There is no contradiction here. Genesis 10:5 tells WHAT happened, and the following chapter simply gives the details of HOW it happened. This is shown by the fact that chapter 11 begins with the Tower of Babel incident and then elaborates on the same descendants of Shem who were listed in chapter 10.
Posts by herk
-
15When did the world develop many different languages?
by gumby in(genesis 11:1,6-9) in the days of babel, generations after the flood, the world had one common language.
god "confused the tongues" to create many.
(genesis 10:5) prior to babel, the bible speaks of many "nations", each with its own language ?.
-
-
-
33
What ELSE is wrong with the WT Society and JWs?
by fjtoth inteaching that true christianity is an organization instead of a way of life
centralizing authority in an organization instead of letting christ be the head of each christian
claiming salvation is dependent upon belonging to the jw denomination
-
-
herk
Bradley:
You seem a bit picky and intent on finding the least excuse to defend the WT Society.
Whether you are aware of it or not, the WTS does claim that one must be a JW in order to gain salvation. A person has to be totally naive to not recognize that the WTS defines Christianity as membership in their organization. In its mindset, there is no hope for anyone outside JWs, even if the person obeys the Bible and follows Jesus far better than the average JW. What counts most with the WTS is that one must be baptized as a member of its organization. In other words, "Join the club or miss the boat."
And the WTS does place its literature above the Bible. Russell claimed that his writings “are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself.” He also claimed that a person who spent much time reading the Bible without consulting WT publications would probably be misled: “He has a right to spend weeks and years in this way if he chooses, but the chances even then are that when he does light on something he will have it all wrong.” (9/15/1910 WT)
The Society hasn’t changed. It doesn’t hesitate to say that “the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.” They claim that they are Jehovah’s “sole visible channel, through whom alone spiritual instruction was to come. Those who recognize Jehovah’s visible theocratic organization, therefore, must recognize and accept this appointment of the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ and be submissive to it.” (10/1/67 WT) Our submission belongs to Christ, not to an imperfect body of sinful and fallible men.
You found fault with the list because you felt it wasn’t "specific" enough. Yet, you claim that recently the Society corrected its blatant lie that Russell foretold Christ's return for 1914 instead of the end of the world for that year. It would be most interesting to see you provide a "specific" example of where they’ve actually admitted they've been lying about that all these past several decades!
Apparently you feel as the WT does that lying really isn’t lying. Since the 1940s, the Society has devoted literally thousands of its pages to claiming that 1914 marked the beginning of the last days. It has brought into the discussion every slight piece of evidence available to prove its case while totally ignoring the abundance of evidence that the Society is wrong. But you feel that this is mere “wishful thinking” and not deliberate falsifying of the facts.
“Wishful thinking” enters in when you claim that only certain local bodies of elders are quick to disfellowship instead of making efforts to restore persons who have done something wrong. The facts are that the Society operates that way from the top down.
The list refers to “heresy trials and disciplinary hearings in secrecy from the rest of the congregation.” Despite what the Bible teaches against such totalitarianism among Christians, especially towards innocent and defenseless ones, you prefer it. You say, “And some might rather have their ‘dirty laundry’ aired between just a few people.”
You say, “Such a statement would mean that you know who makes up Babylon the Great. Do you?” I think that you wouldn’t ask such a question if you knew what the Society teaches about Babylon the Great. The list provider was obviously going by that definition, not his own.
Herk
-
33
What ELSE is wrong with the WT Society and JWs?
by fjtoth inteaching that true christianity is an organization instead of a way of life
centralizing authority in an organization instead of letting christ be the head of each christian
claiming salvation is dependent upon belonging to the jw denomination
-
-
herk
- Instead of almost constantly bragging about how loving they are, they ought to demonstrate Christian love by doing more for the community as well as for one another. Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, but JWs don't follow that example in any way, shape or form. With all the wealth the Society has accumulated, they ought to be building hospitals and homeless shelters and at least setting up soup kitchens for the needy. In many cases, they don't even look after their own sick and elderly who no longer have the strength and energy to attend all the meetings and to be regular in "field service" as they did for most of their lives. Shame!!!
-
33
What ELSE is wrong with the WT Society and JWs?
by fjtoth inteaching that true christianity is an organization instead of a way of life
centralizing authority in an organization instead of letting christ be the head of each christian
claiming salvation is dependent upon belonging to the jw denomination
-
-
herk
larc,
I'm pretty sure he's the same one. I was there too.
-
7
Jesus and John his cousin ...weren't close?
by gumby inhow well do you know your cousins?
if one of your cousins was to be a leader over a nation and a great man of world impotance, and your moms were real close friends.....wouldn't you know a little about him?
the gospel of luke tells how mary was the cousin of elizabeth (the mother.
-
-
herk
Did John send two of his disciples to Jesus for his own sake or for the sake of his disciples?
John was filled with the holy spirit from his mother's womb. Miraculously, he identified Jesus as Lord and Messiah even before either was born. (Luke 1:15, 41-45) At Jesus' baptism, John saw the holy spirit descend and identify Jesus. He also received a supernatural revelation when he heard God's own voice declare that Jesus is the beloved Son of God. (Matthew 3:17) John had pointed others to Jesus as the Messiah many times and had given frequent testimonies that he was the Lamb of God and bridegroom of his church. "I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God," he said. (John 1:34) So it seems highly unlikely that John sent the disciples to Jesus for the sake of his own belief and faith.
John was in prison and his disciples may have begun to have doubts about his ministry and message. Jesus' own disciples experienced similar difficulty when Jesus finally got through to them that he himself was going to be executed. John apparently wanted his disciples to be fully persuaded by experiencing firsthand that what he had been saying about Jesus was totally true.
