In the debate tonight I heard Obama say that if he were president, he would begin by "REDUCING OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL BY 50% THEN PRESSURING OTHER COUNTRIES TO DO THE SAME". At least Hillary had to good sense to realize we can't just "lay down our arms" and expect radicals to do the same.
a Christian
JoinedPosts by a Christian
-
-
-
-
-
-
a Christian
Barack is my favorite Democrat. A great guy and an honest man.
Unfortunately, I believe he may prove to be unelectable due to his full name (first, middle, and last) having by law to appear on all Presidential ballots. Barack Hussein Obama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama As in Saddam Hussein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein -
75
The Biblical Flood Thoroughly Trashed
by Farkel inthere are many new ones on this board who may not have seen this.
my old friend alan feurerbacher who has done an unbelievable amount of scholarly research on many subjects must have spent about two or three thousand years researching virtually every aspect of the biblical flood story, and am providing the link to this subject (together with links to other excellent work by him).
it's long and detailed and definitely not for those who get bored with more than four sentences of information and sound bites.
-
-
a Christian
Sero,
You wrote: Genesis 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. As I pointed out, there are no "mountains" - as we now understand that word - now in southern Mesopotamia and whatever high hills that are there now were most likelly not so high several thousand years ago. The Hebrew word which is often translated as "mountain" in the Genesis flood account is the same word that is translated as "hill" elsewhere and in the Old Testament. The Hebrews had one word for hill or mountain. It was used to refer to any raised mound of earth, from an ant hill to a Hymalayan peak. A proper rendering of the Hebrew would also be, "The waters rose twenty feet covering all the hills."
You wrote: I think they were aware there was much more to the world beyond their 'trough'. Come on now.
Noah could have seen no further than the horizon. Even if he did understand just how much more there was to our earth than just his land, since he could see no further than the horizon, a large local flood which extended to the horizon in all directions may well have appeared to him to be much larger than it was.
You wrote: And forget 5000 years ago, didn't 'Moses' write the account 3500 years ago?
Yes, he did. But he wrote about an event that he indicated took place about a thousand years earlier.
You wrote: Maybe it's just silly to honestly believe two kangaroos swam to what is now modern day Iraq to board a boat, live through a flood, then return to their native Australia once it was over. Same with other animals.
It certainly is. That's why anyone who seriously believes the Genesis flood account is based on actual historical events has to believe that the flood was a local flood and that there were no kangeroos on the ark.
You wrote: Apologists have a hard enough time explaining how all the millions of animals fitted into the Ark. Plus the food and other things that were needed (as seen by these recent Noah threads).
Those who believe that the ark was intended to carry only animals from southern Mesopotamia see an ark with plenty of room for extra human passengers.
You wrote: I've been told about Christianity, and I don't believe for the same reason you don't believe in the Egyptian gods. I've got just as much reason to believe in them as I have to believe in your choice of god.
Maybe someday you will find reason to believe. I too was once an unbeliever.
You wrote: To add to that, if there were humans already around, what's going on when it says God made Adam from clay and divine breath, and woman from his rib, .....
I believe God intended for the story of Adam and Eve in Eden to mirror His creation of the race of man (Hebrew = 'adam) He had previously created, as described in Gen. 1:26-30. I believe Adam and Eve were later created by God (Gen. 2) for the purpose of serving as a small scale picture of the human race He had much earlier created.
God created Adam from preexisting life, the dust of the ground, which when viewed under a microscope is seen to be filled with life, just as He had previously created the human race from preexisting life. God gave Adam a wife who came from his own gene pool, small as it was, just as the wives He had given to the men He had earlier created had come from their own gene pools. God had a special relationship with Adam and Eve, as His relationship with the previously created human race was special in much the same way. God gave Adam and Eve a garden home in the middle of a barren land, just as the home He previously gave to the human race was the only "garden spot" in our barren solar system, and possibly the only "garden spot" in our entire barren universe. God made all the animals in Eden subject to Adam and Eve, just as He had earlier subjected all animals on earth to the human race He had previously created. God arranged things so that Adam and Eve would acquire an intimate "knowledge of good AND evil," in order for them to gain a personal knowledge of why God's ways are best, a knowledge that would serve them well for all eternity. He had earlier done the same thing for the entire human race.
