Posts by a Christian

85

DNA - belief destuction

by donkey in

jw
friends

the single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.

specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.

mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.

a Christian

Donkey, You asked: Regarding the tower of Babel, do we have a clearer date as to when this occurred? According to bible chronology the flood occurred circa 2,200 BC. Actually, Bible chronology dates the flood to about 2350 BC. ( JW Bible chronology, flawed by their incorrect 607 BC date for Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon, dates the flood to about 2370 BC. ) The Bible does not say exactly how long after the flood the tower of Babel was built. However, the events at Babel are believed to have taken place at the time of Peleg's birth, which is dated by Bible chronology. For the Bible tells us that Peleg was given his name because, "In his day the land was divided," which is generally understood as a reference to the events at Babel. (Gen. 10:25; 1 Ch.1:19) Bible chronology dates Peleg's birth to 2247 BC. However, the ancient Egyptian historian Manetho says Babel happened five years after the birth of Peleg. If he was correct, the events at Babel took place in about 2242 BC. However, none of this makes any difference to your DNA/Y-chromosome thesis. For the Bible teaches neither a global flood nor the creation of all the language groups and races of mankind at Babel. First let's tackle the Flood. That our earth has never been completely covered with water since land masses first arose from its primordial global sea 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 Problems with a Global Flood at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html .

A conservative Christian's typical response to such information is to say that they choose to believe the Word of God over the findings of scientists. This certainly sounds quite noble. And I suppose I would commend them for their stance if such a stance was called for by the Bible itself. But it is not. For a careful study of the flood account in Genesis reveals that the Bible does not tell us that the flood of Noah's day was global. And an examination of the scientific "evidence" presented by Christian fundamentalists in support of a global flood, sea shells on mountain tops and the like, quickly reveals that the presenters of this so-called evidence have a very poor understanding of science. ( By the way, sea shells on mountain tops are the result of earth's plate tectonics causing land masses to slowly rise from the sea over many millions of years. This process is an ongoing occurrence and can be proven by comparing the measured heights of various mountain peaks today to their measured heights just a few years ago.)

That the Bible itself does not tell us that a global flood occurred in Noah's day can be seen from a careful examination of the text. To begin with we do well to keep in mind that the word widely translated as "earth" in the flood narrative, giving the impression that our entire planet was flooded, is often translated elsewhere in the Old Testament as "land." ( In acknowledging this fact, the translators of The New American Standard Bible chose to translate the same Hebrew word as both "land" and "earth" throughout the flood narrative.) We can certainly understand that without our modern means of global communication and global travel ancient peoples must have had a much more limited view of their world than we do today. That being the case, it seems more likely that the flood account in Genesis recounted the story of the whole "land" of Noah being flooded than the whole "earth" being flooded.

But doesn't the Bible's story of the flood say that all the high "mountains" were covered with water? And if that was true, since water seeks its own level, wouldn't that mean the whole earth had to have been flooded? For an answer to such questions we again have to look at the ancient Hebrew language. The ancient Hebrew word which has been widely translated as "mountains" in the flood narrative is translated elsewhere in the Old Testament simply as "hills." You see, the ancient Hebrews had only one word to describe what may have been either a small mound of earth or a Himalayan peak. That being the case, the flood narrative can certainly be understood as telling us that "all the high hills in the land of Noah were covered with water to a depth of about twenty feet." (see Gen. 7:20, 21)

But what about the unmistakably "universal" language used in the account? Doesn't the Bible tell us that God destroyed "all life under the heavens" (Gen. 6:17) during the flood? Yes, it does. But it also tells us that "all nations under heaven" lived in fear because of Joshua's conquest of Canaan. (Deut. 2:25) We are also told that during a famine that occurred at the time of Joseph, "The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph." (Gen. 41:57) And it tells us that at the time of Paul the good news of Jesus Christ had been "proclaimed to every creature under heaven." (Col. 1:23) Are we to believe such statements included the nations of people which then lived in North America, South America, China and Australia?

