Posts by a Christian

34

jehovah's organization and dual fulfillment prophecy

by jaredg in

my dad disaggress and backs it up by saying that god has always had an organization or his righteous people on earth.

it used to be isreal but when jesus came he changed that and established a new convenant/congregation.

he then goes on about matt.

a Christian

Something else to keep in mind: In 1919 the leadership of the WTB&TS still claimed that Charles Taze Russell alone had been appointed "that servant" decades earlier. It was Rutherford who "discovered" several years later that Christ had appointed all of the "remnant" collectively as his "Faithful Slave" in 1919. He probably discovered this alone at his desk. So nobody realized in 1919 that they had been appointed over all belongings. The reason, of course, was that they had NOT been so appointed. Of course, since they were selling the world at the time one of the greatest scams ever sold - that "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" - there is no way Christ could have then found them worthy of the appointment they later claimed took place.

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

a Christian

Tashawaa, You wrote: If John was relating to a "past" event, (the baptism) the apostles would have already been chosen when John was speaking. Not if John the baptist spoke the words recorded in John 1:29-36 very shortly after Christ returned from his stay in the wilderness, and just before Christ chose his apostles.

34

jehovah's organization and dual fulfillment prophecy

by jaredg in

my dad disaggress and backs it up by saying that god has always had an organization or his righteous people on earth.

it used to be isreal but when jesus came he changed that and established a new convenant/congregation.

he then goes on about matt.

a Christian

Jaredg,

The men who run the Watchtower Society tell us that Jesus Christ appointed them over all his belongings, spiritually speaking, in the year 1919. As you know, they point to Christ's parable of "the faithful and discreet slave" found in Matthew 24:45-47 to support this teaching.

I suggest you ask your Dad a few simple questions. Questions such as these: How did the men who ran the Watchtower Society in 1919 find out that Christ had made this appointment? Did Christ tell the men who ran the Society in 1919 that he had done 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? If Christ did not actually tell them, in some unmistakable way, that he had made such an appointment, then how has anyone ever really known that Christ actually ever really did such a thing?

Jehovah's Witnesses usually answer such questions by saying something like this: "His appointment is obvious. After all, Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Bible far better than any other so-called Christian denomination. And no one else but us is preaching 'the good news of the kingdom' worldwide. And no other group has love among themselves like we do. So, we must be God's organization!"

However, even if all these things were true, would it really prove that Jesus Christ ever made such an appointment? After all, every Christian sect believes their group has the most truth, that their denomination is the one most approved by Jesus Christ, and that the leaders of their group are the most "faithful and discreet" slaves of Christ in all the earth.

If Jesus himself never actually told the men who ran the Watchtower Society in 1919 that he was then judging them to be "faithful", and that he was then appointing them "over all his belongings", was it right for them to tell the whole world that Christ himself had then done those things? Since Jesus Christ himself never made such an announcement to the men who ran the Watchtower Society in 1919, they had no way of then knowing for sure that Christ ever really made such an appointment. And, neither do the men who run the Watchtower Society today. And neither do any of Jehovah's Witnesses 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 proud and 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)

41

Do you still Patronize Women?

by limbo in

i was thinking today about how jehovah's witnesses are conditioned to view women.

i'm sure there have been many threads and discussions on this subject.

just curious how you view women now that you are no longer a jw?

a Christian

Stinky, You wrote: I am curious though about the Christian men and women on this site. Do they follow the Bible's guidelines about man being the head of the woman. I think "the Bible's guidelines" in this area are very much misunderstood by most Christians. You may want to take a closer look at several key passages of scripture before blaming the Bible for this problem. I did. The following article reflects the results of that "closer look."

Women Equal In The Church

Today in major universities all over the world female Professors instruct their students in extremely complex subject matters, including many which involve religion, spirituality and the Bible. And, as most of us know, women do just as good a job teaching all of these subject matters as men do. Yet on Sunday mornings these same highly qualified teachers are not allowed to lead a discussion of the Lord's prayer in most Christian Churches.

