Posts by adamah

7

Children of God Cult

by EmptyInside in

jw
friends

i was listening to an interview on public radio of chris owens,formerly of the band,girls.. anyway,they touched on briefly how he was raised in the children of god cult.

he mentioned how isolated he felt,and when he left at 16,he accepted the fact that he would lose communication with his mother.

since that is the way of groups like that.

Yeah, good point. The term 'cult' definitely is a pejorative, and ALL social groups have intent to control the actions of their members, otherwise they generally wouldn't form into a group of like-minded individuals with a common interest, right? People don't join a knitting circle unless they want to engage in chit-chatting while knitting.

So the difference between say a crafts club and the JWs or Moonies is the LEVEL of control they try to exert on their members, the influence they try to maintain to force compliance with their policies.

It's easy to struggle with whether the cult term applies to JWs, until one remembers the practice of shunning that ALL members face if they don't abide with the principles of group, which includes the requirement to conform to a LETHAL blood doctrine which can force members to essentially commit hari-kari, dying due the (willful?) misunderstanding of a single Bible verse.

It's all the more insidious of a cult, simply because it's hidden in plain sight.

52

A Cry for Help

by Thoughtless in

i have been lurking here for months now, and i just decided to post here and actually interact with this community.

i have a very specific/unordinary life, so i will not divulge too much information to protect my privacy.

i am a baptized publisher who is under the age of 25 who attends college, and i do have responsiblities within the congregation.

adamah

Hello!

You are playing inside a game which you didn't create, and don't set the rules, so don't have any obligation to anyone except yourself (and your brother). You spoke of an exit strategy, which is GREAT, since you don't owe anyone an explanation, even your adopted parents (who likely are NOT going to change, or even support your decision to leave).

The key is to "stay the course", keep your cards close to your chest, and take the steps needed to ensure YOUR ability to leave the organization in the future (college). Acting slightly nutty is being smart like a fox (in my book), so do whatever you need to do without sacrificing your own morality.

Like I alluded to, in the final analysis people can only control THEIR actions, take control of their OWN lives, and no one elses. Sad, but it's the truth.

There's a great big beautiful World out there, and don't let anyone dampen your experiencing it to the fullest of your capabilities! It may not lead you where you'd hope or think, but that's sort of the beauty of life....

Adam

25

More evidence of fraud in 2nd Peter: Noah didn't preach, per Genesis 6

by adamah in

thanks for reading the 3-part series on the contradictory characterization of lot in genesis vs 2nd peter, analyzing genesis 19 and comparing it to 2nd peter 2. in the articles, i took a step-by-step approach to show how 2nd peter's declaring lot as "righteous" was exactly the opposite goal of the author of genesis, since the point of the story is how unrighteous lot was saved not due to his righteousness, but on behalf of his righteous uncle abraham (the star of the torah).. of course, the book of 2nd peter is widely acknowledged by nt scholars to be a fraudulent work, written under a pseudonymous (fake) name in order to 'patch up' some loose ends in the torah, likely to support then-blossoming doctines of christianity.

of particular interest to ex-jws is that one intent was to support the duty to warn others of the coming end of days, including the jw's beloved scripture, matt 28:19, that justifies their preaching work: "go thereforth and make disciples...." the only support for the claim that noah preached before the flood is found in 2nd peter, so it's a dubious claim.. in the latest article, i examine the flood account in genesis 6, showing how god had already condemned mankind even before he offered the covenant agreement to noah, so there's absolutely no reason for noah to be a "preacher of righteousness", as 2nd peter claims, since god's judgment had already been passed, and death sentence had been handed down.. .

http://awgue.weebly.com/genesis-vs-2nd-peter-noah-didnt-preach-bupkis.html.

adamah

sd-7 said:

"I always assumed that Peter had access to other sources (ie. like Jude quoting from the Book of Enoch) from which he was retelling that story about Noah. I figured it was another indication of a different Bible canon back during that time."

Well, being that St Peter was dead at the time 2nd Peter was written, it would be quite the escape from the grave. :) On second thought, I guess that kind of thing wouldn't be a problem for many believers? :)

It's pretty amazing to see the absolute nonsense that's proposed in discussions in the talmudic literature, and in the intertestamental works. Although the position shift is seen, moving slowly but surely.

"So there are folks who say it's a fraud, Peter's letter(s)? Tell me more about how the entire Bible has been debunked..."