God offered to give eternal life to Adam and Eve if they could manage to live truly righteous lives, which meant obeying God even in what some might consider to be a very "trivial" matter. He had made essentially the same offer to all members of the human race He had previously created, though it was an unspoken offer and the "trivial" commands they had to obey to receive eternal life were all those which came from their God-given consciences. Because Adam and Eve showed themselves to be less than perfectly righteous God judged them to be unworthy of eternal life. God had, for the same reason, also judged all members of the human race He had previously created to be unworthy of eternal life. Because Adam and Eve proved themselves to be unworthy of eternal life God expelled them from their garden home and condemned Adam ('adam) to return to the dust from which he came. God had, in effect, earlier done the same thing to the race of man ('adam) He had previously created. God covered Adam and Eve's shameful condition, their nakedness, with coverings (animal skins) He Himself had made, coverings which required the shedding of blood. Just as God Himself had earlier made provision for covering over the shameful (sinful) condition of the entire race of man ('adam) He had previously made. A provision He made by means of a "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8)
I could elaborate further on this same theme.You wrote: I think living for hundreds of years is unnatural, yet back in those days, the Bible has people living for hundreds of years.
The Bible records the names of only 24 people who had significantly longer lives than any which have been documented in modern times (beyond their 120's). These 24 people may have been the only people who God ever gave such extraordinarily long lives. The writer of Genesis may have made a point to record the length of their lives because they were in fact so unusually long. The Bible itself gives us indications that this may have been the case. For instance, the writer of Genesis makes a point to tell us that Noah's three sons who accompanied him on the ark were all born after Noah was 500 years old. (Gen. 5:32) And he tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood began. (Gen. 7:6) He then records an unusually long life for only one of Noah's sons, Shem. (Gen. 11:11) Thus he seems to have made a point in telling us that Noah's other two sons may have had lives of normal length. The writer of Genesis also seems to say that God Himself told Noah that He intended for men to be "mortal" with life spans limited to only about "a hundred and twenty years." (Gen. 6:3) This seems to clearly indicate that anyone who ever lived longer than that was an exception to the rule. Why would God have given 24 individuals extraordinarily long lives? We can only speculate. The number seems to have some symbolic significance in the Bible. There were 24 elders around God's throne in Revelation. (Rev. 4:4) God's people in Old Testament times were represented by the 12 tribes of Israel. In New Testament times God's people were represented by the 12 Apostles. 12 plus 12 equals 24. So, possibly God once gave 24 people extraordinarily long lives to picture the fact that He would one day give all of His people the same (i.e. eternal life).
-
75
The Biblical Flood Thoroughly Trashed
by Farkel inthere are many new ones on this board who may not have seen this.
my old friend alan feurerbacher who has done an unbelievable amount of scholarly research on many subjects must have spent about two or three thousand years researching virtually every aspect of the biblical flood story, and am providing the link to this subject (together with links to other excellent work by him).
it's long and detailed and definitely not for those who get bored with more than four sentences of information and sound bites.
-
-
a Christian
Farkel, Some people do not now understand how Lee Harvey Oswald could have killed President Kennedy all by himself, so they insist that he could not possibly have done so. Because of their lack of understanding conspiracy theories abound. To such people I also say, "Just because you don't understand something does not mean it didn't happen." How is that an "argumentum from idiocy"? You once contributed more to this board than insults. Maybe you will again someday.
-
75
The Biblical Flood Thoroughly Trashed
by Farkel inthere are many new ones on this board who may not have seen this.
my old friend alan feurerbacher who has done an unbelievable amount of scholarly research on many subjects must have spent about two or three thousand years researching virtually every aspect of the biblical flood story, and am providing the link to this subject (together with links to other excellent work by him).
it's long and detailed and definitely not for those who get bored with more than four sentences of information and sound bites.
-
-
a Christian
You wrote: To throw out Adam as the first man is to through out Jesus with him. Which is why Evolution is untenable in Christianity.
I completely disagree. In am a Christian who believes God used evolution as his means of creation.
This subject matter is not nearly as simple or as cut and dried as you seem to believe.
Your objection comes from a belief in the doctrine of "the Fall" of mankind, a doctrine which springs from a misunderstanding of both the book of Genesis and the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1 Corinthians 15:21,22.
Romans 5:12 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". (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." (verse 13)
Nevertheless, verses 13 and 14 clearly tell us that "before the law was given," "from the time of Adam to the time of Moses," "sin was in the world." So, since the kind of sin committed by Adam "is not taken into account (or imputed) when there is no law," the "sin" that "was in the world" "before the law was given" must have been a different kind of sin than Adam's sin. It must have been unimputed sin.
And since Romans chapter 5 makes it clear that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam was "imputed" sin, it leaves open the possibility that unimputed "sin" may have been "in the world," not just "before the (Mosaic) law was given," but also before Adam disobeyed God in Eden.