Those who forbid them to do so say that it is God's will that women never teach in Church. In fact, some say that it is God's will that women never even speak in Church. They often point to some of the words written by the apostle Paul to support their position. But since their understanding of scripture seems to clearly conflict with how science tells us God created women, we have good reason to wonder if those who understand the apostle Paul's words in this way may actually misunderstand them.

I believe that they do. My recent study of the scriptures has convinced me that the words written by the apostle Paul which are most often criticized as being "sexist," though they were in fact written by Paul, did not actually reflect the apostle's own beliefs about how women should be treated in the Christian Church. Instead, I believe that the context of all of Paul's allegedly "chauvinistic" words shows that they actually reflected the beliefs of false teachers, beliefs which Paul quoted because he felt they needed to be corrected, and teachers whom Paul turned his attention to because he felt they needed to be rebuked. The words written by Paul to which I here refer are those recorded in 1 Cor. 11:3-10, 1Cor. 14:34,35 and in 1 Tim. 2:8-15.

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 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 Bible 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? Though I don't 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 differently formatted, "italicized" or bolded some of his original written words. (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 his words in a way such as this:

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.

The fact of the matter is that, despite the efforts of false teachers to the contrary, we know that women did serve as teachers in first century Christian Churches. For Jesus Jesus Christ Himself told us so. He did so when He instructed His apostle John to write to the Church in Thyatira and chastise them 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 allowed to teach in first century Christian Churches. (Rev. 2:18-25) In fact, Paul seems to indicate that there was at least one woman who was even called an apostle. At Romans 16:7 he tells Christians to "greet Andronicus and Junia" who he says were "notable ones among the apostles". The name Junia is feminine (not masculine as many translations would have it). Furthermore, the normal way of reading the Greek would suggest that she was one among those called an "apostle", not just one who was highly respected by them.

The fact that women did at times serve as "elders" (aka "Bishops" or "overseers") in the early Church is also 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."

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.

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

a Christian

Gumby is wrong and owes Mark and John an apology for calling one or both of them liars. For there is no conflict at all between the accounts of Mark and John in this matter. Read John chapter 1 verse 19 through chapter 2 verse 2 for yourself. In chapter 1 verses 19-28 we read of John the baptist's encounter with priests and Levites from Jerusalem who came to ask him about his ministry. Then verse 29 tells us what John had to say "the next day." (In other words, on the day after Johns visit with the priests and Levites.) On that day John told people how some time earlier (he does not say exactly how long earlier) he had baptized Jesus. Beginning with verse 35 we are told of events which took place on "the next day." (In other words, on the first day after John had given his testimony concerning his earlier baptism of Christ.) Then in verse 43 we are told of events which took place on "the next day." (In other words, on the second day after John had given his testimony concerning his earlier baptism of Christ.) Finally, in John 2:1, we are told of events which took place "on the third day," after John had given his testimony concerning his earlier baptism of Christ.

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

UD, You asked: When was the universe created (or us)? Though God is not bound by the physical dimension of time, our universe is and the human race is. So both had a beginning in time. When were they created? "The age of our universe, with a margin of error of close to 1%, is 13.7 Billion years." http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html "Homo sapiens appeared sometime between 100,000 and 300,000 years ago." http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3814

