Posts by a Christian

21

The Resurrection Hope - what a crock!

by PopeOfEruke in

mary and adelle are 2 jehovahs' witnesses, as well as fleshly sisters living deep in the "time of the end".

mary is married to an unbeliever called john, who is a good kind man, and one who never interfered with her worship.

adelle on the otherhand, is married to a jw elder, who, unbeknownst to her, has been molesting children in the congregations over many years.

a Christian

A few comments.

How did God with holy spirit impregnate Mary?

Obviously we do not know the specifics. This much we do know. The Holy Spirit is God. God is our Creator. God has the power to create life. So, apparently, either God created and placed in Mary's womb a human sperm cell which united with her own egg cell to produce the baby Jesus, or God created and placed in Mary's womb a fully fertilized human egg cell which grew to become the baby Jesus. This was able to take place because God, a.k.a. the Holy Spirit, is able to create life. There is nothing in Scripture which indicates that angels have that power.

The rest is nice but there was no godly line of [Seth or] anything yet. Also considering there was no hebrew religion to be had to mix with this makes no sense.

Gen. 4:26 - "Seth had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord."

Face it God hated mankind all of them except Noah and he tolerated Noah's family. He did not even give the rest of mankind a warning to build their own boats.

The Flood of Noah's day was a local flood. God brought judgment only upon a land of people who were all descended from worshippers of the true God and who had all been given a strong warning to return to the worship of that God. That warning was given to them by "Noah, a preacher of righteousness." (2 Pet. 2:5) The judgment God brought upon the land of Noah did not affect "the rest of mankind" who lived outside of Noah's land. Thus "the rest of mankind" needed and received no "warning to build their own boats."

21

The Resurrection Hope - what a crock!

by PopeOfEruke in

mary and adelle are 2 jehovahs' witnesses, as well as fleshly sisters living deep in the "time of the end".

mary is married to an unbeliever called john, who is a good kind man, and one who never interfered with her worship.

adelle on the otherhand, is married to a jw elder, who, unbeknownst to her, has been molesting children in the congregations over many years.

a Christian

I would prefer to discuss the reasoning that the "sons of God" were mortal men in genesis 6. It would be more interesting.

The Hebrew phrase "sons of God" in this passage, and elsewhere in the Old Testament, can refer to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psa. 29:1; 89:6). But the same phrase elsewhere in the Old Testament describes humans who lived their lives in service to God (Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Psa 73:15; Hosea 1:10). In the New Testament the term "sons of God" is applied exclusively to humans (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14, 19; Rom. 9:26; II Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:26).

Fallen angels or demons are not called "sons of God" anywhere in the Bible.

Speculation that what is being spoken of in Genesis 6:2 is fallen angels ("supernatural beings," i.e. "gods") fathering children with women amounts to nothing less than a blatant intrusion of pagan superstition into the Bible, a superstition that finds absolutely no support, real or imagined, in the rest of Scripture.

The Bible calls angels "ministering spirits" (Heb. 1:14), and it tells us that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). That being the case, angels who do not possess human flesh could never have fathered human children. A simple biological reality which I tend to believe even the ancient writer of Genesis understood.

Jesus told us that angels do not marry. (Mark 12:25) Yet that is just what the "sons of God" in Gen. 6:2 are said to have done. So, unless Jesus had never read Genesis, it seems unlikely the "sons of God" there referred to were angels. If they were, how would the writer of Genesis conclude that Noah's flood would have stopped them from continuing their "skirt chasing" after the flood? Maybe he thought that spirits/angels/demons can be drowned. Besides, why would fallen angels have been interested in a monogamous "marriage" relationship? If these are fallen angels being spoken of in Gen. 6, wouldn't we expect the writer to tell us of their seducing or raping women rather than "marrying" women?

This "sons of God" = "fallen angels" understanding of Genesis 6:2 makes no sense for several reasons.

What Gen. 6:1,2,4 records is the first occurrence of mixed marriage between believers and unbelievers, with the all too common result of such unions. Children raised with lower moral standards. In other words, the "sons of God" in this passage were descendants of the godly line of Seth. Instead of remaining true to God and loyal to their spiritual heritage, these "sons of God" allowed themselves to be enticed by the beauty of ungodly women who were mere "daughters of men."

