Posts by Faithful2Jah

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

Faithful2Jah

Joe: You somehow got AC to jump through all your hoops. But I'm not going to. Partly because I have seen Christians ask you questions time and time again which you completely ignore. Can you say HYPOCRITE?

God has done an awful lot of important things, including creating the universe, in which he did not make certain that we received a completely accurate description of. Some of the things you say are so important that if God did them he would have HAD TO explicitly make known to us I don't see as so important. These things include whether the flood was local or global, whether we are all descended from Noah and whether God gave those who died in the flood a chance to repent and get on the ark or whether he did not.

Your statement that God has kept the fact that the flood of Noah's day was probably a local flood a secret from everyone but AC and three unnamed Bible scholars is ridiculous. There are probably millions of Christians who believe this and thousands of Bible "scholars" who do. Much has been written about this way of understanding Genesis. Maybe you oughta come out of your JW/Fundy/Bible critic cave and read some "liberal" Christian periodicals and reference works.

Your constant criticism of Bible believers for anything and everything is ridiculous. You criticize AC for speculating that Noah's building a giant boat might have helped spread his message that God was soon going to judge the land because he said that boat was probably far from any body of water big enough to hold it. Well, DUH! It was 450 feet long and 45 feet high. Any boat built that size today is built in a shipyard at a seashore. Most local flood advocates say Noah's flood occurred in the Tigress/Euphrates River Valley nowhere near any sea shore. You criticize him for assuming that Noah told people why he was building a giant boat like that. But it is perfectly all right for you to assume that Noah would have wanted to or could have managed to keep the whole thing a secret. Something much more difficult to believe.

Now I'm done talking to you. Who's next? Waiting? LOL

PS. Joe, if the "earth" spoken of in the Genesis flood account was really the "land" as in the land of Noah or the land of Mesopotamia then God's covenant with Noah to never again destroy all life in that land has been kept. For historians tell us that, though Mesopotamia may have been completely flooded several thousand years ago, it has not been completely flooded at any time since then.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

Faithful2Jah

Joseph: It seems to me that the only really important lesson there is for us to learn from the story of Noah's flood is that God does not tolerate evil forever. He destroyed an evil world at the time of Noah and he will do so again. Whether or not he then allowed people to repent and escape the destruction that he was going to bring upon that world, to me does not seem important. It seems to me AC only raised the issue here to explain why he thinks the ark was such a big one if the flood was a relatively small one, as he thinks it was.

I say I don't think the issue of whether or not God allowed people at the time of the flood a chance to repent and be saved is really that important is because I believe God has at other times destroyed whole communities of people without first giving them a chance to repent and be saved. So if God's actions were justified when he destroyed those groups of people then his actions may have also been justified in destroying all people at the time of Noah's flood without giving them warning first and a chance to repent and be saved.

However, at this time I am leaning AC's way. Jesus and Peter both compared God's coming judgment on this world to that which he brought upon Noah's world. And we know he has given the people of this world plenty of chance to repent and be saved. They did not compare the judgment God will bring on this world to the judgments he brought upon various groups of Canaanites.

So science says if the story of Noah's flood is true it has to be describing a less than global flood. So why was the boat so big? So Noah, his family and a few animals would have lots of room to exercise, or so there would be plenty of room on the ark for any people who might of repented but didn't? I don't see that it makes a difference. God is God. I trust that either way, whether he gave the people living at the time of the flood a chance to repent and get on the ark or whether he did not, that he was justified in doing what he did. Especially since Jesus said everyone is going to be resurrected anyway. So, like I said, I don't see that it makes much difference. Maybe that is why Moses did not bother to make it crystal clear one way or the other.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

Faithful2Jah

Joe asked: Why didn't he just say that the large space in the ark was meant to provide comfortable living space, and a generous storage area for food, for each of the few hundred or so animal types in the "land of Noah"?

Probably because he was telling you how he believes things probably happened. I doubt he would say that they could not have happened the way you just suggested. Few Christians outside of the Watchtower act that way. I think he was just giving you his opinion. The one you just expressed also seems to me to be a reasonable possibility to me. Though I like AC's better. Somewhere in the New Testament I know it says that the flood waters pictured the waters of baptism through which it says we are now saved. Salvation through Christian baptism is available to everyone. So it seems to me that for this to be a good comparison salvation through the flood waters must also have been available to everyone. Just my opinion. : ) Though Joe's explanation seems sufficient to also explain why such a large ark was used.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

Faithful2Jah

Joe: I know you do not like others here answering questions you ask AC. But just in case you are really answering questions to find answers, and not just answering them to ridicule anything any Christian says, and just in case AC meant it when he said he did not intend to argue this asubject matter with you anymore, I'll take a stab at this one. You quoted the words "They knew nothing about what would happen," from the NIV. The NAS says "They did not understand." The KJV says more simply, "They knew not." I just checked my Interlinear Translation and I see the Greek simply says, "They did not know." So we have to ask ourselves, "What was Jesus saying they did 'not understand' and what was he saying they did 'not know'?" I think the context of his statement which you quoted answers this question. Verses 36 and 37 say, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." In other words, just as the people did not know when God's judgement would begin "in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of man."

Now so far as why some Christians may not want to debate with some people endlessly. You say that the Bible tells us to always make a defense for our faith to anyone. That is true. But it does not say that we must do so endlessly. In fact it tells us in several places just the opposite. Jesus said, as I recall, that when someone rejects our message, we should shake the dust off our feet and move on. Also if you were once a Christian and now totally reject Christ and try to turn others against him, some may view you as a true "apostate", the kind the Bible says we should not even say a greeting to.