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

One, You asked: So he [God] knew about satan and company before she/he became satan... You also asked: [So] God knew about the failing of his human creation before he created them? You ask questions which the finite mind of man is probably unable understand the answers to, even if we are given their answers. For the questions you ask are both related to our dimension of time. Did God know about this before He did that? Did God do this before He knew about that? Such questions confine all of God's thoughts and actions to our dimension of time. Doing or knowing this before that is a sequence of events in the stream of time. And time is almost certainly not a dimension which God is confined to. Why do I say this? Because Einstein proved that time is only a dimension of our physical universe. And that time began when our physical universe began. Thus, since God created our physical universe, He existed before our physical universe began, and before time began. And since God created our physical universe, it is highly unlikely that He is now or ever has been subject to any of the constraints of the physical universe which He created, including time. Any more than I would be bound by the physical constraints of a cage I might make to keep my parakeets in. While my birds would be locked inside the limited dimensions of the cage I made, I would not be so constrained. And I do not believe God is now or ever has been constrained by time. So, it is quite possible that questions of the kind you are asking simply cannot be answered. Others certainly attempt to give what they believe are reasonable, understandable answers. I've heard these: God intentionally designed things in exactly the way He did for a purpose which we simply do not now fully understand. Perhaps God felt we needed to get to know the ways of someone who is opposed to Him, in order to fully appreciate for ourselves that God's ways are the best ways. Perhaps God allowed humans to "fail" ( sin ) in order to give us all free will. If we were not able to disobey God we would all be robots. So, God designed us with the freedom and the ability to choose to love Him or choose to oppose Him. Why? Because God wanted to have a loving relationship with us. And real love cannot be forced or programmed into someone. It must be given by one's own free will. You ask tough questions. I'm not a Guru on a mountain top. I don't have all the answers. I wish I did.

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Derek,

I hope you didn't go to all that trouble for me, or for anyone else here for that matter.

For when I have said that "the numbers 4, 40 and 400 are used prominently in the Bible," I didn't mean they were used more than any other numbers. I don't think anyone understood me to say that. By "prominently" I meant these numbers are used in connection to many "high profile" people and events, people and events which the Bible itself connects with Christ, as shown in parts 2 and 3 of my first post on page 8 of this thread.

The numbers "7" and "12" are similar numbers. Though they may not occur too many more times in the Bible than other numbers, anyone who has read the Bible certainly knows that it uses these numbers in a prominent way.

One,

You asked: When did God "anticipate a problem"?

I think you know as well as I do what my answer to that question will be. For the Bible tells us that God knows, "the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done." (Isaiah 46:10)

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Alan, I had edited out my comments to you very shortly after posting them when I saw you had gone back and read what I posted. I misunderstood you to say that you were probably not going to be reading all of what I wrote but criticizing it anyway. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and for assuming the worst of you. I was half asleep from a long day when I read what you wrote and wrote what I did. Please accept my apology. Several of the things you have said I have found quite valuable. Including some of your comments on my contention that John the baptist must have preached 3 and 1/2 years before Christ's ministry began. I still believe that but my arguments need some adjusting.

I wrote: My study, which I believe is the most thorough ever done on this subject, and which largely agrees with Thiele's work shows that Jerusalem fell in 587 and the kingdom was divided in 935, 348 years earlier, not 390 years earlier as JWs tell us.

You responded: Sounds good to me.

In case you wonder how that can be done, in light of the "390" years referred to in Ezek 4, It is largely done by understanding the "40 year" reign of Solomon really lasted "80 years", as Josephus tells us. His "40" years of rule, as per the Bible, were years in which he ruled over "all Israel", i.e. years of unchallenged rule.

If you have time and interest in this subject, I'd appreciate your feedback on what I have written below, as this understanding really amounts to the "linchpin" of my "4000" year chronology.

The "390" years of Ezekiel 4 and the "40 years" of Solomon

I believe that before we can understand the "390" years of Ezek. 4 we must first understand when the kingdom of Israel was divided into two separate kingdoms. To do this we must study and understand the history of the divided kingdom as recorded in scripture, a task which has perplexed both Bible students and "Bible scholars" for over two thousand years.

Many attempts have been made to harmonize all of the apparently conflicting chronological information contained in the books of Kings and Chronicles pertaining to the times the kings of Israel and Judah ruled their kingdoms. I believe that the only people who have ever come close to successfully doing so have been those who have paid very close attention to all of the historical synchronisms contained not just in the Bible, but also in the historical records of Israel's and Judah's contemporary neighboring nations. Anyone who has ever managed to come close to establishing full harmony within the text of scripture on these matters has only been able to do so when they have also accepted and paid close attention to all of the dates which historians now provide to us for all extrabiblical historical synchronisms. Dates such as 853 for the battle of Qarqar, 721 for the fall of Samaria, 701 for Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem, 605 for the battle of Carchemish and 568 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The most well known work on this subject matter is that done by Edwin R. Thiele. It is contained in his book, The Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings.