But why would the fact that normal men started noticing pretty women be recorded? Why should that be noteworthy enough to get mentioned at all?

It was the lowering of moral standards in the land of Noah, which was largely the result of worshippers of the true God marrying worshippers of false gods, which caused God to bring judgment upon the people of that land by means of a great flood.

21

The Resurrection Hope - what a crock!

by PopeOfEruke in

mary and adelle are 2 jehovahs' witnesses, as well as fleshly sisters living deep in the "time of the end".

mary is married to an unbeliever called john, who is a good kind man, and one who never interfered with her worship.

adelle on the otherhand, is married to a jw elder, who, unbeknownst to her, has been molesting children in the congregations over many years.

a Christian

XQs,

The fact that Job clearly refers to angels when using the phrase "sons of God" does not prove that when the author of Genesis used that same pharse he was also referrring to angels when he did so. For other Bible writers refer to human beings as "sons of God". That being the case, it is entirely possible that the author of Genesis chapter 6 was doing the same.

Mike

21

The Resurrection Hope - what a crock!

by PopeOfEruke in

mary and adelle are 2 jehovahs' witnesses, as well as fleshly sisters living deep in the "time of the end".

mary is married to an unbeliever called john, who is a good kind man, and one who never interfered with her worship.

adelle on the otherhand, is married to a jw elder, who, unbeknownst to her, has been molesting children in the congregations over many years.

a Christian

XQs,

You cited the Contemporary English Version as using the words "supernatural beings" and "angels" in footnotes attached to this passage. Bible Gateway has a dozen other translations, none of which translates this passage in such a way. Checking my Hebrew interlinear and Hebrew lexicons I find no basis for such a translation, other than the translator's own preconceived understanding of this passage, which I and many others believe is in fact a misunderstanding.

The Origins Solution by Dick Fischer discusses this passage in some depth. You may find it interesting.

Mike

21

The Resurrection Hope - what a crock!

by PopeOfEruke in

mary and adelle are 2 jehovahs' witnesses, as well as fleshly sisters living deep in the "time of the end".

mary is married to an unbeliever called john, who is a good kind man, and one who never interfered with her worship.

adelle on the otherhand, is married to a jw elder, who, unbeknownst to her, has been molesting children in the congregations over many years.

a Christian

XQs,

You wrote: angels had sex

You cite: (Genesis 6:1-2) 6 Now it came about that when men started to grow in numbers on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them, 2 then the sons of the [true] God began to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.

It is only an interpretation of this passage, and I believe an incorrect one, which tells us that angels had sex. "the sons of the [true] God" whom this verse refers to are understood by many readers of scripture to refer, not to angels, but to worshippers of the true God who married worshippers of false Gods.

Mike

21

The Resurrection Hope - what a crock!

by PopeOfEruke in

mary and adelle are 2 jehovahs' witnesses, as well as fleshly sisters living deep in the "time of the end".

mary is married to an unbeliever called john, who is a good kind man, and one who never interfered with her worship.

adelle on the otherhand, is married to a jw elder, who, unbeknownst to her, has been molesting children in the congregations over many years.

a Christian

Matthew 22 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

29

Numbers both literal and symbolic (April 1st Watchtower)

by ozziepost in

i wonder how many readers of the watchtower have noticed the seeming inconsistency of the 144,000 teaching in the april 1st issue?.

after discussing the symbolic nature of the numbers 666 on the wild beast comes this statement:.

"immediately after disclosing the number 666, revelation mentions 144,000 followers of the lamb, jesus christ, who have his name and the name of his father, jehovah, written on their foreheads.".

a Christian

VM44,

You wrote: The Reasoning book writer presents no logic, merely speculation based upon his opinion of the style the writer of Revelation uses when contrasting two symbolic groups or classes of people.

In Rev. chapter seven John does not see two groups of people. He first hears a number. 144,000. He then sees a great crowd of people which no one can number.

The number John first hears may very well apply symbolically to the crowd of people he then sees. It seems to me that great crowd of people might just include all of God's people throughout time. For 12 is a number the Bible uses in reference to God's people both in Old Testament times and in New Testament times.