The problem is not 1st Peter as much as 2nd Peter, due to wide difference in writing styles, word choice, etc. 2nd Peter was questionable from the start, doubted by the early fathers as questionable, but useful, nonetheless; it took about 200 yrs for 2nd Peter finally to be canonized, the last addition to the New Testament.

2nd Peter is extremely suspicious for characterizing Lot as "righteous", and for claiming Noah as a "preacher" before the Flood when those claims don't appear ANYWHERE ELSE in the Bible. Not surprisingly, both scriptures get quite a work-out, being used by Christians to support their theology of both the Flood and Sodom & Gomorrah as serving as the prototype(s) of Armageddon.

25

More evidence of fraud in 2nd Peter: Noah didn't preach, per Genesis 6

by adamah in

thanks for reading the 3-part series on the contradictory characterization of lot in genesis vs 2nd peter, analyzing genesis 19 and comparing it to 2nd peter 2. in the articles, i took a step-by-step approach to show how 2nd peter's declaring lot as "righteous" was exactly the opposite goal of the author of genesis, since the point of the story is how unrighteous lot was saved not due to his righteousness, but on behalf of his righteous uncle abraham (the star of the torah).. of course, the book of 2nd peter is widely acknowledged by nt scholars to be a fraudulent work, written under a pseudonymous (fake) name in order to 'patch up' some loose ends in the torah, likely to support then-blossoming doctines of christianity.

of particular interest to ex-jws is that one intent was to support the duty to warn others of the coming end of days, including the jw's beloved scripture, matt 28:19, that justifies their preaching work: "go thereforth and make disciples...." the only support for the claim that noah preached before the flood is found in 2nd peter, so it's a dubious claim.. in the latest article, i examine the flood account in genesis 6, showing how god had already condemned mankind even before he offered the covenant agreement to noah, so there's absolutely no reason for noah to be a "preacher of righteousness", as 2nd peter claims, since god's judgment had already been passed, and death sentence had been handed down.. .

http://awgue.weebly.com/genesis-vs-2nd-peter-noah-didnt-preach-bupkis.html.

adamah

Sir82 said:

"What I can't figure out is who Noah reported his time to. And what were the hour requirements for pioneering back then?"

Sir82, Noah didn't really need preaching skills, but was picked for the job due to his qualifications of being "just" (as in justice): he was in essence deputized by God to be the World's first cop/judge, after God delegated authority to allow establishment of a system of law. That's a motif common to other Flood narratives in the region, serving as a justification for rulers to assume the throne based on their favored status given them by God(s).

I didn't mention it in the article, but the sin of Ham was exposing Noah's shame by telling of Noah's nakedness to his brothers. In the Bible, nakedness is a metaphor often used to suggest exposing one's vulnerability, their achille's heel, their flaws. Hence Ham was the first whistleblower, telling his brothers of flaws he saw in the judicial system (and was cursed for it, as a result) vs his brothers, who engaged in the World's first cover-up.

I wrote on the topic of the Flood, and how JWs miss important elements that allow them to miss that God offered a 3-part SOLUTION to antediluvean anarchy that existed before the Flood, leading them to misread Genesis 9:5 the scripture which their flawed blood policy is based:

http://awgue.weebly.com/does-jehovahs-witnesses-blood-policy-reflect-they-understand-noahs-flood.html

Adam

9

Blood, what is the spirit behind the law?

by CookieMonster in

during the years when i was an active jw i never questioned the ban on blood transfusion.

i have been inactive now for a number of years and even during those early years i reasoned i will never accept a blood transfusion.

however, thinking about it with an open mind, i question the current teaching of jw's on banning blood transfusion on any account even if it means saving a life.

adamah

Hey Cookie Monster,

I just wrote an article on this topic, explaining how Genesis 9:5 is the CONTROLLING principle found in the Bible, and really needs to be understood in the context it was offered: as part of the SOLUTION to the problem that led God to carry out the Flood, in the first place.

Since they don't really get that, JW's misread the verse, turning what was intended to be a blessing into an OBLIGATION. It's really a perverse reading....