In his book Thiele maintains that the death of Solomon and the subsequent division of his kingdom into the two separate nations of Israel and Judah took place in 930 BC. Though I do not fully agree with all of Thiele's conclusions I agree with most of them. And I certainly agree with his conclusion that the kingdom could not have been divided much sooner than 930 BC, as some Bible students still believe that it was.

I do, however, slightly disagree with Thiele on the exact date of the schism. I believe the kingdom was split in two in the year 935 BC rather than the year 930 BC as Thiele's work indicates. Why do I believe this? Because Thiele failed to take into account what certainly appears to be a five year overlap, known as a "coregency," between Judah's kings Abijah and Asa. The Bible tells us that Asa's days as king began with "ten years of peace." (2 Chron. 14:1,6) I believe this must refer to his years as sole king following five years as coregent. For the Bible also clearly indicates that the first war during Asa's reign was in his "15th year." (2 Chron.15:10) Thiele tells us, and I agree, that the words of 2 Chron. 15:19, "There was no war until the 35th year of Asa's reign," should be understood as saying, "There was no war until the 35th year (since the division of the kingdom) in Asa's reign." We know this because 1 Kings 15:16 speaks of a war between Asa and Baasha "in the 36th year of Asa's reign," but Baasha's rule ended long before Asa's 36th year. (1 Kings 16:6,8) That being the case, 2 Chron. 15:19 and 1 Kings 15:16 must be referring to the number of years which had then passed from the division of the kingdom. And since Rehoboam, Judah's first king, ruled 17 years and was followed by Abijah who ruled 3 years we see that Asa began to rule 20 years after the schism. And since his first 10 years were years of peace, war must have first broken out between Asa and Baasha some 30 years after the kingdom was divided, not 35 years, unless the "10 years of peace" being referred to were the first 10 years of Asa's sole rule, following a 5 year coregency. I believe had Thiele followed this line of thinking, which he had somewhat begun by discussing these verses, he would have reached the same conclusion I have, that the division of the kingdom must have occurred, not in 930 BC, but five years earlier in 935 BC.

Through my studies I have been able to fully reconcile all apparently contradictory chronological information pertaining to the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings in the books of Kings and Chronicles. However, after doing so I was left with a date of 935 BC for the division of the kingdom. And I was still left without a clear understanding of Ezekiel chapter 4:1-6 which refers to a period of "390" years of "the sin of the house of Israel," a reference which has caused many Bible commentators over the years to conclude that the death of Solomon and the division of the kingdom occurred 390 years before Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem. For instance, Matthew Henry's commentary on this part of scripture tells us that "the 390 years" should be reckoned from the "first apostasy under Jeroboam until the destruction of Jerusalem." (By the way, Thiele completely ignored the subject of how we should understand Ezek. 4:1-6.)

Here is how I now understand Ezek. 4:1-6. I believe Josephus was correct when he told us that Solomon ruled for 80 years and died at age 94. (Antiq. 7.8) I believe the Bible credits Solomon with only "40 years" because, as I found in my study of the chronology of the divided kingdom, Bible writers did not count the years of a king's reign following the time the legality of that reign was seriously challenged. Of course, the Bible is also right. Because to rule for 80 years Solomon first had to rule for 40 years. The fact is, what 1 Kings 11:42 actually tells us is that Solomon ruled "over ALL Israel for forty years." This wording certainly leaves open the possibility that Solomon ruled for longer than 40 years, but that his additional years of reign were years in which some residents of Israel rejected him as their king.