Because these verses tell us that 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." 1 Corinthians 15:21,22 repeats this same thought by saying that "death came through a man" and "in Adam all die."
With these verses in mind, many feel that Adam must have been the first man and we must all be his descendants because, they say, 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.
Advocates of "the Fall" doctrine also 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)
However, I contend this doctrine of "the Fall" of mankind must be an incorrect understanding of Scripture because it contradicts several clear teachings of the Bible.
For instance, though the Bible tells us God does not hold children responsible for the sins of their parents (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezekiel 18:20), the doctrine of "the Fall" of mankind says that all who have not accepted Christ as their Lord will be eternally condemned by God because of something Adam did.
Some may argue this point, reminding us that God has taken the lives of "innocent" children along with their "guilty" parents when executing a judgment in the past. However, those Divine judgments were not eternal judgments. For Jesus Himself told us that everyone who lost their lives in such past judgments by God will receive a resurrection from the dead. And He told us that they will then all be judged as individuals, and not by their parents past behavior. (Matthew 11:20-24; John 5:28,29)
The Bible also 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)
The doctrine of "the Fall" must also be an incorrect understanding of Scripture because it is in conflict with proven science. The science of genetics has determined that information coded within the nucleotide sequences of human RNA and DNA is fully responsible for determining what characteristics will be inherited by a couple's children. And this branch of science has proven conclusively that a human being's genetic code cannot be altered by actions as ordinary as those performed by Adam in the garden of Eden.
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 "Incorruptible." (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". (1 John 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.
So, if mankind did not "fall," what did happen in Eden?
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 indefinitely. (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."
I believe 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.
I see no other way to understand the Bible's story of Adam and Eve. And the traditional concept of "the Fall," I am convinced, is in conflict with several clear teachings of scripture, proven science and a natural reading of the events which took place in the garden of Eden.Much more remains to be written on this subject.
-
47
THE INCREDIBLE HUCK !
by a Christian inmike huckabee now leads his closest rival (mitt romney) in the newest iowa poll 39% to 17%.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/74215and in the latest national poll mike leads his closest rival (rudy giuliani) 22% to 18%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_polland among the people who know mike huckabee and hillary clinton both very well, the people of arkansas, huckabee now leads clinton 48% to 42%.
-
-
a Christian
Iowa results:
Huckabee 34%
Romney 25%
McCain 13%
Thompson 13%
Paul 10%
Guiliani 4%
-
75
The Biblical Flood Thoroughly Trashed
by Farkel inthere are many new ones on this board who may not have seen this.
my old friend alan feurerbacher who has done an unbelievable amount of scholarly research on many subjects must have spent about two or three thousand years researching virtually every aspect of the biblical flood story, and am providing the link to this subject (together with links to other excellent work by him).
it's long and detailed and definitely not for those who get bored with more than four sentences of information and sound bites.
-
-
a Christian
Serotonin,
You wrote: Yet land has been destroyed by floods. While it may be temporary in some places, that's the same with the Biblical flood too, right? Things still grew there afterwards.
If the land of Noah (southern Mesopotamia) was destroyed by a flood, and it has never been destroyed again since then, then God's word to Noah were true. If a house is destroyed by a fire and then rebuilt it does not change the fact that it was still once totally destroyed.
You wrote: Now with water, could it really travel as high as the tallest mountain in that area and not spread out over other areas? It's water. It's not sand.
You may want to read in my first post in this thread what Carl Olof Jonsson wrote about southern Mesopotamia resembling a "trough." There are now no "mountains" in southern Mesopotamia. And even the "high hills" in the area were not so high at the time. Again, read what Carl wrote.
You wrote: Regardless, the Bible does say things which makes me think it's talking about the entire Earth. Gen 6:13 ..."I am going to put an end to ALL people,...
All people in the land of Noah.
You wrote: Gen 6:17 ...to destroy ALL life under the heavens... (now does 'heavens' really mean a patch of sky?) EVERY creature that has the breath of life in it. Gen 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and ALL the high mountains under the ENTIRE heavens were covered.
This seemingly universal language must be understood from Noah's perspective. The world as Noah saw it was a much smaller place 5,000 years ago. No jet planes, no world wide web, etc.
You asked: Why would God only be concerned about the humans in a small patch of land in the middle east? Why not look at the morality of ALL humans?
Why did God choose to deal in a special way with the Jews and not with the American Indians? The answer to such questions is usually that God has chosen to use small groups of people in the Middle East to teach all mankind large lessons.
You wrote: So if it was a local flood, why save every kind of animal? Why not just ones indigenous to that area?
Maybe God wanted Noah's actions to represent a future judgment that will truly be "world wide" - as we now use that phrase.