It is incomprehensible that John himself was experiencing doubts. If he was, then Jesus' praise of him after the disciples left would have been meaningless. He spoke highly of John as a powerful man of God, telling the people that there was no one greater and that John was not a weak person who could be easily blown about by changing circumstances. How pathetic a figure John would have been if, after pointing thousands to Christ, he eventually entertained doubts about the message concerning Christ that God had sent him to preach! Such doubts would surely have been an embarrassment to the multitudes led by John to repentance and baptism, and they would have been an embarrassment to Jesus himself.
Being full of the holy spirit, John possibly knew that he was soon going to be executed. He had led others to Christ, but some men had chosen instead to remain behind as John's own disciples. John had put forth an earlier effort to persuade them that Jesus and not he himself was the Messiah. (John 3:25-36) They did not see themselves as disciples of Jesus but preferred to be known as belonging to John. (Matthew 9:14) John wanted them to attach themselves to Christ rather than be left bewildered and disappointed when John was no longer around to spiritually lead and sustain them. Interestingly, after John had been beheaded, "his disciples came and took away the body and buried it; and they went and reported to Jesus." (Matthew 14:12) The very fact that these disciples, now that their master had been murdered, reported this to Jesus would seem to indicate that they finally believed in him fully.
-
18
Why Ray Franz? A very theoretical proposal
by logansrun inever wonder why more members of the gb don't wise up and make waves like ray franz did?
sure, most probably know that there are serious deficiencies with the society, but why did ray franz in particular go the extra mile of leaving the organization altogether and writing against it?
i have a pet theory i will relate: .
-
-
herk
Here's my 2 cents worth:
I had been at Bethel 13 years when Ray was added to the governing body in 1971. He was not added due to his relationship with his uncle. Recommendations had been requested from branch overseers, district overseers and other leading men in the field as well as at headquarters. At the time, the members of the GB were Knorr, Fred Franz, Suiter, Henschel, Groh, Sullivan and Swingle. Knorr appreciated Ray's work but, from what I was told, I gathered that he thought Ray would be a menace on the GB. And anything that Knorr was against, Fred was too. The same was generally true of Suiter and Groh. Knorr and Henschel, however, were not getting along very well. I personally saw them having little spats over silly trifles. These illustrated to me that Henschel was one of the few who had the courage to confront Knorr and stand up to him. My impression was that Ray was approved for membership by Henschel, Sullivan, Swingle and probably Groh. To many of us at Bethel, Ray had the qualifications more than anyone to be on the GB. He was a hero of sorts who had won our admiration due to what we saw as his humility, sincerity, hard work, and the way he excelled in Bible study and teaching.
-
6
Jesus temptatation by Satan...a JW conumdrum
by logansrun insome liberal christians view the charachter of satan as being a symbol for the evil within humans which tempts us all.
the jws will often point to jesus being tempted by satan as being proof that this is an unreasonable explanation since "jesus was perfect and he could not have evil thoughts in him.
" now this raises a conumdrum for a similar, but related matter.. just what can a perfect person do or not do when it comes to "sinful" thoughts?
-
-
herk
This is the WT teaching on whether Jesus was capable of sin or even of wrong thinking:
Like Adam, Jesus as a man was a free moral agent. A perfect human is not without freedom of choice--either to be faithful or unfaithful. Jesus spoke of his own will, and voluntarily submitted himself to his Father's will. Jesus could have submitted to the Devil as Adam did, but he chose not to do so. -- Paraphrased from Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2, page 68, 166-7, 868; 5/1/86 Watchtower, page 11.
-
5
Interesting link from Canada (not recent)
by RAYZORBLADE inthis may have been shared before, but i was re-reading it.
it was interesting to read it.
makes you wonder sometimes, doesn't it?
-
-
herk
JC,
You are so right. Salter's letter ought to be read from the housetops to tell the world what the WT Society was and still is all about. He appears to have been a very thoughtful, devout and courageous Christian. But he is the type that the WT doesn't want in its organization.
Herk
-
5
Interesting link from Canada (not recent)
by RAYZORBLADE inthis may have been shared before, but i was re-reading it.
it was interesting to read it.
makes you wonder sometimes, doesn't it?
-
-
herk
We take away some of our credibility when we repeat rumors that haven't been proven. I personally knew both Chitty and Greenlees. Due to my assignment at Bethel, I spoke with them nearly every day for the last several years they were there. I saw no evidence of a tendency toward homosexuality. The GB has never said they were taken off the body for that reason, and there hasn't been any other official information to show they were gay.
I will say this: Both men had enemies at Bethel. I saw Greenlees correct two members of the GB in front of a young Bethelite, and scripturally he was right. Chitty was also known for being forthright when he felt other GB members were violating the Scriptures. And I was there at least twice when I saw him in action. Additionally, there are a few women at Bethel who are the biggest gossipers I ever met in my life. One in particular actually detested Greenlees, probably because he didn't hesitate to chew her out a time or two. I'm almost certain she started the story about Greenlees being gay. These women would pick up on a story, and it would spread like wildfire throughout Bethel and beyond.
I personally don't know whether either men tended to be homosexual, but I really doubt it. I'm not defending them since I have to admit there's a possibility I'm wrong. But I think it doesn't serve the cause of those who have problems with the WTS to resort to mere rumors in an effort to prove their case.
-
10
Is Ray Franz a Buddhist?
by jazbug inthere's a rumor circulating around atlanta that ray is a buddhist...does anyone know if there is any truth to that??????????
?
-
-
herk
I heard that rumour when I was still a JW about ten years ago. As I see it, it was started by some JW as another attempt to further besmirch so-called "apostates." Repeating it only serves to encourage JWs.