwide event, and then to scare ignorant readers into accepting the jw message by claiming that our world is about to undergo a similar divine punishment.

pretty standard fare for long time jw observers.. in the past the watchtower society has published extensive material purporting to show that a global flood occurred a few thousand years ago.

aChristian

Having a bad day are you, Gweedo? You must be. Because no one has ever given me a "butt whipping" on this board. : )

31

Name some practices of the WTS that are'nt bibical

by Leander in

jw
friends

my personal hell has started since i told my wife i was stepping down and why i was doing so.

she has barely said 2 sentences to me in the last 24 hours, but i can understand her being upset so i'm trying my best to remain patient.. yesterday afternoon i told my cousin who is also one of my closest friends about my decision.

we ended up talking about it for more than 4 hours.

aChristian

Stoc,

You asked: Has anyone ever told you you look like Doc from the Love Boat?

No, I've heard "Michael Caine" though.

35

Do you beleive in God, the bible or religion?

by Leander in

jw
friends

i'm pretty sure this question has probably been asked before but i'd like to put it out here and see what the responses are.

my doubts about the bible probably began maybe 6 or 7 years ago, they were very small ones however and i managed to supress them for quite a while.

however certain events in my life would make those events resurface.

aChristian

Leander,

You wrote: Logically it does'nt make sense.

Just because you do not yet understand something does not mean it does not make sense. Do the principles of Quantum Mechanics makes sense? You will probably admit that they most likely do. But do you fully understand any of them?

God may have desired things to be just as they now are for some very good reasons. Maybe you have just not yet considered them. You refer to several quite complex issues, Adam and Eve, Satan, good and evil, our free will, etc. You say that because you don't yet understand all of them that the Bible must be in error. Pick up a book explaining nuclear physics. Read it through once or twice. If you don't then understand everything you have read is that proof that its contents "do not make sense"?

Let's look at some of the issues you have raised from a slightly different angel. First, let's consider the fact that the Bible indicates that God gave us all free will rather than creating a bunch of robots who had to do things His way. Apparently God wanted to give us all the freedom to make our own decisions in life. Why? Because God wanted to have a loving relationship with us, and real love cannot be either forced out of someone or programmed into them. Real love can only come from a person's own free will.

But in giving us free will, God had no choice but to create a race of people who would all be less righteous than Himself. How so? God cannot act unrighteously. But since His free creations would have both the ability to act unrighteously and often, at least on an experimental basis, the desire to do so, they would all be by their own created nature less righteous than God. And thus, they would all be undeserving of eternal life.

For God's incredibly high standards said that only those who were as righteous as He was were deserving of the ultimate gift, immortality. Thus, by God's standards, anyone who was less righteous than Himself would have to eventually die. For even though God gives us all the gift of life, He feels only those who are perfectly righteous deserve eternal life.

So, what was God to do? The Bible tells us that He decided that, since all unrighteousness was deserving of death, and that only perfectly righteous ones are deserving of eternal life, He could pay all of our death penalties for us by sending His perfectly righteous Son to die in the place of each one of us. Just as the Bible tells us that to God each one of us is worth the lives of many sparrows, so the death of His one perfectly righteous Son would be worth more in paying the price for our unrighteousness than all of our own deaths put together.

So God sent his Son to die in our place and pay the death penalty which we all deserve for our own unrighteousness. He then offered that payment as a gift, along with the gift of immortality which automatically comes with that payment. He then told us that all we have to do is accept that payment as an accomplished reality and then God will consider the penalty for our unrighteousness to have been paid. Of course, someone who really believes this to be true can't help but be affected by God's great love towards them. When a person truly accepts on faith what God has done for them through Jesus Christ's sacrificial death, their life begins to change. The Bible tells us God then gives them His Holy Spirit to help them successfully live their new lives as believers in Jesus Christ. At that time they are truly "born again."

Some have said that this amounts to God not creating us free at all. They say that, in effect, God is saying, "Do things my way or I will kill you." But He is not. He is saying, "I have already given you a gift, the gift of life. Now I want to give you an even better gift, eternal life. All you have to do is accept it. And to do that, all you have to do is believe in the way I purchased it for you."