In Old Testament times there were 12 sons of Israel, from whom all of God's Old Covenant people descended. Thus Rev. chapter 7 may be using the number 12 to represent all of God's faithful Old Covenant people. In New Testament times there were 12 apostles, who served as "foundations" (Rev. 21:14) of the Christian Church, a Church to which all of God's New Covenant people belong. Thus Rev. chapter 7 may also be using the number 12 to represent all of God's faithful New Covenant people.

Together these two groups of people certainly form "a great crowd."

These things being so, the number 144,000 may very well have been used in Rev. chapter 7 to symbolize all of God's faithful people throughout time, from both physical and spiritual Israel, Jews and Christians. For the number John first heard very well symbolized the great crowd of people he then saw, if that crowd was made up of all of God's faithful servants throughout time.

The fact that the 144,000 are said to "come out of the great tribulation" (Rev. 7:14) may simply refer to the fact that the resurrection of all of God's faithful servants of times past and the "rapture" of Christians who are alive at the time of Christ's return will both occur at the very end of the tribulation.

Mike

16

How long has man been on earth - an epiphany of sorts

by Dawn in

jw
friends

i am a believer, but have struggled with some bible subjects.

the one that has caused me the most questions, and for the longest time (even as a jw) is the geneology of jesus found in the first 17 verses of matthew.. on the one hand there is an incredible amount of scientific evidence supporting man's existence here on earth for well past 6,000 years.

i did a thesis paper in archeology on dating techniques so i am familiar with these techniques and i believe they are credible.. i could toss this section of matthew aside as some sort of mistake except for another type of evidence - the mathmatical codes contained in these verses.

a Christian

Dawn,

Good questions.

As you know, Bible chronology seems to clearly indicate that only about 4,000 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Christ 2,000 years ago. But paleontologists, anthropologists and archaeologists all assure us that mankind has lived on earth far longer than 6,000 years. For instance, anthropologists date the first settlement of the Americas by modern men to 15,000 B.P. (Before the Present) and their first settlements in Australia to 35,000 B.P. To explain this apparent conflict between well established science and scripture some Bible believers have suggested that there may be gaps in the Genesis genealogies and that, if there are, Adam may have been created by God near the time scientists tell us modern man first appeared on earth. However, such an explanation does not solve the apparent conflicts here referred to because the same scientists who tell us modern man has been around for at least several tens of thousands of years also tell us that the things Adam and his immediate descendants were involved in did not take place anywhere on earth prior to 10,000 years ago. These things include raising crops, herding animals, forging tools of copper and iron and building cities. (Gen. 4)

Some Christians say that this seeming conflict between Bible chronology and well established human history can be resolved by understanding that the Bible does not tell us that Adam was, in an absolute chronological sense, "the first man." They say that God simply used Adam and Eve, and orchestrated the events in Eden, to illustrate the unrighteous condition of all mankind. ( This understanding also answers the questions, "Where did Cain get his wife?" and "Who were the people living in the land 'east of Eden' whom Cain was afraid might kill him?" Gen. 4:14-17 )

The only place in Scripture Adam is referred to as the "first" man is in 1 Cor.15:45-47. There Adam is called "the first man." But there we also find that Jesus is called "the second man." The context shows that the writer of those words was referring to Adam as the "first" man only in his relative chronological position to Christ. In other words, since Adam came "first" and Christ came "second," Adam came before Christ.

Some who object to this understanding point out that Genesis 3:20 tells us "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all living." However, a careful reading of Genesis 3's context shows us that Adam did so only after God prophesied that He would raise up a Savior and that He would count that Savior as Eve's descendent. (Genesis 3:15) Since everyone given eternal life by God will call that Savior their "Eternal Father" ( Isaiah 9:6 ), Adam could truly say that Eve "would become the mother of all living." For she was the one God said would be counted as the original human ancestor of that promised Savior and "Eternal Father."