We must remember that the world of the Bible writers was a much smaller world than our world today. Their part of the earth was then for them "the whole world." We should also accept the possibility that Bible writers may, at times, have used larger than life expressions, just as we often do today. We often use figures of speech such as, "This book weighs a ton," or "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." This common form of speech is called hyperbole. It is certainly possible that it may, at times, also have been used by Bible writers. When we use such exaggerated figures of speech for dramatic impact we are being neither inaccurate nor dishonest. The same can be said for the writers of Scripture.

But why would God have had Noah construct such a large ark if it was intended to carry only Noah, his family, and a collection of animals from his own land? Could it be that Noah was instructed to build an ark big enough to hold every person in the land that was about to be flooded! An ark with room enough for all those who might repent but didn't? We know that "God does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." How could Noah be telling a land full of people to repent and get on the ark if that ark had no room for them? God's plan of salvation today has room for everyone on earth, does it not? Should we believe that God's plan of salvation in Noah's day did not?

Another question that is sometimes asked is, "If the flood was confined to the land of Noah, why would God not have simply told Noah to take his family and pairs of animals and flee to higher ground?" Many who believe that the flood of Noah's day, as described in Genesis, was confined to the land of Noah say that the answer to this question can be found in 1 Peter 3:20,21. There we are told that Noah and his family, "were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism." So, they say that by choosing to save the lives of Noah and his family as they passed through the waters of the flood, God was symbolically pointing to a time when his people (Christians) would find salvation as they passed through the waters of baptism. Besides, if Noah and his family had simply fled their land they might not have been able to offer their neighbors the opportunity to escape the destruction which was soon to come upon them all nearly as long as they did.

Now, what about Babel? 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 I just pointed out in my comments on Noah's flood, the Hebrew word that 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 extra-biblical 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.

Some may wonder why God said, concerning those who were building the tower of Babel, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them." (Gen. 11:6)

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.

85

DNA - belief destuction

by donkey in

jw
friends

the single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.

specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.

mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.

a Christian

Leolaia,

I have read a few different responses to your question.

1. 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."

2. Since "all living" obviously did not literally mean "all" living things (including the likes of plants and animals), some understand this as a reference to the fact that Eve would become the mother of all of her race.

3. The fact of the matter is that the Hebrew word for all is often used in a less than all inclusive way, in many instances it simply means "many." If you need examples from the OT of this fact just let me know.

85

DNA - belief destuction

by donkey in

jw
friends

the single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.

specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.

mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.

a Christian

Wallflower,

You wrote: Give me a modern scientific journal any day, rather than one scripture from your Holy books.

I too enjoy learning all that science has to teach us. But someday you and I are going to die. If we then have to render an account for our lives to God, as the Bible tells us we will, there is nothing we will then be able to quote from a science book that will convince God that we deserve to be given eternal life.

85

DNA - belief destuction

by donkey in

jw
friends

the single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.

specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.

mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.

a Christian

Donkey, You wrote: You choose to disbelieve a lot of stuff in the Bible then. For instance, the bible says God mad Eve from Adam's rib. Following your arguments this would not be true - so the bible must then be inaccurate. When I said, "Adam and Eve were created by God and placed in Eden," I should have said, "Adam was created by God and placed in Eden." For as you point out Eve was created in Eden. I agree with the Bible in it's entirety.

You wrote: The Bible clearly says that through ONE man, Adam, sin entered the world and thus we are all born with sin. I believe you are referring to Romans 5:12 which tells us that "sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin." But as we read further we find that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam, the "sin", which was responsible for bringing about his "death", was the "sin" of "breaking a command." Because Adam was the first man to sin by "breaking a command" from God, it follows that the "death" that "entered into the world" as a result of Adam's new kind of sin would have been Adam's new kind of death, death as a penalty imposed by God for "breaking a command" from God.

However, Romans 5:15,17 and 18 do tell us that "many died by the trespass of one man", "death reigned through that one man" and "as a result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." And 1 Corinthians 15:21,22 repeats this same thought by saying that "death came through a man" and "in Adam all die."

