this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?
god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.
in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.
enoughisenough:
I haven't read through all whatever points of facts ones choose to promote here and won't waste my time, save to write, If one believes in a divine creator, they should be leary of trying to prove him a liar.
Sounds like a veiled attempt at begging the question, because you are suggesting that the ‘divine creator’, if one exists, is necessarily the one in this particular story.
this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?
god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.
in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.
slimboyfat:
What do you mean by “actually true”? We can only interpret the story in a context, whether you pick an early Jewish context, or a later Christian context, those are interpretive choices. We don’t have access to the story in its original form, so it’s not as if you can claim a pristine original that must be sacrosanct. One contextual reading is not “actually true”, and the other “false”. They are both narratives and make sense in their own terms. Unless you are arguing that there really was a snake in an actual garden of Eden and that one interpretation is closer to that reality than another, and therefore “actually true”. I can’t imagine that’s what you mean.
You’re not really this dim though are you? You do understand, I hope, that Christians propose that Adam and Eve were real people and that their actions are actually significant (and I am obviously not talking about denominations that don’t believe that, though their basis for belief is on much shakier ground). But the actual reality is that it is just a story. The fact that it is a story based on an earlier story doesn’t change the fact that it’s just a story. 🤦♂️
this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?
god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.
in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.
Setting aside the Christian retrofitting of the Enkidu and Shamhat… sorry… Adam and Eve story, it was God who told the first lie. After Adam and Eve eat the magical fruit of one tree, God has to take action to prevent them eating from a different magical tree. It is directly stated in the story that it is the fruit of the other magical tree that imparts eternal life, not refraining from eating the fruit of the first tree. (All of the quibbling about what day ‘really’ means is just a distraction.)
But the Christian mangling of the story is so tangled in knots that they can’t unravel what parts are supposed to be literal and what is metaphor. Kind of pathetic really. It’s not a very complicated story.
so: the mystery has been clarified as to more "new light" / clarifications of decades old doctrine and procedure.
august watchtower has finally been leaked.
disfellowshipping?
NotFormer:
The change in 2005 was probably to deflect a possible rise in defamation suits against elders and possibly the GB as heading up the whole defamatory machine.
Saying someone ‘has been disfellowshipped’ isn’t more defamatory than saying ‘no longer one of jehovah’s witnesses’, and both are food for the rumour mill. The change was more likely to obfuscate whether a person was disfellowshipped, decided to disassociate, or was told they had ‘disassociated by their actions’. If anything, it may be more defamatory if someone leaves because they know it’s not ‘the truth’ but people decide the person is a pedophile or something instead.
here is an article about wts/jws regarding religious recognition in lithuania.
it says it may not be granted at the level the wts applied for partly based on rejecting unarmed alternative service rather than being "drafted.
" can you read it and tell me you come to the same conclusion?
Bitter Winter is not a reliable source. Cult apologetics for pay.
just a heads up that the english version with the changed cover is now up on jw.com.. i haven’t yet read it but if any you have the time i’m looking forward to people’s insights.. in the meantime i must find a red 🍷.
cheers,.
ozzie (of the ‘is he still here?’ class ).
Drearyweather:
But isn't that what Paul says: "keep this one marked and stop associating with him". There is no question of deciding whether to associate or not.
Yes, Paul is a dictatory jerk about It. But at least he doesn’t pretend (for legal reasons) that it’s a ‘personal decision’.
this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?
god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.
in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.
slimboyfat:
The Bible itself says Satan was the original serpent and the first liar.
Fallacious argument from authority, fallacy of composition.
The Christian Bible says that. But it’s just because a later work retrofits a character from an earlier work without regard to the actual development or original purpose of the source material, not because any of it is actually true.
The Hebrew Bible doesn’t say the snake is Satan at all though.
So if you don’t care whether something is actually true, then yes ‘Satan is the first liar’ according to Christianity (duh). But it’s only true to the extent that it is an entirely mundane and pointless unfounded assertion.
this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?
god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.
in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.
sloppyjoe2:
Do you have any article links where they talk about it? I currently can't find much at all about it.
Not at the moment. It’s tedious searching on mobile. If I feel like it tomorrow I might post something. Or you could find it yourself.
this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?
god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.
in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.
sloppyjoe2:
after Armaggeddon, no one would die of old age or sickness
Sort of, but it’s a bit more complicated than that (because it’s nonsense). They do kind of say that being murdered by God would be the only reason anyone would die after Armageddon. But because of their made up distinction between ‘immortality’ and ‘everlasting life’, the official position is that people on earth would still need to eat and breathe etc to stay alive, meaning they could otherwise still die. So they just don’t really talk about it.
this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?
god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.
in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.
sloppyjoe2:
Don't JWs believe that for the entire millennial reign, humans will be growing back to perfection?
Yes (though the Bible doesn’t say that). See also What does the Bible really teach about the 1,000 years?
But you said JWs believe that people won’t die anymore after Armageddon, which is not what they believe.