I believe that the Bible itself clearly indicates that Solomon ruled for more than 40 years. For if Solomon ruled only 40 years how can we explain the fact that the Bible tells us that Solomon was only a "child" (1 Kings 3:7) when he became king, but also says that his son Rehoboam "was 41 years old when he became king" and that his mother "was an Ammonite"? (2 Chron.12:13) Now unless Solomon fathered a child with an Ammonite woman when he was a young boy, two years before he became king, he must have ruled for more than 40 years. We also know God promised Solomon "a long life." (1 Kings 3:14) Becoming king as a boy and ruling 40 years means Solomon would have died in his 50s, which does not add up to "a long life." A long life in Solomon's day meant the same thing as it does today, 70s, 80s, or even 90s. If Solomon ruled for only 40 years how do we explain these things?

Other factors also point to my acceptance of Josephus chronology of Solomon's reign, including the fact that he never any place else contradicts the chronological information contained in the Old Testament pertaining to the length of the reign of any other Hebrew king by more than one year. This occasional one year difference can be easily accounted for by the fact that either he or his sources were then employing a different system of reckoning, or a different calendar, than that used by the writers of Kings and Chronicles.

I believe the 390 years of the house of Israel's sin began at the end of Solomon's first 40 years as king. I believe it was then that Jeroboam, the man God had previously chosen as the ten-tribe nation of Israel's first king, fled to Egypt following his unsuccessful attempt to overthrow Solomon's government. In Egypt Jeroboam was geographically unable to offer sacrifices to God at Jerusalem's Temple, sacrifices which the Jewish law required to gain God's forgiveness for sin. Since he there was no longer able to offer those sacrifices he no longer was forgiven by God for his sins, including the very serious sin he had just committed against Solomon.

I believe those 390 years of sin continued when, after returning from Egypt to become Israel's first king in 935 BC, Jeroboam successfully persuaded the people who made up his new ten-tribe kingdom to follow his lead in continuing to neglect offering God the sacrifices for their sins which the Jewish Law required in order for them to receive God's forgiveness for their sins. And I believe, since the people living in northern Israel continued to neglect those sacrifices all the way up to the time Babylon began its siege of Jerusalem, the years of "the sin of the house of Israel" continued to be counted by God all the way up until that time. The term "the house of Israel" is used in Ezekiel and elsewhere to refer not just to Jeroboam and the kings who followed him on Israel's throne, but also to all of the apostate spiritual leaders in northern Israel, and in an extended sense to all who their followed their spiritually corrupt lead. This included a very large number of Jews who remained in northern Israel long after the northern kingdom of Israel officially ceased to exist when its capital city, Samaria, was captured by Assyria in 721 BC. (See, for instance, Ezek. 8:6-12; 37:15-23 and Jer. 31:31.)

This understanding requires that we understand Jeroboam to have been "a young man" (Josephus Antiq. 7.8), probably in his early 20s, when he rebelled against Solomon and fled to Egypt, that he was a middle aged man, probably in his early 60s, when he returned home to become northern Israel's first king, and that he was an old man, probably in his early to mid 80s, when he died after ruling for "twenty-two years." (1 Kings 14:20) The Bible tells us that Ahijah the prophet once had no trouble seeing well enough to tear a coat into twelve pieces. This was when he first met Jeroboam, before Jeroboam's flight to Egypt. (1 Kings 11:30) However, it informs us that later on, during Jeroboam's reign as king, "Ahijah could not see. His sight was gone because of his age." (1 Kings 14:4) I believe this is because over 40 years passed between these two events in the life of Ahijah.

This understanding of scripture also requires that we recognize the fact that the "Shishak" to whom Jeroboam fled (1 Kings 11:40) was not the same "Shishak" who plundered Jerusalem's Temple "in Rehoboam's fifth year." (2 Chron. 12:2) I believe Jeroboam fled to Shoshenq I and it was Shoshenq II who later plundered Jerusalem's Temple. Why? Because Egyptian history tells us that Shoshenq I did not rule long enough to have his reign include both of these events which were, according to this understanding, separated by some 45 years. It also tells us that Shoshenq II ruled only about one year. By recognizing Shoshenq II as the Pharaoh who plundered Jerusalem in Rehoboam's 5th year, and having previously established 935 BC as the date when the kingdom was divided, we can date the one year reign of Shoshenq II to 931 BC. Then, following the standard chronology for the history of Egypt's Pharaohs we find that the reign of Shoshenq I began some 55 years earlier, in 986 BC and ended some 21 years later in 965 BC, during which time I believe Shoshenq I gave refuge to Jeroboam who fled to him in 975 BC.