Advocates of "The Fall" doctrine insist that Adam must have literally been the first man. Because if he was not, then we are not all Adam's descendants. And if we are not, then we could not all have inherited Adam's "fallen", "sinful" nature. And if we did not, then they say, we do not all need God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ, as the Bible tells us we all do.(Romans 3:23,24; 1 John 2:2) But I disagree. For the Bible says that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God."(Romans 3:23) And the Bible clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for anything Adam did. (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10)

Again, the key to understanding this matter is found in Paul's words in Romans 5:19. There he wrote, "By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." To "constitute" means "to establish formally." Adam's disobedience clearly demonstrated that the entire human race was not only capable of doing wrong but incapable of not doing wrong. If Adam in paradise without a care in the world could not manage to live a perfectly righteous life, what chance do any of the rest of us have in doing so? So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to retroactively condemn the entire human race as being deserving of the deaths they had been suffering, and undeserving of eternal life, a gift God had not yet given to any human being.

Another point on your logic: Is sin inherited? Yes, it is. David wrote: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Ps. 51:5) We all inherit a sinful nature from our parents. The word "sin" means "missing the mark." What mark? The mark of God's righteousness. In order to create us as free people God created us all with the potential to do what is wrong. Since God can do no wrong, that means God created us all less righteous than Himself. And since "all unrighteosness is sin" (1 John 5:17), that means we are all, as David said, "sinful at birth." You wrote: If on the other hand they are born sinless and mortal, its a silly arrangement because God then stacked the deck. I assume you mean that God stacked the deck against us. But I don't see that is what happened. We are all created with the same opportunity to gain eternal life that God gave Adam and Eve. Just as God was going to give Adam and Eve eternal life only if they obeyed Him in a very simple way, God says He will also give us eternal life if we obey Him in a very simple way. All He asks of us is to believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ's death bought us His full forgiveness for both our sinful nature and our sinful acts. Why does God require this of us? Because when a person really believes this they begin living a more godly life. Do you really think that, just because God created us free to choose to live our lives in a way that constantly hurts other people, God should feel obliged to fully accept those behaving in such a way, to totally overlook all of their wrong behavior and to give them all eternal life, without requiring anything of them? Would you really want to live in heaven or on earth for all eternity if heaven and earth were full of billions of immortal people who treated everyone else there like dirt? I wouldn't. For this reason I'm glad God requires something of us before He fully accepts us and fully overlooks all of our sins, even though He created us with the ability to sin.

85

DNA - belief destuction

by donkey in

jw
friends

the single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.

specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.

mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.

a Christian

You make a couple of mistakes. First you wrongly assume that the Bible tells us that Adam was the first man who ever lived. It does not. Second, you misunderstand why Christ died. He died to pay for our sins, not to pay for what Adam did.

You are right in saying that the Adam of Genesis lived only about 6,000 years ago and in saying that people just like us have lived on earth for about 200,000 years.

To begin with, Bible chronology clearly indicates that only 4,000 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Christ 2,000 years ago. But paleontologists, anthropologists and archcheologists all assure us that mankind has lived on earth far longer than 6,000 years. I believe this seeming conflict between Bible chronology and well established human history is easily resolved by understanding that the Bible does not tell us that Adam was, in an absolute chronological sense, "the first man". Rather, Adam and Eve were created by God and placed in Eden, a garden in the middle of an already widely populated world, to illustrate some very important lessons. Among them, the fact that none of us is deserving of eternal life. (By the way This understanding also answers the often asked questions, "Where did Cain get his wife?" and "Who were the people Cain was afraid might kill him?")

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 may object to this understanding of scripture, pointing 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. This doctrine is based on what I believe is a misunderstanding of the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1Corinthians 15:21,22.

The Bible clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10) And the Scriptures say that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

I do not believe the Bible teaches that mankind "fell". Rather, I believe it tells us that God originally created the human race as free people. Free to do both right and wrong. In the exact same way we are free to do so today. Unfortunately we often choose to do what is wrong rather than what is right. God, however, cannot do wrong. For God is "incorruptable".(Romans 1:23) So, because we can and often do behave unrighteously, and because God cannot and never does behave unrighteously, we are less righteous than God. And, because "all unrighteousness is sin" we are all born "sinful".(1John 5:17, New American Standard Bible; Psalms 51:5)

Being able to do wrong, Adam was, from his very beginning, also less righteous than God. And he later proved his "sinful" condition by his behavior. Because Adam in paradise could not manage to obey one simple command from God, he clearly demonstrated that he and the entire human race, including those who had lived before him and those who would live after him, were far less righteous than God.