40

When did Battle of Carchemish take place?

by badboy in

there's a very good question to stump a jw(hope i have spelled the place right?!).

it says in my niv study bible it toke place c.609 bc so therefore the fall of jerusalem toke place approxiametly(sic)20 years later according to the bible.. if you say carchemish toke place in 627,`can you provide evidence of this?

' might be a good question to a jw.

Faithful2Jah

Scholar: I think Alan F pointed out earlier that everyone agrees with what you just pointed out. Namely, that not all Bible scholars completely agree on how all the Bible's various 70 year prophecies should be understood. But he also pointed out that all Bible scholars do agree that the society's interpretation of those prophecies is wrong. This can be seen by the fact that not one Christian or Jewish Bible scholar (outside of the Patterson cult compound) dates the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon to 607 BCE.

What is your point in making all these posts? Are you trying to convince any JWs here that only a "sort of inspired" JW Governing Body member, or someone who holds a Doctor of Divinity degree, can possibly understand the Bible's 70 year prophecies? And since no JW here will ever be either of those things, they can do nothing else but trust the society in these matters? Is that your point? I think it must be. Because in all you have written that is the only thought you have here conveyed.

Or maybe you are really an enemy of the Watchtower Society. And your point in being here is to make all supporters of the Watchtower look like cowards and fools. If that has been your point, you have certainly made it quite well.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

Faithful2Jah

Joseph,

I think what AC was saying was that since Peter called Noah "a preacher of righteousness" Peter must have thought Noah was preaching a "righteous" message before the flood. What could that righteous message have been other than "Repent and be saved"? For as AC pointed out, that is the message Peter preached. "Repent and be saved." So when Peter called Noah "a preacher of righteousness" he probably understood that Noah preached a message much like his own. And if Peter understood the story of Noah in this way, since Peter was an inspired apostle and Bible writer, it must be the correct way of understanding what happened at the time of Noah.

Joseph, I've read some fairly good arguments you have made. But as I said earlier this is not one of your better ones. Let it go.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

Faithful2Jah

Joseph,

It seems to me that you want to argue against anything and everything in the Bible, and against anything any Bible believer has to say. By doing so you sometimes end up looking less than brillant. There is plenty in the Bible to legitimately take issue with. My advise to you is "Choose your battles wisely." You will look a lot smarter, and what you do choose to say will have more credibility, once you begin to do so.

130

Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man

by plmkrzy in

jw
friends

i understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?

why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?

he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.

Faithful2Jah

Yadirf:

You asked: If God can bring us into existence in the first place, why is it too much of a feat for him to bring us out of nonexistence?

First off, I just got done saying that nothing is "too much of a feat for God." However, I also said that the Bible does not indicate God "resurrects" people in the manner you suggest. Why not? Probably because even He realizes that doing so would not be "bringing back" the same person, it would be creating a new person.

When "God brought us into existence [out of nonexistence] in the first place" He was bringing into existence a completely new person. If He "resurrected" us by bringing us into existence out of non existence, He would be doing exactly the same thing He did earlier. So, He would then also be creating a completely new person.

Go back and read the illustration I gave you of the piece of glazed clay pottery.

130

Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man

by plmkrzy in

jw
friends

i understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?

why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?

he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.

Faithful2Jah

Yadirf:

You asked: And so you feel that if you were to pass into nonexistence and then later come back to life it wouldn't be the same you. If not you then who would it be?

I feel that if I were to pass into nonexistence I could not "come back to life." God could create a new person like me, but it would not be me. It would be a copy of me. Like an identical twin. But it would not be me.

Dead people can be brought "back to life" but not nonexistent people. JWs have a different definition of death than that given in the Bible. The Bible describes dead people as "sleeping." Sleeping people are unconscious but they are not nonexistent. The Bible describes the resurrection of dead people as God "awakening" them. Sleeping people who exist can be woken up. Nonexistent people cannot be.

You asked: Cannot God recreate a person without the result being a different person?

Are you asking, "Can't God do anything, even if it seems impossible to us?" If you are, then I guess I have to say, "Yes." But the question is not what God can do. The question is what the Bible indicates God does do. And it indicates that God resurrects people by uniting their sleeping spirits with a new body.

You wrote: So what you're really getting at is that you hold to the belief that the soul is something immortal, right?

Wrong. Immortality is a gift that the Bible says God will give only to people whom He judges to be worthy of it. What I am saying is that the Bible clearly indicates that we all have spirits which God gave us and which return to Him upon our deaths and which sleep until the time God resurrects us by uniting our spirits with some sort of a body. (spirit + body = soul) At that time some will be given immortality and others will be condemned to eternal destruction. Then and only then will some people become completely "nonexistent."

130

Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man

by plmkrzy in

jw
friends

i understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?

why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?

he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.

Faithful2Jah

Yadirf:

You asked: Why, may I ask, are you inclined towards thinking that there must be "continuity" in order for the person who is restored to life to be the "same" person who died.

Because without some continuity nothing is "the same." If you completely incinerate a piece of glazed clay pottery to the point that absolutely not one particle of it remains, and then create with all new clay and glazing a new piece of glazed clay pottery exactly like the old object that no longer existed, is that new piece of pottery the "same" piece of pottery that was completely incinerated? No, it is not. It is just a copy of that piece of pottery. On the other hand, if only a small part of that piece of glazed clay pottery, say for instance its glazing, is lost due to wear but is later restored, then it can truthfully be said that the reglazed piece of pottery is "the same" piece of pottery as the old piece of pottery. Why? Because the most important part of the piece of pottery never ceased to exist and remains under its new glazing.

It is theoretically possible for DNA from a dead person to be used to create a living clone of that dead person. The clone will then be a perfect replica of the dead person. But it will not be the dead person. It will only be a clone, a copy. Why will it not be the dead person? Because no continuity exists between the dead person and the clone.