I need to go back and do a tons of editing/proofing to make it "flow" better, but take a look:

http://awgue.weebly.com/does-jehovahs-witnesses-blood-policy-reflect-they-understand-noahs-flood.html

Adam

25

More evidence of fraud in 2nd Peter: Noah didn't preach, per Genesis 6

by adamah in

thanks for reading the 3-part series on the contradictory characterization of lot in genesis vs 2nd peter, analyzing genesis 19 and comparing it to 2nd peter 2. in the articles, i took a step-by-step approach to show how 2nd peter's declaring lot as "righteous" was exactly the opposite goal of the author of genesis, since the point of the story is how unrighteous lot was saved not due to his righteousness, but on behalf of his righteous uncle abraham (the star of the torah).. of course, the book of 2nd peter is widely acknowledged by nt scholars to be a fraudulent work, written under a pseudonymous (fake) name in order to 'patch up' some loose ends in the torah, likely to support then-blossoming doctines of christianity.

of particular interest to ex-jws is that one intent was to support the duty to warn others of the coming end of days, including the jw's beloved scripture, matt 28:19, that justifies their preaching work: "go thereforth and make disciples...." the only support for the claim that noah preached before the flood is found in 2nd peter, so it's a dubious claim.. in the latest article, i examine the flood account in genesis 6, showing how god had already condemned mankind even before he offered the covenant agreement to noah, so there's absolutely no reason for noah to be a "preacher of righteousness", as 2nd peter claims, since god's judgment had already been passed, and death sentence had been handed down.. .

http://awgue.weebly.com/genesis-vs-2nd-peter-noah-didnt-preach-bupkis.html.

adamah

Whahappened, I don't know whahappened: the social media icon shows up on the edit page, but not after publishing. I need to contact their tech support to get the kink worked out.

I'm writing an article on JW's blood doctrine, which ties in nicely with the Noah article, since the Noahide Covenent IS part of God's solution to the problem that inspired God to carry out the flood, in the first place (problem being, "evil thoughts in the hearts of men").

God's solution is actually a three-step process, which most people overlook: sure, everybody knows the first step ("kill all evil men with a flood") but forget all about the other two steps, which are actually MORE important, since #2 and #3 are long-term solutions that are still relevant today (whereas step one was a stop-gap measure that only had an effect for those alive at the time of the Flood). I'll post the article when it's up, likely tonight or tomorrow.

DeW, I'm an atheist for Abrahamic God, the guy depicted in the Torah/Tanakh/Christian Bible, simply due to contradictions found in the Bible, itself. Once you learn of ancient cultures, you can see the roots of beliefs that leads to an adaptation of mythology by the Hebrews. As the Bible says, there is nothing new under the Sun, and that includes the myths found in the Bible, itself. :)

I'm agnostic for other unknown deities, but will believe in them once presented a compelling reason to believe (evidence).

I approach the study of the Bible as a rationalist, a non-believer, much like Bible scholars like John Van Seters will, approaching it as a historic document that's a product of an ancient culture. The problem with reading stuff by Van Seters is the scholarly approach is inaccessible to most non-scholars, so I'm trying to take their approach, but writing in a manner that makes it accessible to anyone who hasn't spent their entire lives learning ancient Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, studying ancient cultures, earning advanced PhDs, etc.

Adam

25

More evidence of fraud in 2nd Peter: Noah didn't preach, per Genesis 6

by adamah in

thanks for reading the 3-part series on the contradictory characterization of lot in genesis vs 2nd peter, analyzing genesis 19 and comparing it to 2nd peter 2. in the articles, i took a step-by-step approach to show how 2nd peter's declaring lot as "righteous" was exactly the opposite goal of the author of genesis, since the point of the story is how unrighteous lot was saved not due to his righteousness, but on behalf of his righteous uncle abraham (the star of the torah).. of course, the book of 2nd peter is widely acknowledged by nt scholars to be a fraudulent work, written under a pseudonymous (fake) name in order to 'patch up' some loose ends in the torah, likely to support then-blossoming doctines of christianity.

of particular interest to ex-jws is that one intent was to support the duty to warn others of the coming end of days, including the jw's beloved scripture, matt 28:19, that justifies their preaching work: "go thereforth and make disciples...." the only support for the claim that noah preached before the flood is found in 2nd peter, so it's a dubious claim.. in the latest article, i examine the flood account in genesis 6, showing how god had already condemned mankind even before he offered the covenant agreement to noah, so there's absolutely no reason for noah to be a "preacher of righteousness", as 2nd peter claims, since god's judgment had already been passed, and death sentence had been handed down.. .

http://awgue.weebly.com/genesis-vs-2nd-peter-noah-didnt-preach-bupkis.html.

adamah

Hello,

Whahappened, whoops, I guess I forgot something. :) I added subscribe/share buttons to the front page, so thanks for the heads-up!