So, with these things in mind, Paul accurately referred to Adam when he wrote,"by one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) This is true because Adam's disobedience demonstrated that the entire human race was not only capable of doing wrong but incapable of not doing wrong. So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to retroactively condemn the entire human race as being deserving of the deaths they had been suffering, and undeserving of eternal life, a gift God had not yet given to any human being.

I believe those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" also basically misunderstand the events which transpired in Eden.

The Genesis account clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created mortal with a dying nature just like us. The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life".(Genesis 2:9) Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to continue to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life".

Genesis indicates that had Adam and Eve been allowed to continue eating from "the tree of life" their lives would have been prolonged indefinately.(Genesis 3:22-24) But when God prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life" they died what were apparently natural deaths. A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.

Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life".

Of course, that "tree of life" was meant to picture Jesus Christ.

For, as we have seen, God was going to give Adam and Eve eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life", only if they passed a very simple test. And the Bible tells us that we will be given eternal life from an outside source, Jesus Christ, only if we pass a very simple test. That test is to simply believe in our hearts that Christ's death was sufficient payment to buy every human being God's full forgiveness, forgiveness for both our sinful nature and our sinful acts.

By the way, this understanding of scripture is not by any means new, it has just not yet been widely embraced. The Roman emperor Julian the Apostate (A.D. 331-363) held this understanding of scripture, but he thought erroneously it could be used as a counterpoint to Christianity to restore paganism. Isaac de la Peyrere, a Catholic priest, 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 the subject is entitled The Origins Solution. Some sample chapters of it can be read and copies of it can be ordered from his publisher's web site. http://www.orisol.com/

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

Old Soul, Gumby's statement that John the baptist's ministry lasted six months is based on JW chronology, not anything specifically stated in scripture. JWs say Jesus was born in 2 BC. They also say that Jesus was thirty years old when he began his ministry, though the Bible does not exactly say that. The Bible does say that John baptized Jesus in "the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar," which historians tell us was AD 29. The Bible also says that John the baptist was about six months older than Jesus. And it tells us that Jewish men always waited until turning thirty before beginning their public ministry. So then, if all of the above things were true, John's ministry could not have been any longer than six months. But all of these things are not necessarily true. For instance, most New Testament historians date the birth of Christ to about the year 5 BC, not 2 BC. If they are correct, John the baptist being about six months older than Jesus would have turned thirty in AD 26, and could have preached for more than three years before he baptized Jesus in AD 29. I believe the solution to this problem can be found by taking a closer look at the word Luke used in Luke 3:23 which has been widely translated as "about." That Greek word is "hosei." Bible historians who date the birth of Christ to about 5 BC believe that Luke's saying that Jesus was "about 30" in 29 AD allows room for us to understand that Jesus could have been two or three years past 30 when he began his ministry. They also tell us that "hosei," the word Luke chose to use before the number 30, actually indicates a greater indefiniteness than the Greek word "hos" which Luke used elsewhere to convey the thought that the number he mentioned may not have been exactly as stated. And, Greek lexicons indicate that "hosei" may have actually been used here by Luke to mean more than just "about." They show that Luke may have used this Greek word to say that Jesus was then beginning his ministry "as if" he were 30, "as though" he were 30, "like" he was 30 or since he "had already been" 30. Why? Because Jewish men usually began their service to God at age 30 and were not permitted to do so before that age.

Those who believe that Christ was born some time after 4 BC argue against such understandings. However, I have found what I consider to be strong biblical evidence which clearly shows that Christ must have been born in the year 5 BC.