You wrote: And yet in the Genesis account there's no mention of God telling Noah to preach. ... And that verse was added to the canon hundreds of years after the Genesis story. So for hundreds of years, no one knew he'd tried to warn people or preach?
The Jewish people had many more histories of their ancestors, both written and oral, besides just that which is contained in Genesis. Peter's comment about Noah being a preacher almost certainly came from these extra-biblical histories which have since been lost, many no doubt at the destruction of Jerusalem's temple and its library in AD 70.
You asked: With all the animals on the ark, how much room was left for converts?!
Very possibly enough room for everyone in his land who might have repented but did not.
You asked: If people who don't hear about Jesus can avoid hell or destruction etc, why not just keep quiet about it and not set people up? If they don't know about Christianity, they'll be okay. Right? You have a view that I don't think most Christians would agree with.
I didn't say accepting Christ is not necessary for salvation. I just suggested that God may judge the Christian world before the entire world has had an opportunity to accept Christ and that they will be given that opportunity afterwards.
You wrote: I can't agree with the 'god of love, justice and mercy' thing though. I don't see a god like that in the Bible. Genocide, slavery and women being worth less than men aren't loving things in my eyes.
The Bible certainly contains much fodder for unbelievers and much that even believers find hard to understand. I could offer what I consider to be reasonable explanations to all such criticisms. But I doubt you would find them convincing.
You wrote: Well to take one example, there wasn't a first man and woman made 6,000 years ago in a garden who were pursuaded by a talking snake to eat some magic fruit. Hence, fairy tale. Even if it's some metaphor, that story is still a fairy tale.
So you say. I respectfully disagree.
You wrote: There was no original man and woman, humans were around much earlier than that and things like pain in childbirth existed before 6,000 years ago.
Here I completely agree. How can that be? Because I believe most people misunderstand Genesis. This seeming conflict between Bible chronology and well established human history can be resolved by understanding that the Bible does not tell us that Adam was, in an absolute chronological sense, "the first man." God simply used Adam and Eve, and orchestrated the events in Eden, to illustrate the unrighteous condition of the then already existing human race. This understanding also answers the questions, "Where did Cain get his wife?" and "Who were the people living in the land 'east of Eden' whom Cain was afraid might kill him?" (Gen. 4:14-17)
The only place in Scripture Adam is referred to as the "first" man is in 1 Cor.15:45-47. There Adam is called "the first man." But there we also find that Jesus is called "the second man." The context shows that the writer of those words was referring to Adam as the "first" man only in his relative chronological position to Christ. In other words, since Adam came "first" and Christ came "second," Adam came before Christ.
The Roman emperor Julian the Apostate (A.D. 331-363) held this understanding of scripture (that Adam is not there portrayed as literally the first man in an absolute chronological sense) but he thought it could be used as a counterpoint to Christianity to restore paganism. Isaac de la Peyrere, a Catholic priest, also 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. He received his master's degree in theology in 1992. He has published articles in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and has reviewed articles for publication in Christian Scholar's Review. He is a member of American Scientific Affiliation, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, Evangelical Theological Society, and he is listed in Who's Who in Theology and Science. Fisher's book on this subject is entitled The Origins Solution. It does a good job of making sense out of several controversial "origins" related subjects, such as biological evolution, the creative "days" of Genesis, the extent of Noah's flood and the tower of Babel. I found it to be a well worthwhile read.
-
13
WAS NOAH'S FLOOD CAUSED BY A METEORITE?
by badboy inthere is evidence in the form of a lake drained by saddam hussein that a meteorite hit southern iraq about 2,000bc causing a big flood.
-
-
a Christian
I started a thread on this same subject matter a few years ago.
-
75
The Biblical Flood Thoroughly Trashed
by Farkel inthere are many new ones on this board who may not have seen this.
my old friend alan feurerbacher who has done an unbelievable amount of scholarly research on many subjects must have spent about two or three thousand years researching virtually every aspect of the biblical flood story, and am providing the link to this subject (together with links to other excellent work by him).
it's long and detailed and definitely not for those who get bored with more than four sentences of information and sound bites.
-
-
a Christian
You asked: why would God allow a man made myth to be put in his book? I don't get it.
Some here may view it as a man made myth, but I don't.
You asked: Couple more questions. If it was a local flood, and God said he'd leave a sign (the rainbow) to remind us he'd never do it again, does he have to answer for all the local floods that have happened since?
No, his promise was to never again destroy the land (not earth, as in the globe, check the Hebrew) of Noah with a flood.