(I'm not sure if I should add that function to all pages, or just the main page?)

Billy, I also want to know what the animals ever did wrong to piss off God, in the first place. I'm thinking it may have been the fault of those evil oxen, since God made a point to say he'd demand an accounting for ALL spilled blood, with even animals called on the carpet to account for killing other animals. Thus the basis for later passages in Exodus 21:28-35 saying that oxen who kill humans must be stoned to death (along with their owners, if they had prior knowledge of the animal's tendency to gore), and saying what men must do if oxen kill other oxen. God is cracking down on ALL evil!

Although you have to wonder about the predators: would the carnivores get off the hook for the blood they spilled, saying, "But God, as my so-called "Intelligent Designer", you certainly must remember that you MADE me like this?!? Why would you give me fangs, claws, and the enzymes to digest proteins (and not those needed to digest plants) if you didn't expect me to use them?" :)

Blacksheep said:

"Sorry.... didn't read it. Too much for my attention span."

Sorry to hear that, as I tried to keep it short enough to keep interest, but also wanted to provide enough details to satisfy those who want them. It's hard to make any point that's worth making in few words, but that's the whole challenge: finding the right 'mix'.

"Had a go at old time JWs on this one a few weeks ago. Got the stunned mullet look. 120 years of preaching with Jehovah's blessing and not one convert????? There are heaps of nutters with crazy doctrines that have followers. Charlie Manson had more converts than Noah with his 'helter skelter' and he was a right nutcase and it didn't take him 120 years. They agreed."

Yeah, Noah must've had a case of mumble-mouth even worse than Moses', or perhaps he lacked personal charisma such that Noah didn't get ANY converts? Not even an emotionally-needy 'clinger' whom everyone else didn't want to hang out with, LOL?

"Pointed out that Peter's statement only supported the notion that Noah was selected because he was a preacher of righteousness, not that he was given a commission to 'save' anyone by preaching a warning. They had nothing to offer in defence except excuses for a quick exit."

Of course, since God had already DECIDED to kill all mankind BEFORE telling Noah of his plans, then the Greek word used in 2nd Peter which is translated as "preacher" could actually mean "herald",which would imply that Noah was sharing the "bad news" that they were going to be destroyed in a coming Flood and there's absolutely nothing they could do about it. Hence, Noah would be taunting them over their upcoming blind date with death.

That also would be very questionable, even worse than those sanctimonious believers today who KNOW they are going to Heaven, and inform sinners they're going to burn in Hell for an eternity and there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING they can do to change that outcome; remember, Noah KNEW God had already decided on his final condemnation of mankind, so it was all over but the shouting (or drowning).

Not much of God's mercy on display in that rendering, so 2nd Peter makes God out to be even more of a jerk than the Genesis account; that's what trying to force Noah into the role of a "herald" would require.

Blacksheep said:

"The point I was trying to make was that the god their church believes in murders innocent babies and that that wasn't my idea of any god I found 'loveable', or particularly 'godlike'."

I tried to stay away from the "baby killer" thing, since it was going astray of my goal of the article: reexamining Genesis 6 on a verse-by-verse manner to see "who knew what, and when they knew it", showing that it's impossible for Noah to have been saved on account of being a "preacher of righteousness" without contradicting Genesis 6.

But I'll be writing a follow-up article that looks at the story from a slightly-different angle, revealing it's roots in mythology and ancient beliefs.

Adam

25

More evidence of fraud in 2nd Peter: Noah didn't preach, per Genesis 6

by adamah in

thanks for reading the 3-part series on the contradictory characterization of lot in genesis vs 2nd peter, analyzing genesis 19 and comparing it to 2nd peter 2. in the articles, i took a step-by-step approach to show how 2nd peter's declaring lot as "righteous" was exactly the opposite goal of the author of genesis, since the point of the story is how unrighteous lot was saved not due to his righteousness, but on behalf of his righteous uncle abraham (the star of the torah).. of course, the book of 2nd peter is widely acknowledged by nt scholars to be a fraudulent work, written under a pseudonymous (fake) name in order to 'patch up' some loose ends in the torah, likely to support then-blossoming doctines of christianity.