For I believe that the Bible very clearly indicates that John the baptist began his ministry as "a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way of the Lord,' " (Luke 3:4 ) three and a half years before Jesus began his ministry. If this is true, and Jesus began his ministry in the fall of 29 AD, as most New Testament historians tell us, then John must have begun his ministry, preparing the people of Israel for the coming of their Messiah, in the spring of 26 AD. And since John was a Levite, and Levites according to the Jewish law began their service to God after turning thirty years of age (Numbers 4:1-3, 21-23, 29-30, 34-35, 46-49), John must have been born no later than the spring of 5 BC. The "strong biblical evidence" I refer to comes to light when we ask and answer the following questions: Why was John the baptist prophetically referred to as Elijah? (Malachi 4:5,6; Matt. 11:12-14; 17:10-13; Luke 1:17) Why was he compared to Elijah rather than some other prophet such as Elisha or Jeremiah or Isaiah or Ezekiel or Daniel or Zechariah or any one of Jehovah's many other prophets of years gone by? Though John denied that he really was Elijah (John 1:21), he clearly went to great lengths to copy part of Elijah's prophetic ministry. To make it quite plain exactly what he was doing, John even dressed like Elijah. (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6) Why?

I have found there is really only one way to answer these questions. The answers are found by studying the prophetic life of Elijah. Specifically, the part of his prophetic life which we read about in 1 Kings chapters 17 and 18. There we find that, during the reign of King Ahab, Elijah prophesied that in northern Israel there would "be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except by my word." (1 Kings 17:1) Elijah's prophecy proved true when a long drought followed causing a severe famine in the land. At the end of those "few years" Elijah introduced a long awaited and greatly needed shower of rain to Israel.

Nowhere in the Old Testament are we told exactly how many years passed before Elijah ushered in the rain Israel had so long been waiting for. However, the New Testament provides us with this information twice. First, in Luke 4:25, Jesus himself told us that, "In Elijah's time the sky was shut for three and a half years." Later James told us that, "Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed and the heavens gave rain." (James 5:17,18)

Why does the New Testament tell us exactly how long Elijah served as God's prophet while the people of his land waited for rain? I believe it does so in order to provide us with the chronological information we need to determine the time of Christ's birth.

For just as Elijah served as a prophet of God for three and a half years while the people of Israel were longing for rain to come to their land, John the baptist prophesied "the coming of the Lord" while the people of Israel were longing for the Messianic rain to come to them. This Messianic "rain" was prophesied to come to Israel in the 72nd Psalm. There we read in part, "Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal Son with your righteousness. He will judge your people in righteousness and your afflicted ones with justice. He will be like rain falling on a mown field, like showers watering the earth. All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him. All nations will be blessed through him and they will call him blessed." (Ps. 72: 1, 2, 6, 11, 17)

With this Messianic prophecy in mind, it seems clear why the New Testament informs us of exactly how long Elijah prophesied while waiting for rain to fall on Israel. Why? So we today can understand that the latter day "Elijah," John the baptist, prophesied "the coming of the Lord" for exactly three and a half years before he introduced the long awaited and greatly needed Messianic "rain" to the Jewish people. (John 1:29-31)

Now, no doubt some will ask, "Doesn't the Bible tell us that John the baptist began his ministry in 29 AD, 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar'? And if it does, since Jesus also began his ministry in 29 AD, doesn't that prove that John's ministry could have only been about six months long, since it began in the same year that Christ also began his ministry?"

I believe the answer to both of these questions is, "No." The Bible does not tell us that John the Baptist began his ministry in "the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" which was 29 AD. It only tell us that in that year "the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the desert." (Luke 3:1, 2) Now, the traditional thinking has been that "the word of God" there referred to instructed John to begin "calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way of the Lord.' " (Luke 3:4) The problem with this understanding is that it is only an assumption. And considering other information given to us in scripture, it does not appear to be a valid one. I do not believe that Luke 3:1, 2 tells us that John the baptist began his ministry "in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar," but rather that John's ministry culminated in that year with his baptism of Jesus Christ. By understanding Luke chapter three in this way we find that John did not necessarily begin his service to God in 29 AD. We also find that Luke chapter three does not limit the time John prepared the way for Christ to only a few months. Rather, it allows us to understand that John began his ministry three and a half years before introducing a greatly needed "rain" to Israel (Ps. 72: 1, 2, 6, 11, 17), just as Elijah had done before him. (1 Kings 17, 18)

With this understanding of Luke 3:1, 2 in mind, we can also appreciate why Luke so carefully recorded the time of the event he was then referring to, and by so doing attached such great importance to it. Because in Luke 3:1, 2 Luke was not telling us when John the baptist began his ministry. Rather, he was recording for posterity the exact time that Jesus Christ began the most important service to God and mankind that has ever been rendered.