You asked: What's actually the point of the Noah story? A local flood would mean there'd be no point in rescuing two of every species - a few hundred miles away there'd be plenty of them.
After the flood Noah would immediately need animals to serve as beasts of burden, for food and for sacrifices to God. He would not have time to travel great distances in search of these animals. There may well have also been symbolic significance to Noah's actions which we don't now fully understand
You asked: Seems odd to have an ark built when Noah and his family could have just travelled out of flood range, and come back later if they so wished.
The Bible calls Noah. "A preacher of righteousness." He may well have served in that capacity, giving the people of his land an opportunity to repent and find and be saved from the coming destruction, right up until the time God closed the door to the ark.
You wrote: Noah didn't go preaching as far as I can see
Peter says that he did. (2 Peter 2:5)
You wrote: and even Jesus says at Matt 24:39 "and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."
Noah's message may simply have urged people to repent and begin living Godly lives. He may not have informed them of the exact consequences of failing to do so. I believe the ark had room for any in Noah's land who might have repented but did not do so. Or God could have canceled his plan to bring a flood if all had repented. Jonah prophesied that God was going to destroy Nineveh but when many of its people repented God did not do so.
You asked: That last part too - when Jesus returns it will just be a local event?
Quite possibly. When Christ returns He may judge only the Christian world. Two-thirds of the earth's population has never even heard the good news of Jesus Christ, including billions of people in lands like China and India. The Watchtower Society teaches that God will soon kill all of these people. I think they are wrong. This does not sound like the God of love, justice and mercy I worship.
One thing that leads me to believe this way is that the Bible tells us that "Judgment begins with the house of God." (1 Peter 4:17) Jesus also said those who will rule as kings with Him will "judge the 12 tribes of Israel." (Luke 22:30) To me this indicates that when Christ returns and draws all true Christians to Himself (Matt. 24:31), they will then determine who among those who have heard the good news of Jesus Christ and not taken it to heart are deserving of death. "The 12 tribes of Israel," spoken of in Luke 22:30, I believe refers to all those who have heard the good news preached by those whom Galatians 6:16 calls "the Israel of God." Remember, the literal "12 tribes of Israel" had all heard the Law of Moses, but few had taken it to heart.
Remember too that it was only the city of Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 AD, not the entire Roman empire, after those in Jerusalem who heeded Christ's words of warning had escaped. And First Century Jerusalem has long been understood to picture the Christian world, or as Jehovah's Witnesses call it, "Christendom."
Interestingly, Revelation chapters 8 and 9 talk quite a bit about "a third of the world" being judged. And by population, the part of the world claiming Christianity as its religion is almost exactly one-third.
You wrote: Creation story - never happened. Garden of Eden story - never happened. Nativety scene - never happened. Man living in a whale - never happened. Talking donkey - never happened. Hair with magical strength-giving powers - never happened.
Just because you don't understand something does not mean it never happened.
-
42
The appeal process is a joke!!!
by jakesnake82 init was pretty messed up.
i appealed and two of the three elders on my appeal commity were from our sister congregation.
when i turned in my appeal letter, the elder i turned it in to tried to talk me out of appealing.
-
-
a Christian
Jake, You asked: Is it possible that the organization could become so corupt that they would lose his favor also? This may be hard for you to believe now. But the organization never had God's favor. You asked: Or does he need them no matter what to fulfill prophecy about the good news being preached over the whole inhabited earth? Jehovah's Witnesses have never preached the Bible's good news. That good news, as preached by the apostles, was all about Jesus Christ. Read the book of Acts, and the rest of the New Testament. What was the good news that the apostles preached? Jesus died for us to buy all who put their faith in him God's forgiveness of all of our sins and eternal life. The apostles taught that for Christians there is only "one faith, one hope, and one baptism." (Eph. 4:4-6)Is this the good news preached by Jehovah's Witnesses? Do they preach a good news which is all about Jesus Christ? No, they do not. They preach a good news that is all about the Watchtower Society, presumptuously claiming to have been appointed by Christ over all his belongings shortly after he supposedly invisibly returned in 1914. Then creating, contrary to the teachings of the apostles, two hopes for Christians, one heavenly and one earthly, and two kinds of baptisms Christians, one which they say only a very few can receive, a baptism by the Holy Spirit, and one "in association with God's spirit-directed organization." Jehovah's Witnesses preach a "different good news" than the apostles preached. Because they do they cannot possibly be "fulfilling that prophecy" or any prophecy other than those where the Bible warned that false prophets and false teachers would arise mislead many. In Gal. 1:8,9 Paul said, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a 'Good News' different than what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a 'Good News' different than what you received from us, he is to be accursed!"