This understanding of Bible chronology and Egyptian history dates the Exodus to 1492/91 BC and tells us that Tuthmosis III was then Egypt's Pharaoh, a Pharaoh who in his 30th year (which would be 1491 BC according to this understanding) "received an ambassador from an unidentified Asiatic land who came to pay him homage." (A History Of Ancient Egypt by Nicholas Grimal, pg. 215) I believe this "ambassador" was Moses who came from Midian. (Ex. 4:19-21) Egyptian history also tells us that eighty years earlier Pharaoh Ahmose was ruling Egypt, the Pharaoh who began a new dynasty after ridding Egypt of the Hyksos kings. Ahmose then would be understood to be the "new king who arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph." (Ex. 1:8) Notice the similarity between the names of Ahmose and Moses. Could Ahmose's daughter have chosen the name she did for her adopted son partly to honor her father?

Now we come to "the sin of the house of Judah." (Ezek. 4:6) I believe the 40 years of "the sin of the house of Judah" began in the 13th year of Josiah (Jer. 25:3), when the people of Judah refused to listen to Jeremiah and to the other prophets God sent to tell them that He would no longer put up with their false worship. I believe the 40 years of "the sin of the house of Judah" ended in "the ninth year of Zedekiah" when Babylon's siege of Jerusalem began. (Jer. 52:4; 2 Kings 25:1) As Jeremiah told the people of Judah, though God had once graciously forgiven all of their sins He had decided to no longer do so. Jeremiah informed them that because they had not listened to God's prophets, which He began sending them "in the thirteenth year of Josiah," God had decided to devote their land to destruction. From the 13th year of Josiah, when God's prophets told the people of Judah His forgiveness for their sins would no longer be given to them if they continued to worship other gods, to the 9th year of Zedekiah, when Babylon's army began its siege of Jerusalem, 40 years (or parts thereof) passed. I believe that this is the 40 years of "the sin of the house of Judah" referred to in Ezek. 4:6 which God counted against Judah. For the Bible is very careful to tell us that it was "in the thirteenth year of Josiah" that God began sending his prophets to urge "the house of Judah" turn away from their false worship and it is very careful to tell us that from "the thirteenth year of Josiah" they had "not listened or paid any attention" to God's prophets. It was this 40 years of continued sin that was responsible for Judah's demise. So it is reasonable to conclude that it was this 40 years of sin that God counted against "the house of Judah" in Ezek. 4:6.

But why did God forgive Judah for so long, and hold only this final 40 year period of their sin against them? And why did God hold all 390 years of the house of Israel's sin against them? The answer is a simple one which I have already alluded to. The people of Judah, aided by their Levite Priests, for the most part, faithfully offered God all the sacrifices His Law required in the way it required them to do so. Because they did so, God forgave them of all of their sins just as He had promised them that He would. Because God forgave their sins up until the 13th year of Josiah he could not count their years of sin before that time against them. Thus God counted only Judah's final 40 years of sin. But He counted all 390 years of "the sin of the house of Israel." For "the house of Israel" had not offered God the sacrifices for their sins which His Law required them to do.

There is a lesson for us here. God will as He has promised, through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, completely overlook our many years of sin and not count them against us. But even this forgiveness of His has limits. We cannot use the undeserved kindness of God, which Christ bought for us with His own blood, as an excuse to go on living immoral lives. The people of the house of Judah did that. And 40 years before Babylon besieged Jerusalem the forgiveness God had for so long given them, a forgiveness bought with the blood of bulls and goats, ran out.