To confirm this understanding is correct there is one more point that should be made. That is, that if Luke's words recorded in Luke 3:1,2 were intended to date the beginning of John the baptist's ministry, then Luke attached more historical significance to the ministry of John than he did to the ministry of Jesus Christ. For in Luke 3:1, 2, in an effort to help us accurately determine the time of the event he was there recording, Luke painstakingly listed seven different contemporary historical public figures by name, and five separate geographical regions which were controlled at the time by the five governmental officials on his list. If, as has been suggested, Luke 3:1, 2 is referring to the time John the baptist's ministry began, Luke went to great lengths to tell us the time John began his ministry but made no attempt at all in his gospel to tell us of the time when Christ's ministry began.

There is only one sensible explanation for Luke's seemingly confused sense of priority. That is, to understand that in Luke 3:1, 2, Luke was not recording the time when John the baptist began his ministry. Rather, as stated earlier, he was recording the time when Jesus Christ began his public service to God.

As a final thought in support of this understanding, I will point out that Luke tells us that in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when "the word of God came to John" it came to him while he was already "in the desert." There John served God as "a voice crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord.' " In other words, Luke 3:1, 2 tells us that when the word of God came to John, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, John's ministry had already begun. And I believe all the facts from history and scripture combine to show that it had begun three and a half years earlier, in the spring of 26 AD. And if John began his ministry upon turning 30 years old, as all Levite men did, and if he first served as a priest for a brief but respectable period of time, as all Levite men were required to do, then we can reasonably conclude that John was most likely born in the later part of 6 BC. And if we do, since John was about six months older than Jesus, we must also conclude that Jesus was most likely born in the early part of the year 5 BC. And if John's ministry lasted three and a half years, it is certainly possible he may have been arrested more than once, though I don't believe that such an understanding is required in order to harmonize the Bible's historical accounts.

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, You wrote: Gee, I thought the bible said in Adam, all are dying. And....through one man, sin entered the world and death through sin. Your also dodging the scripture that says "a son SHALL not answer for the sins of his father...each shall answer for their own sin". You refer to the doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind, as understood by many readers of Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1 Corinthians 15:21,22.

These verses tell us that "many died by the trespass of one man," "death reigned through that one man," "as a result of one trespass was condemnation for all men," "death came through a man," and "in Adam all die."

Many say that these verses clearly indicate that all people inherit a "fallen" nature from Adam. And they say that it is this "fallen" nature inherited by us because of Adam's disobedience that brings upon us God's condemnation. They maintain that these verses prove that human beings were not "sinful" creatures until after Adam's spiritual, physical and genetic natures were somehow radically changed at the time he disobeyed God in Eden. Then, they say, when Adam fathered children after his nature had been corrupted, his children and all their descendants inherited Adam's "corrupted," "fallen," "sinful" nature.

However, this is not as simple a subject as it might seem. You may want to read all of Paul's words more carefully. Romans 5:12 tells us that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam, the "sin", which was responsible for bringing about his "death", was the "sin" of "breaking a command". (verse 14) And we are told that the kind of sin committed by Adam "is not taken into account (or imputed KJV, NAS) when there is no law." And Paul said that, "before the law was given sin was in the world." (verse 13) This leaves open the possibility that Adam was not the first man to sin, but only the first to do so by breaking a direct command from God. And that leaves open the possibility that, not only did we not all inherit sin from Adam, but that we are not even all Adam's descendents. Paul accurately referred to Adam when he wrote, "By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) This is true because Adam's disobedience demonstrated that the entire human race was not only capable of doing wrong but incapable of not doing wrong. If Adam in paradise, without a care in the world, couldn't manage to obey one simple command from God, what chance do any of us have to live perfectly righteous lives? None at all, as Adam clearly demonstrated while serving as a representative of the entire human race in a God-given test of human righteousness. So, after Adam failed that test, God had good reason to pass judgement on the entire human race as being undeserving of eternal life. And That He did. You asked: Did these babies sin in that they deserved to die? You just said these children are not answering for their parents sin but rather from their own sin. How do babies sin exactly and WHY did god kill them? Sin is not just something we do. Sin is a condition. We are sinners. We are sinful. To sin is to "miss the mark." To "sin" is to "fall short of the glory of God," which we "all" do. (Rom. 3:23) Because we are less righteous than God none of us deserve to live forever. You wrote: So then achristian....god can just CHOOSE to kill someone because he is god and can take and give life eh? You said life is a gift from god. Why would someone give you a gift then take it back? Have you ever given gifts? Did those gifts always last forever? If you give someone a three-day pass to an amusement park as a gift and after three days it expired. Does that mean that you took it back? If you give someone flowers and a week later they die, does that mean you took back your gift? Everyone dies. No one gets out of this world alive. Some live here longer than others. Every day here is a gift from God. You referred to my "pathetic loser god." You called Him a "sick bastard piece of crap." I have no desire to converse with you any longer on this subject matter or any other. And it's just not because of the way you speak of my God. The total disrespect you show for other people and for their beliefs is something I find quite distasteful.

