what are the teachings of the jehovah's witnesses in regard to adam and eve?
i know that they believe the fall was a horrible, horrible mistake and that man was never intended to fall (despite god's foreknowledge).
does the atonement of christ cover their sins or are they to be destroyed after their resurrection?
Nope.
*** w65 3/15 p. 174 par. 49 Who Will Be Resurrected—Why? ***
For Cain as well as for his parents Adam and Eve we reasonably expect no resurrection from the dead.*** w01 7/1 p. 7 par. 2 Rejoice in the Knowledge of Jehovah ***
Adam and Eve grew old and eventually died with no hope of a resurrection.
Sorry, Charlie.
my empty headed mayor finally made the call, i don't know why it took it him so long, he waited until 5pm this evening to make the announcement.
i think part of the reason among many others is that on the front page of the nypost there's a picture of two generators in central park that were set up to run the tents for the marathon, heard on the news one of them could've powered 400 homes.. and the first point for the race is staten island, which got absolutely clobbered by the storm.
one hotel owner in si said that he's full with folks who've lost their homes, and although some runners made it here, he's not going to kick out his neighbors that need shelter.. btw for those who are not twitter fans like i am, el bloombito is a twitter site that makes fun of bloomberg because every time he gives a speech he always feels the need to give part of the speech in spanish, which he does horribly !.
I just saw Michael Wolff on CNN, who thinks the Marathon should still go on. What an idiot.
i was looking on google earth the other day, take a look at it, the entire world.
notice how all of the countries and lands which were involved in all the biblical events are desert wastelands.
i thought to myself, did they destroy the soil and nothing will grow, well lets see how much rain they get a year.
EoM....No, Europe was not a desert, nor is the land "forever ruined" (???), nor is this "bad news for Earth". As I said, this is an oscillating cyclical pattern throughout the Holocene (which one should remember is a temporary interglacial between ice ages). The Sahara has gone through wet and dry phases over the past several million years. The last wet phase was during the Neolithic/Chalcolithic Subpluvial (corresponding roughly to the Atlantic period of the Holocene epoch) between 7000-3500 BC; the Sahara was a wet grassland home to numerous prehistoric cultures. This wet period (warmer than today's climate) was preceded by the Boreal and Pre-Boreal periods which were more like today's climate, and before that was the Younger Dryas (ending around 9500 BC) which was an extremely dry and cold period. Then at the end of the Subpluvial, over several hundred years, the Sahara dried out and some cultures moved west to the Nile river valley, giving rise to the Egyptian civilization around 3200 BC. The next period was the Subboreal (3000-500 BC) which was increasingly dry but which was punctuated with wet and dry extremes. The first millennium corresponded roughly to the Early Bronze Age (EA) which was wetter than today but drier than the Subpluvial. The flood of 2800 BC that devastated southern Mesopotamia (the event that likely contributed to the Ziusudra/Utnapishtim/Noah flood myth) represents one particularly extreme "wet" moment in the ANE. The drought of c. 2200-2100 BC (called the 4.2 kiloyear event) was an extreme "dry" moment that brought the EA, the Old Kingdom of Egypt, and the Akkadian empire of Mesopotamia to an end. The drought increased salination in the soil in southern Mesopotamia, shifting the power to more fertile central Mesopotamia (where Babylon rose to power). Then the Middle Bronze Age that followed brought wetter climate (but drier than the EA), and the Late Bronze Age then brought somewhat drier conditions. Then around 1200-1100 BC the NAO brought more moisture to Central Europe than the Near East, triggering the Bronze Age Collapse, bringing an end to the Hittite empire and (later) the New Kingdom of Egypt. New states in the Levant arose following the weakening of Hittite and Egyptian power, including Philistia, Moab, and Israel. Conditions continued to dry toward the end of the Iron Age. Then there was a reversal in the Subatlantic period, which is the current period we are in (beginning around 500 BC), bringing about the wetter Roman Warm Period. Then there was a cooling after AD 400 that lasted until the Medieval Warm Period. Then the cooler period The Little Ice Age followed, with the current period of warming coming next.
Here are some graphs showing the alternation between dry and wet periods in the southern Levant over the historical era (from Finlayson et al., 2011, p. 196):
i was looking on google earth the other day, take a look at it, the entire world.
notice how all of the countries and lands which were involved in all the biblical events are desert wastelands.
i thought to myself, did they destroy the soil and nothing will grow, well lets see how much rain they get a year.
It is due to climate fluctuations arising from a larger shifting of subtropical and temperate zones. The Levant is located in a transitional belt between these zones, which itself migrates over time. So the Levant goes through historical fluctuations between drier and wetter weather. This migration is due to the North Atlantic Oscillation, which drives Atlantic moisture either to Europe or to the south over the Mediterranean and the Near East.