Some also point out that their Bible tells them that God "made from one man every nation of men." (Acts 17:26) However, the words "one man" do not appear in Acts 17:26 in any ancient Bible manuscript. Most ancient manuscripts simply say that God "made from one every nation of Men." Other ancient Greek manuscripts, from which this portion of the Bible is translated, tell us that God "made from one blood every nation of men." For this reason The Amplified Bible here reads God "made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations of men." The New English Bible translates this verse to tell us that God created every race of men from "one stock." So, Acts 17:26 can only be used to confirm that all people on earth are descended from ancestors who came from the same gene pool, and that all people on earth have the same original source of origin, a teaching which fully agrees with the findings of modern science. This verse does not say, in any Greek manuscript, that mankind's common origin was one man.

Most other objections to this understanding of Scripture come from those who adhere to the doctrine of "the fall" of mankind. Those who say that the Bible does not portray Adam as "the first" man in an absolute chronological sense say that the doctrine of "the fall" is based on a misunderstanding of the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1 Corinthians 15:21,22.

It is said that the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate (A.D. 331-363) held this understanding of scripture, but he thought it could be used as a counterpoint to Christianity to restore paganism. Isaac de la Peyrere, a Catholic priest, is also said to have held this understanding of Scripture in 1656. For his efforts he was forced to recant and his books were burned. In 1860, one year after Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, Bible scholar Edward William Lane published this understanding, but anonymously to escape reprisals.

Today this understanding is being advanced by Christians such as Richard Fischer. Fischer graduated from the University of Missouri with a Bachelor of Science degree. His first article on religion was published in The Washington Post in 1986. He received his master's degree in theology in 1992. He has published articles in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and has reviewed articles for publication in Christian Scholar's Review. He is a member of American Scientific Affiliation, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, Evangelical Theological Society, and he is listed in Who's Who in Theology and Science. Fisher's book on this subject is entitled The Origins Solution. It does a good job of making sense out of several controversial "origins" related subjects, such as biological evolution, the creative "days" of Genesis, the extent of Noah's flood and the tower of Babel. I found it to be a well worthwhile read. Some sample chapters of it can be read and copies of it can be ordered, here: http://www.orisol.com/

Mike

67

shoot it down

by webclocker in

joseph was 30 when pharo gave him egypt,why because he prefigured jesus, david was 30 when god made him king,why because he prefigured jesus.why was jesus 30 when god gave him his ministry,because thats the age adam was when god gave him eve.. why would god put all of these scriptures in the bible if adam was only 25 or 26 when god made eve.

gen 41:46 num 4:3 num 4:23 2sam 5:4 1chron 23:3 luke 3:23 adam was the first king.

an age god decided a man was of age.because if jesus was 30 and adam was only 25 then the devil has a legal case that god is cheating, that jesus had longer to develop than adam.

a Christian

Webclocker, You wrote: i dont get yor point jesus didnt have a wife nor did john the baptist My point was that some may see other things in the scriptures as indicating that Adam was a different age when he was given a wife. You wrote: jesus was tempted at the same age as adam or the devil has a legal argument that one would have been more prepared than the other to be tempted The devil could make that same "legal argument" anyway. After all, Jesus had a prehuman existence which made him much "more prepared" to successfully resist satan's tempting him. Your whole argument is based on the faulty JW doctrine that Jesus was "Adam's equal." He was not. He was much more.

67

shoot it down

by webclocker in

joseph was 30 when pharo gave him egypt,why because he prefigured jesus, david was 30 when god made him king,why because he prefigured jesus.why was jesus 30 when god gave him his ministry,because thats the age adam was when god gave him eve.. why would god put all of these scriptures in the bible if adam was only 25 or 26 when god made eve.

gen 41:46 num 4:3 num 4:23 2sam 5:4 1chron 23:3 luke 3:23 adam was the first king.

an age god decided a man was of age.because if jesus was 30 and adam was only 25 then the devil has a legal case that god is cheating, that jesus had longer to develop than adam.

a Christian

Webclocker,

What do you say to someone who contends that both Isaac and Esau pictured Adam? After all, Isaac received his life by the power of God, "in no ordinary way," as did Adam. And Esau was a man who sold his birthright for something to eat, as did Adam.

Yet both of them received their wives when they were "forty" years old, not thirty. (Gal. 4:23; Gen. 25:20; 26:34)

Mike