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, You wrote: God does too murder and god breaks his own laws. If you tell your children they are not allowed to cross the street, are you breaking your own laws if you cross the street? Of course not. Parents are allowed to set rules for their young children which they are not required to obey themselves. For parents are older and wiser than their children. You wrote: God says 'a son shall not pay for his parents sins' yet everyone born from Adam......is paying for his parents sins.....a DIRECT contradiction of gods own law. Like JWs, you misunderstand why Christ died and who He died for. The Bible clearly tells us that God holds each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Cor. 5:10) You wrote: God also drowned thousands of babies in the flood didn't he? Apparently so. You asked: Why.....because these babies had Adam as their forefather? No. You asked: Were these little babies "DESERVING' of being drowned?

God gives us all life. And God has the right to take it away. Every day of our life is a gift from God. To some of us He gives only one day. To some of us he gives very many days. Human parents do not always give all of their children the same number of gifts. Neither does God. Our lives belong to God. He gave them to us. He has the right to take them from us. And He does. And seldom at a time when someone feels God's timing was fair.

Scientists tell us that our universe is about 14 billion years old. So God has been around at least that long. The Bible tells us God had no beginning and will have no end. Most Christians believe that you and I will also have no end. With eternity in view, I see no problem with the fact that God has deprived some people of a few years of life, years which He will later give them back, and then some. You wrote: I thought god killed all because they didn't repent and listen to Noah? Can little babies repent and listen to an old man and make decisions off of what he said? No, but their parents could have. The Bible indicates that the people of Noah's land were given plenty of warning that an "act of God" was coming their way. They were also told what they would have to do to protect their selves and their children from that act of God. They were also provided a means of surviving that disaster, an ark large enough to save everyone in Noah's land who could have repented and entered into that ark with their children but chose not to. You can blame God for their deaths. I blame their parents. I wouldn't be criticizing God about His actions at the time of Noah's flood if I were you. How many adults and children lost their lives in floods caused by tsunamis, "acts of God," just last month? Those people were given no warning, as were the people of Noah's land, and no means of saving themselves, as were the people of Noah's land. I think your reasoning in these matters is based on a JW understanding of the Bible. JWs say that God created people to live forever on earth in paradise. He did not. God created us all to live on this earth for only a very brief period of time. Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life." In other words, Adam and Eve were created mortal, with a dying nature, just like we all are.

So, since God created us all to die, He designed our natural environment to be contain many things that would cause human beings to die. Since God created us to die, he also created a natural environment for us which contained things such as disease, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, wild animals, and volcanic eruptions, in order to make sure that we would die. For all deaths are caused by something. The fact is, there is no such thing as death by old age. Everyone dies either as a result of some sort of disease, as a result of some sort of accident - natural or otherwise - or as a result of some violent act. So, God would have only created a natural environment which contained nothing that might kill us if he intended for us to live forever on earth as physical people. But clearly that was not His intention. God created the physical world in which we now live for a purpose. That purpose was to teach mankind some lessons, lessons which we will all benefit from for all eternity, lessons which have required billions of human deaths, some of which came very shortly after a person's birth.