A random article discussing climatic fluctuation during the Roman period:
i was looking on google earth the other day, take a look at it, the entire world.
notice how all of the countries and lands which were involved in all the biblical events are desert wastelands.
i thought to myself, did they destroy the soil and nothing will grow, well lets see how much rain they get a year.
Google "desertification" and "Holocene". It's a cyclic pattern drawing on global climate trends.
just wondering.
i feel a little smugness from long time posters.
i got out as a kid 20 years ago and since i am a newbie here it feels like we are shown a little less respect.
I post usually if I see an interesting post worthy of input. A newbie with only one post who asks an interesting Bible question would get just as detailed post from me as a person who has 30,000 posts to their name.
below is a statement from gb member gerrit losch.
notice what is said about the fds.
is this true?
I am inclined to agree, Weana, however this is based not on one person's notes but several, which all pretty much say the same thing. It is still possible that the Society may further alter/refine their understanding between now and official publication, so of course we must wait until it is in print to be definitive.
i just watched the first part of this film.
i am now more screwed up than ever....... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36_cwza0bk .
I do think it has its value in exposing the plagiarism in ancient mythology.
It would if it had a reliable factual basis. I would stick to actual scholarship than BS.
robert king is alive and doing well.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uxb2p4hfkk&feature=g-vrec.
At 2:48, he seems to confuse the holem vowel with the mater lectionis /w/. The /o/ in Jehoshaphat represents the /w/ in his supposed Yehowah, not the /o/ (i.e. Yehowah). And the "Yah" in Elijah represents not the final syllable of a Yehowah (the vowel is /y/, not /w/), but the first syllable of Yahweh. Actually it contains the /w/ of Yahweh as well, as in Hebrew it is 'Eliyahu. And Yahweh is a normally derived Hebrew name via verbal inflection; Yehowah is not.
below is a statement from gb member gerrit losch.
notice what is said about the fds.
is this true?
They also admit that the judgment of the sheep and the goats will only occur right at the end when Jesus comes to judge humanity. The parables of the virgins and the talents should be viewed within this context. Nothing to do with 1914.
Yeah. All the parables are parallel: the faithful & wise servant, virgins, talents, and the sheep & goats. Actually the latter isn't really a parable but an apocalyptic scenario, but it describes the same judgment that occurs in the other parables (such as between the faithful vs. evil slave, with blessing or punishment accorded to each). So the theme in the three parables of the servants, virgins, and talents concerns prudence in behavior during the time waiting for the parousia. The faithful servant prudently saved food for the time of lean to be rationed out, the wise virgins were prepared with enough oil to last to midnight, the servants managed the money wisely in the time when the master was absent. All parallel with the same moral.
The problem is that Barbour and Russell borrowed the notion of a two-stage parousia, the first phase being an invisible presence, which saved 1874 from failure as a prophetic date (the prophecy was fulfilled but invisibly). This artificially divided the references to Jesus' return in the Olivet discourse into two discrete comings. Rutherford then moved the fulfillment up from 1874 to the period following 1914 (which became the date of Jesus' parousia). And so the classic old reading of the parables regarded the 'fulfillment' of these parables as lying in the past, not future. The Lord had already promoted the faithful slave over all his belongings in 1918-1919, same goes for the arrival of the Bridegroom and the wise virgins, with respect to the talents the Master settled accounts in 1918-1919, and also the separation of the sheep and goats began in 1918-1919 and was ongoing. Then the Society started moving away from this and began to understand (more correctly) that the reference is to the coming of the Son of Man in eschatological judgment, not some earlier invisible "presence". And so the separation of the sheep and goats was moved into the future in 1995. The new understanding of the faithful and discreet slave similarly puts the promotion of the servant over the Master's belongings into the future (to be fulfilled at the Great Tribulation). There is not yet any word about the parable of the talents. But the Society is not willing to let go of 1914, and so the new understanding is an incomprehensible chimera that tries to both have and eat its own cake....it still maintains 1914/1918/1919 as important dates and construes the faithful slave as appointed back then without realizing that the whole point of the parable is that the identity of the faithful and evil slaves is not established until after the Master comes back and judges them. So now there is some double fulfillment read into the parable, like Jesus cleansing the Temple twice, or an ongoing cleansing, not noticing that the cleansing is not done until the Master comes back in judgment. The whole reading of the parable is now muddled. But its the only way the GB can claim to act as if they are the F&DS even though, if the thought of the parable is to be respected, the identity of the GB as the F&DS is wholly contingent on things that they haven't even done yet. And as I pointed out earlier, the new interpretation has the appointment of the F&DS occurring at the time the Master is going away, even though the supposed fulfillment has it occur at a time when Jesus is coming back (his invisible parousia in 1914, his coming into his Temple in 1918). I doubt they would even attempt to explain how Jesus "departed" "went away" "left" in 1918/1919. Even Freddy Franz pointed out this problem, way back in the 1970s.