Free will involves not only the ability to do both right and wrong. It also involves the opportunity to do so. If I tell someone, "You are free to choose either vanilla or chocolate ice cream, but all there is no chocolate available," have I really given them a free choice? For us to really have been created as "free" people God must have chosen to permit evil to exist so that we would have the opportunity to choose evil over good, if we chose to do so. To have the ability to choose evil rather than good, evil must exist as an available option.

I believe God wanted everyone who would at some point choose to live their lives righteously, and who He would later give the ability to do so perfectly (God will one day give Christians not just immortality but also incorruptibility), to have a first hand knowledge and understanding of why God's ways are best. God did not want even those who would freely choose to do things "His way" to not personally understand why "His way" is the best way. Only by creating the human race in such a way that all of us would be sure to gain a personal "knowledge of good and evil," (i.e., creating a "sinful" human race that could never fully obey him) could God be certain that all of us would acquire such "knowledge." For only by making sure that every human being would personally experience the negative results of unrighteous living could God be sure that all who would sooner or later choose to live righteous lives would fully appreciate why doing things "God's way" is the best thing for us.

I believe "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in Eden, which God told Adam and Eve not to eat from but from which he knew they would eat (being "forbidden fruit" and all), was meant to illustrate the situation we are now discussing. To understand the meaning of "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" we have to understand that before Adam and Eve ever ate from that tree they already had a knowledge of "good." For Adam and Eve knew God and "God is good." Adam had not only talked with God himself, but he and his wife had both walked with God in the Garden of Eden. (Gen. 3:8) So, since Adam and Eve already had a knowledge of good, their eating from "the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil" represented their also gaining a knowledge of evil. The accent should be placed on the word "and." As in "the knowledge of good AND evil."

I believe that the knowledge of evil, that Genesis refers to in the story of Adam and Eve, refers to "knowing" something "in the biblical sense." This kind of "knowledge" refers to a very close and "intimate knowledge." Such as in the Bible's statement that Joseph did not "know" Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus. (Matt. 1:25)

That being the case, Adam and Eve had an intimate knowledge of good before they disobeyed God. For they personally knew God and they knew by experience all the good things being obedient to Him brought them. But until they disobeyed God they did not really "know" evil. For they had no intimate knowledge of evil. For such a "knowledge" would include having experienced the harmful effects of evil, a knowledge which Adam and Eve only acquired after they disobeyed God.

There are a lot of things in the Bible that are hard to understand. The fact of the matter is, Jesus Himself sometimes deliberately taught in a way that was hard to understand. The Bible tells us that He did so in order to give those who were looking for a reason to reject Him the opportunity to do so. I hope you don't make that mistake with the Bible and the God who inspired it.

Mike

31

Name some practices of the WTS that are'nt bibical

by Leander in

jw
friends

my personal hell has started since i told my wife i was stepping down and why i was doing so.

she has barely said 2 sentences to me in the last 24 hours, but i can understand her being upset so i'm trying my best to remain patient.. yesterday afternoon i told my cousin who is also one of my closest friends about my decision.

we ended up talking about it for more than 4 hours.

aChristian

Jesus spoke about religious leaders who insist that others accept their own personal interpretations of the scriptures. He said that God finds the worship of people who do so to be in vain because they teach "commands of men as doctrines." ( Mt.15:9 ) A "command of men," as opposed to a command of God, is a teaching which men insist that their followers accept, even though it is not clearly stated in scripture. I believe Jehovah's Witnesses teach many such "commands of men" as doctrines. Because they do, I believe their worship of God is "in vain." I have here listed some of Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines which I believe are clearly "commands of men."

1. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that there are two different "classes" of Christians with two different hopes for the future. They tell us that only a small minority of Christians will rule with Christ in his kingdom, and they say that the vast majority of Christians will be subjects of those kingdom rulers. However, the apostles taught that there was only "one hope" for all Christians. (Eph. 4:4-6) The apostles also forbid anyone to teach differently than they taught. Since Jehovah's Witnessers teach differently than the apostles on the issue of how many hopes there are for Christians, their two hopes/ two classes of Christians teaching is clearly contrary to the teaching of the scriptures. The Watchtower Society's insistence that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and promote this teaching must then be regarded as a "command of men."