I'm sure you will agree, that If there is an all powerful God, everything must exist as it does now because of that God's desire and because of that God's design. And that means many children dying as a result of natural disasters, some of which God warned their parents about, others of which He did not. Again, If I were you, I'd be complaining about the ones He did not give people warning of, not the ones He did. Myself, I complain about neither. For I understand that it is God's intention for this physical world to serve as a learning experience for all of us. So that after leaving this world we can all clearly see that mankind does need God, that we cannot get along just fine without Him, doing things our own way rather than His way. For our edification God has allowed mankind for many thousands of years to go our own way. Billions of years from now, when this earth is a cinder, we will look back on the history of mankind, people who were allowed to live apart from God, and never again be able to say to God, "We can do just fine all by ourselves, and without you."

You wrote: Please tell me something. Do you think the average reader who read the gospels for the first or second or third time.....would actually come to the conclusion you did regarding 'Johns' story of where Jesus went after his baptism? Did not you yourself not have to "look that one up" in a commentary to figure out the seemingly dilemma?

Actually I had no problem seeing that you were way off base upon my first reading of the verses and their context, without consulting any commentaries. The fact of the matter is, after doing so I immediately thought your criticism was so "off the wall" that I was considering making a somewhat derogatory comment seriously questioning your reading comprehension skills.

You wrote: Does god expect one to have to go to those extremes?

Though I did not have to consult a commentary in this case, I do not consider doing so to be going to an "extreme." Occasionally I read something in the Bible which I don't understand and I appreciate reading another person's take on the passage. After all, the Bible tells us that, "When Christ ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men. .... It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers." (Eph. 4:8,11) So I have no problem, and neither should anyone else, in occasionally consulting the opinions of one of Christ's "gifted" teachers.

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,

You wrote: I personally do not like making up excuses for a murderous god ...

God does not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of innocent life. First of all God makes the law. So his taking lives is not unlawful. Second, God has never taken an "innocent" life. There is no such thing as a truly innocent life. From our births we are all guilty of sin. David wrote, "In sin my mother conceived me." (Ps. 51:5) So we are all born sinful. Because we are, none of us deserves to live forever, or for that matter none of us deserves to live at all. "For the wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23) Besides, the Bible tells us that God will one day restore the life of everyone who has ever died.(John 5:28) That being the case, God has never really taken the life of anyone. He has only interrupted some lives. Something He, and not any of us, has a right to do. Why is that? Because God gave us our lives and God has the ability and the stated intention to restore every human life which has ever been lost.

Job 1:22 tells us, "In spite of everything, Job did not sin or accuse God of doing wrong." In this Job set a good example for you, and for us all.

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,

You wrote: In Matt 11:2 long after jesus baptism, Jesus is instructing the 12 then heads out to Galilee to preach and John here's about it. John sends his diciples to ask ""if Jesus is the one to come or should he expect another". Luke 7:20 says the same. Why would john need to ask such a question when in the book of John he gives a convincing testimony of what he saw and heard at the baptism, saying Jesus was the lamb of god, and every other kind of adoration you could think of? Did he begin to doubt so soon?

John may have sent his disciples to Christ with this question, not so much for his own satisfaction as for theirs. John's disciples may have been reluctant to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, because he eclipsed John. Though John himself was glad to turn over his disciples to Christ, they may have been reluctant to leave him. Perhaps John saw his death approaching, and therefore wanted his disciples to become better acquainted with Christ, under whose guardianship he knew he would leave them.

There are reasonable answers to all such questions, for people who really want them. But if what someone really wants to do is bash the Bible, it seems God had it written in a way that would allow people who wish to find fault plenty of opportunity to do so.

You wrote: Here's another example of the same kinda crap the bible speaks concerning Johns imprisonment. ....... Face it.......big ol' liars penned the bible.

Though I could certainly do so, I see no point in helping you straighten out any more of your alleged Bible contradictions. For you have failed to admit that your first such claim was mistaken after being clearly shown that it was. Thus, to me, you seem to be nothing more than a very typical Bible basher. Make an attack, are proven wrong, refuse to admit it, then make another attack. All the while speaking of the Bible and the God of the Bible in the most disrespectful way.

Maybe someone else here has the time and patience to deal with your trash talk. I don't.