Much of what you wrote again critisized the fact that the "400s", which I see in the sun, moon and stars, are not exact 400s. You wrote: your arguments hinge on exact figures ... However, I do not believe they do. For one thing, as I have pointed out, the Bible itself, inspired by God, often uses round numbers. Why then would the same God who often used round numbers in the Bible, find their use unacceptable in communicating with us by other means, especially if they were exact enough to catch the attention of many people? Besides, the connection of the 400s is to the number of years which passed between Adam's creation and Christ's birth. But I do not maintain that Christ was born exactly 4,000 years after Adam's creation. Rather, I maintain that He was born 3,999 years later, in the year 4000 counting the year of Adam's creation as year number 1.

I wrote: and to the fact that we can observe a total eclipse over any one spot on earth "on average about every 400 years"

You responded by quoting other sources which indicate that number is probably closer to 375 years. It well may be. But if it is, it has obviously not stopped some astronomers from seeing the number "400" in that ratio.

Besides, I tend to believe how one arrives at this number is a very inexact science. It may have something to do with how precisely someone defines and measures the path of totality. For various astronomical reference works give us various numbers, including some greater than 400. This one for instance tells us that, "For any one location, total eclipses of the sun occur rarely; on average, once every 410 years or so." http://www.krysstal.com/ecintro.html

: You wrote: Surely the Creator, if he really wanted to put physical signs in the sun and moon, could have arranged things such that the moon had a precisely circular orbit around the earth, and the earth-moon system a precisely circular orbit around the sun. And, of course, an exact ratio of 400:1 in diameters and distances -- a ratio that would be perfect, unchanging, to beyond our limits of measurement.

I responded: Yes, He could have. But I think He was precise enough to catch our attention.

You came back: Correction: perhaps precise enough to catch your attention, but not necessarily that of most people. I believe that may be God's intention. He may not now want to hit all unbelievers on the head with a frying pan, so to speak. I wrote: So much so that many astronomers marvel at our earth's sun/moon/400/diameter/distance ratio, which they tell us is responsible for producing total eclipses, calling it "a coincidence unlike anything else in nature," and a "serendipitous relationship unmatched in the solar system."

You responded: True enough, but there are lots of coincidences like that in all sorts of things. None other which creates what is often called, "The greatest spectacle in nature." I wrote: For the number 400 certainly can be viewed as a short form or "sign" form of the number 4,000,

You responded: Sure. But why keep to the base ten numbering system? Why not use base 60, as the Babylonians did? Why not take the square root and round off? Why not divide 40-patterns into 5 x 8 patterns and find all manner of multiples thereof? Where do you stop?

You asked: Why would God use mankind's most popular numerical system (the base 10 numbering system)? I responded: [God] speaks to us in our own language so we can understand him. The base 10 numbering system was almost certainly created by someone counting on his fingers. We have ten fingers. That's most likely why base ten is and always has been the most popular numbering system. I'm sure for that reason God knew it would be and, for that reason, used that numbering system in the Bible and in the sun, moon and stars.

I wrote: And nearly all people today use the base ten numbering system. You responded: Sure, in our modern times. But remember that the "signs in sun, moon and stars", as you've expounded, existed long before humans came on the scene. And the various numerical ratios are ever-changing due to the recession of the moon from the earth, etc. But I believe God can see into the future. So, if He intended for this "sign" to serve as a "sign" only in our day He would certainly have used the base ten system. So far as your statement that, "ratios are ever-changing due to the recession of the moon from the earth, etc.", I'm sure you know that these ratios have not changed in any significant way in the last several thousand years. But even if they had, if the sign was meant to be "seen" only in our day your comment would not be relevant.

I wrote: For Abaddon to have repeatedly called me a liar over this very small difference was ridiculous.

You responded: He didn't. Apparently you've gone back to the relevant posts and cleared this up. No, what I cleared up was my misunderstanding that he was upset because he believed that I had called him a liar, which I did not do and which it turns out he did not say I did. He was upset with me for misunderstanding and misrepresenting something he had written, which I have since apologized for. However, he has repeatedly called me a liar. But that's what I come to expect in such discussions.