2. The Watchtower Society commands Jehovah's Witnesses not to accept blood transfusions. It is widely understood by all Christian groups except Jehovah's Witnesses that the instructions recorded in Acts 15:29, "Keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication," were written as strong advise to new Gentile Christians as a way they could avoid offending Jewish Christians. We know this by reading the context. Acts 15:19, 20 says, "My decision is not to trouble those of the NATIONS who are turning to God, but to write THEM to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." It is plain that these words were not written as a binding decree imposed upon Christians. We know this because Paul later said that early Christians were, in fact, free to eat things sacrificed to idols ( one of the things Christians were advised to "abstain from" in Acts 15 ) so long as doing so did not stumble their brothers. (1 Cor. 8:4,7-9) We also know this because Paul said that for Christians, "All things are lawful but all things are not beneficial." (1 Cor. 6:12) Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses ban on blood is not scriptural. It must therefore be regarded as a "command of men."

3. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that crime, wars, contagious disease, earthquakes, famine and the like are signs of Christ's second presence and have been much worse since the year 1914 than in past generations. They teach that this proves that Christ returned in that year. The facts show that this is a misunderstanding of scripture. Read Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 carefully and you will find what Jesus was really saying. His point was that such conditions would exist all the way up to the time of his return and would not be signs of his return at all. He warned his disciples that they should not be worried by such things. He said, "These things must take place but the end will not come right away." (Luke 21:9) He compared the difficult times to come to "birth pains." (Mt. 24:8) For just as a woman must often undergo a long painful period of time before she finally gives birth, so Jesus indicated that our world had much pain to endure before he would finally return. To support their "composite sign of Christ's invisible presence" interpretation of scripture the Watchtower Society has shamelessly played with crime, war, disease and earthquake statistics ever since it first began in an attempt to prove their contentions. The truth is, however, since 1914 none of these problems has gotten worse and most have gotten much better compared to past generations. An objective study of scripture and history clearly shows that the Society's "composite sign" interpretation is not a teaching of scripture. However, the men who run the Watchtower Society command all Jehovah's Witnesses to accept and teach others this misinterpretation of scripture and distortion of history.

4. The name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was taken from God's words to Israel recorded in Isaiah 43:10. For a Christian group to take on such a name clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture. First, as mentioned, the words spoken by God recorded in Isaiah 43:10 were spoken to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. The Bible tells us that Christians are to be witnesses of Jesus just as the Jews were witnesses of Jehovah. Jesus said, "You will be witnesses of me." (Acts 1:8) And the Bible tells us that it was "by divine providence," by God's own direction, that His people in the post-Jewish age would be known by the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 11:26 NWT) Thus, instructing Christians to identify themselves by the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture and must be regarded as a command of men and not of God.

5. Insisting that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and teach others that Christ returned in the year 1914 is certainly a command of men. Jehovah' Witnesses teach that Daniel chapter four indicates that Christ would return 2,520 years after the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by the ancient nation of Babylon. They say this destruction took place in the year 607 BCE. However, as all those who have studied this teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses in an unbiased way have discovered, this understanding of Daniel chapter four is in conflict with both scripture and ancient history. Accepting and teaching others this highly questionable interpretation of scripture must then be regarded as a command of men.

6. The same can be said about Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that the resurrection of all Christians who died before the year 1918 occurred in 1918. Paul said that those who teach that "the resurrection has already occurred" have "deviated from the truth" and "are subverting the faith." (2 Tim. 2:18) Jehovah's Witnesses teach that "the resurrection has already occurred." Thus, the teaching that the resurrection occurred in 1918 is clearly unscriptural, and the Watchtower Society's demand that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and promote this teaching must be regarded as a "command of men."

7. The teaching that Jesus appointed the men who run the Watchtower Society as his "faithful slave" "over all his belongings" in 1919 is certainly not clearly taught in scripture. Thus, it can only be regarded as a teaching of men, not of God. And the Watchtower Society's insistence that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and promote this teaching must be regarded as a command of men. Without any clear statement in scripture that Christ ever appointed the leaders of the Watchtower Society to such a position, such claims by the Watchtower Society are extremely presumptuous. And the Bible tells us that God hates presumptuousness. (Isaiah 13:11)

8. The Watchtower Society's use of the name "Jehovah" is not scriptural. They have added the name "Jehovah" many times to the text of the New Testament even though they admit that, "…no early surviving Greek manuscript of the ‘New Testament’ contains the personal name of God." ( The Watchtower March 1, 1991 p. 28 ) The Watchtower Society has said that they believe that the writers of the New Testament used the divine name in their original writings but that their original writings were later corrupted. However this contradicts what the Society itself has said. The Society tells us that, "Jehovah God has seen to it that his Word has been protected not only from mistakes copyists made but also from attempts of others to make additions to it. The Bible itself contains God’s promise that his Word would be kept in a pure form for us today." ( You Can Live For Ever in Paradise on Earth, 1982 p. 53 ) So, the fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses had no business inserting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations when that name is not found in any early surviving Greek manuscript of the New Testament. Historians tell us that the personal name of God, as used in the Old Testament, was not used in either its written or spoken form for many years before the time of Christ. Because the Jews were afraid overuse of the divine name might amount to "taking the name of the Lord in vain," they actually forbid its use altogether. The Bible tells us that for Christians the name of Jesus should be promoted above every name. (Phil. 2:9) Jehovah's Witnesses do not do this. Their putting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations and promoting that name above every name, rather than the name of Jesus as the Bible says Christians should be doing, and insisting that all Jehovah's Witnesses do the same is clearly a "command of men."

9. Jehovah's Witnesses insist that all their members must regularly engage in their work of preaching and disciple making. However, the Bible says that God gave only "some as evangelists" and only "some as teachers." (Eph. 4:11) Though all true Christians are certainly moved to share their faith with others when the opportunity arises, the teaching that all Christians are required by God to regularly serve as door-to-door preachers contradicts the scriptures and so must also be regarded as a command of men.

10. On this same line of thought, the Watchtower Society's demand that all Jehovah's Witnesses who share their faith with others keep track of their time doing so, and then report that number of hours they do so each month to their congregations is also contrary to the teachings of scripture. Jesus said that those who let others know what good works they are doing already have their reward in full. But he said that those who give in secret will be the ones who are rewarded by their father in heaven. (Mt. 6:1-4) Jehovah's Witnesses who are "regular publishers" let their elders know exactly how much time they spend preaching. Jehovah's Witnesses who are "Pioneers" let everyone in their congregations know how many hours they preach just by the act of "Pioneering." The Watchtower Society encourages this kind of "trumpet blowing," contrary to the teachings of Christ. Because they do, the Watchtower Society's telling all Jehovah's Witnesses to report the time they spend preaching is not scriptural and must then be regarded as a command of men.

11. Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to decide for themselves many minor matters which certainly should be left to an individual Christian's conscience. For instance Jehovah's Witnesses are not even allowed to decide for themselves if they will give their mother a card on Mother's Day or celebrate their child's first Birthday. This is not Christianity. It is legalistic Phariseeism. The Bible says that "Where the Spirit of God is there is freedom." ( 2 Cor. 3:17 ) With this verse in mind, since freedom of action, thought and speech to make decisions for themselves in minor matters such as these does not exist among Jehovah's Witnesses, we can only view the many legalistic prohibitions, which the Watchtower Society imposes on Jehovah's Witnesses, as commands of men not commands of God.

12. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to let any member of the military or police join their religion even though the first Gentile accepted into the Christian congregation was a Roman army officer. Peter baptized Cornelius without ever demanding that he first resign from the military. (Acts 10) The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses treat baptismal candidates differently than Peter did shows that, in this area also, they teach commands of men as doctrine. ( Matt. 15:9 )

13. Jehovah's Witnesses "disfellowship" people for things never mentioned in the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses have been disfellowshipped for using tobacco, for celebrating Christmas, for working for a Christian charitable organization and, more and more often today, simply admitting that they doubt the Watchtower Society's claim that it is God's exclusive channel for truth on the earth. Disfellowshipping and then shunning people for such unbiblical reasons clearly shows that the Watchtower Society's instructions to congregational Elders to disfellowship Jehovah's Witnesses for such things are commands of men, not commands of God.

14. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they are considered by God to be Christians and that only they have any hope of surviving Armageddon. Some of Jehovah's Witnesses actually deny the Society teaches this. However, as well informed member of Jehovah's Witnesses know, they do. As the Sept. 1, 1989 issue of the Watchtower tells us on page 19, "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the 'great crowd,' as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil." Jehovah's Witnesses have consistently taught that all members of Christendom's Churches, who are still its members when Armageddon strikes, will be executed by God. This amounts to judging and condemning others in the worst way. Who God accepts as Christians and who he will destroy at Armageddon is a judgment that is God's to make, not ours. Jesus commanded his followers to "Stop judging and you will not be judged," and "stop condemning and you will not be condemned." ( Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37 ) Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that God only accepts the worship of Jehovah's Witnesses, only considers them to be Christians and that only they "have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system," is not a teaching of Scripture and, in fact, is totally contrary to the teachings of Christ. Thus, the Watchtower Society's instructions to Jehovah's Witnesses that they should accept and promote such judgmental teachings are certainly commands of men and not of God.

15. Jehovah's Witnesses insist that all of its members attend five one hour long meetings every week, as well as various assemblies and conventions throughout the year. If they do not they are considered to be spiritually weak or spiritually sick. Though the Bible encourages Christians to not forsake gathering together, nowhere in the Bible are Christians told that they must attend five meetings a week. Therefore, the Watchtower Society's insistence that all Jehovah's Witnesses do so must also be regarded as a "command of men."

16. The Watchtower Society's teachings on the subject of who will receive a resurrection are clearly corruptions of scripture and, as such, must also be considered commands of men. Jesus said, "A time is coming when ALL who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out - those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." (John 5:28,29 NIV) However, the Watchtower Society has long speculated back and forth about who will be resurrected and who won't. For instance, they have said, "The men of Sodom will be resurrected." Then, "No they won't." Then, "Yes they will." Then, "No they won't." And so forth. Such foolishness! Jesus plainly said that everyone who has ever lived and died will receive a resurrection. This has made no sense to the Watchtower Society so they have played with Jesus' words. Their NWT Bible has Jesus saying "all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out." They tell us this should be understood to mean all those who are now remembered by God. They tell us that those in "MEMORIAL tombs" refers to those in God's MEMORY. And they tell us that God forgets evil ones who have died so most of them will not have a resurrection. But to all Christians except Jehovah's Witnesses Jesus' words make perfect sense. For they know that Acts 24:15 confirms Christ's words in John 5:28,29 by telling us that "there will be a resurrection of BOTH the righteous and the wicked." And they know that Romans 14:12 says that "EACH of us will give an account of himself to God." They also know that Hebrews 9:27 tells us that "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." So, even though Christ's clearly stated intentions to resurrect everyone who has ever lived and died make no sense to readers of the Watchtower, they make perfect sense to readers of the Bible. The Bible indicates that God has no intention of letting evil men who spent their whole lives hurting others pass into eternal rest thinking they got away with their evil deeds. The Bible tells us God intends to bring back all wicked ones from their graves to face condemnation for the way they lived their lives. By the way, the Bible also tells us that the "resurrection of the righteous and the wicked" will take place when the thousand year reign of Christ has ended, not all during those thousand years as Jehovah's Witnesses teach. (Rev. 20:5)

As Jesus said, "It is in vain that they keep worshipping" God "because they teach commands of men as doctrines." (Mt.15:9)

17

6000 years of human rule??...HAHAHA.

by refiners fire in

jw
friends

now the story goes that god has abandoned humanity to "self rule" for a period of six thousand years.

correct me if im wrong.. now during this time, mankind is supposedly left to rule itself, and fail miserably, thus demonstrating that only theocratic rule can maintain peace, bliss and happiness.. well, i think gods cheated.. in my humble (satanic) opinion, if man is supposedly ruling himself, the god shouldnt be interfering and moulding events.. a big example:.

the tower of babel.. the folk there were working in unity on a project and god decided to .

aChristian

F2J,

Obviously no one can say for sure exactly what God meant. But I'll take a guess.

I suspect that God thought that, if He allowed His people to copy the religious building practices of their pagan neighbors, they might then begin copying other religious practices of those same pagan neighbors. Such as burning their children in sacrifice to Him. Or forcing their young men and women to work as temple prostitutes to raise money for Him. Or who knows what else? If God's people wanted to be like their pagan neighbors so badly, that they were willing to go to all the trouble of building a copy of one of their giant ziggurat temple towers, who knows what things they might have collectively done in an effort to be like their pagan neighbors? For them, as God watched them building that tower, anything seemed possible.

17

6000 years of human rule??...HAHAHA.

by refiners fire in

jw
friends

now the story goes that god has abandoned humanity to "self rule" for a period of six thousand years.

correct me if im wrong.. now during this time, mankind is supposedly left to rule itself, and fail miserably, thus demonstrating that only theocratic rule can maintain peace, bliss and happiness.. well, i think gods cheated.. in my humble (satanic) opinion, if man is supposedly ruling himself, the god shouldnt be interfering and moulding events.. a big example:.

the tower of babel.. the folk there were working in unity on a project and god decided to .

aChristian

What are we to make of the Bible's story of the tower of Babel and the confusion of languages which there took place shortly after the flood? I believe that in order to correctly answer this question we must first deal with another confusion of tongues, the translation of ancient Hebrew into modern English.

Genesis 11:1 tells us that when the Tower of Babel was being built, "The whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."

As has often been pointed out in discussions of Noah's flood, the Hebrew word "erets," which is often translated in Genesis as "earth," giving readers the idea that its writer was referring to our entire planet, is much more often translated in the Old Testament as "land." In fact, we find this to be the case in the very next verse (Gen. 11:2) which refers to the "land" of Shinar. I believe that Bible translators who chose to translate the Hebrew word "erets" as "earth" rather than as "land" in the Bible's historical accounts of Noah's flood and the tower of Babel are mainly to blame for many people's misunderstandings of both the Bible and the history of mankind.

The traditional interpretation of the flood and the dispersion at Babel has been that the total population of the entire world was confined to the land of Shinar in the post-flood era. It is said that these people, who supposedly amounted to all people living on earth, all spoke the same language and were all involved in building a tower. Then it is said that God confounded them, and off they went in all directions muttering Aztec, Mandarin, Swahili, and the like. They crossed oceans and reached far distant continents and changed their skin colors along the way.

This interpretation of Genesis has continued in spite of much extrabiblical evidence that has long been available which proves that it cannot be correct. To see that the JW and Christian "fundamentalist" interpretations of the events which transpired at the Tower of Babel must be incorrect, all their advocates have to do is count the mud brick ziggurats in Mesopotamia. Any number that exceeds one kills their interpretation. And the remains of over thirty such "towers" have been found all over the region, in twenty-seven different cities, hundreds of miles apart. Had the entire earth been devoid of humanity except for Noah's descendants who all lived in the land of Shinar where the tower of Babel was built, what would explain all the additional towers?

All those other ziggurats at all those other widely scattered sites could not have all been built at the exact same time as the tower of Babel. Thus they had to have been constructed either before or after the tower of Babel. If they were constructed before Babel, it would mean that Noah's descendants (if everyone then alive were Noah's descendants) had already begun to spread out and settle in widely separated communities, precluding them from all being at one place, which was the case according to Genesis 11:1,2. On the other hand, if the many other ziggurats were constructed after Babel, it would mean that after the Lord made clear to Noah's descendents that He didn't like them building such towers and after He prevented them from completing such a building project, they soon banded together again for the same purpose and successfully completed the building of many other such towers with no opposition from God. This makes no sense.

What does make sense is to understand that building ziggurats was very much the thing to do in those days. The tower of Babel was simply one of many Mesopotamian worship centers. Clearly, the building of the tower of Babel and the confusion of the participants' languages which then occurred seemed like a gigantic event to those who were there and passed the story down to their descendants. But the fact of the matter is that the tower of Babel was only one such tower among many which then existed. It was probably not even the biggest. And it was almost certainly neither the first nor the last.

So then, what did happen at Babel? Apparently some of Noah's descendants saw some of the fantastic places of worship built by their Sumerian neighbors, which were devoted to pagan gods. They then decided to follow suit and build just such a tower in an effort to reach their God. Due to their ignorance, the God of Noah's descendants tolerated the actions of the worshippers of false gods when they erected such structures in their foolish efforts to reach nonexistent pagan deities. However, God expected His chosen people to exercise better judgment. He was not pleased with their pagan copycat building project. So He put an end to it by confusing their speech. This action on God's part successfully brought an end to the spiritually misguided building project which Noah's descendants had begun and His doing so resulted in their being dispersed throughout their land.

As a final note, judging from the writings of Noah's descendants, some of which predate the time of Babel, the confusion of speech which took place at Babel does not appear to have been a permanent one.

40

Women are Not the Glory of God

by JosephAlward in

no teaching in the bible is clearer, more consistent, than the one which teaches that women are inferior to men.

below i show that it is taught that the woman was created from man, for man, that man is the glory of god, but woman is not.

furthermore, the evangelist paul says that he'll not abide women teaching men, and he refers to genesis to explain why.

aChristian

: I think this thread has run its course.

For the darkness hates the light.