of particular interest to ex-jws is that one intent was to support the duty to warn others of the coming end of days, including the jw's beloved scripture, matt 28:19, that justifies their preaching work: "go thereforth and make disciples...." the only support for the claim that noah preached before the flood is found in 2nd peter, so it's a dubious claim.. in the latest article, i examine the flood account in genesis 6, showing how god had already condemned mankind even before he offered the covenant agreement to noah, so there's absolutely no reason for noah to be a "preacher of righteousness", as 2nd peter claims, since god's judgment had already been passed, and death sentence had been handed down.. .

http://awgue.weebly.com/genesis-vs-2nd-peter-noah-didnt-preach-bupkis.html.

adamah

Hi Crazyguy,

"I was thinking if he was a preacher it was only to those that actually saw him building the ark and wanted to know why."

So, any righteous people who might've repented, but who lived outside of say, a 10-mile radius of Noah's home, were pretty-much screwed?

There's no need to engage in any such speculation on the point, since the exact sequence of events is given in the account:

1) God decided to destroy ALL of mankind in Gen 6:7, seeing there were no righteous men on the Earth, so no need to give them a chance to repent (that point is made in Genesis 6:5, where it describes how only wickedness and evil was found in men's hearts). God passed judgment, and handed down a death sentence.

2) However, God notices Noah, and declares that Noah alone is righteousness, in Gen 6:8.

3) God tells Noah of his plans to destroy all of mankind in Gen 6:13.

4) God offers a covenant to Noah in Genesis 6:18, saying he'd save ONLY Noah and his family but ONLY IF Noah fulfill the terms of the agreement:

a) build the ark, and,

b) load 2 of every type of animal onto it.

Noah abided by the terms of the performance contract to a tee, and was blessed by YHWH as a result, thus earning salvation for himself and his family aboard the Ark. Preaching a message of repentence and salvation to those already condemned to death wasn't a term of the contract, and modifying it would require changing one of the terms, thus breaking the entire covenant. Noah didn't ask for any modifications of the terms, and YHWH didn't state additional terms: the contract was fulfilled as written.

God had already examined the hearts of men, so there wasn't a need for repentence and offering salvation to those who had already been condemned for destruction even BEFORE construction of the ark had begun, and BEFORE Noah was informed of the Flood. Hence, no need for preaching; they were already condemned to death by YHWH (who cannot change his mind).

So while it's tempting to engage in such speculation, going beyond what the words of the Bible actually say can lead to a misreading that actually contradicts what the the original account DOES say: that's called 'eisegesis', and is exactly what the author of 2 Peter is guilty of, when he changes the story to declare that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness".

Does that make more sense?

Adam

25

More evidence of fraud in 2nd Peter: Noah didn't preach, per Genesis 6

by adamah in

thanks for reading the 3-part series on the contradictory characterization of lot in genesis vs 2nd peter, analyzing genesis 19 and comparing it to 2nd peter 2. in the articles, i took a step-by-step approach to show how 2nd peter's declaring lot as "righteous" was exactly the opposite goal of the author of genesis, since the point of the story is how unrighteous lot was saved not due to his righteousness, but on behalf of his righteous uncle abraham (the star of the torah).. of course, the book of 2nd peter is widely acknowledged by nt scholars to be a fraudulent work, written under a pseudonymous (fake) name in order to 'patch up' some loose ends in the torah, likely to support then-blossoming doctines of christianity.

of particular interest to ex-jws is that one intent was to support the duty to warn others of the coming end of days, including the jw's beloved scripture, matt 28:19, that justifies their preaching work: "go thereforth and make disciples...." the only support for the claim that noah preached before the flood is found in 2nd peter, so it's a dubious claim.. in the latest article, i examine the flood account in genesis 6, showing how god had already condemned mankind even before he offered the covenant agreement to noah, so there's absolutely no reason for noah to be a "preacher of righteousness", as 2nd peter claims, since god's judgment had already been passed, and death sentence had been handed down.. .

http://awgue.weebly.com/genesis-vs-2nd-peter-noah-didnt-preach-bupkis.html.

adamah

Thanks for reading the article, everyone!

The false authorship of the epistle of 2nd Peter is a critically-important issue for JWs to consider, since one of the goals of the anonymous early Christian author of 2nd Peter was to depict God as having given "fair notice" to mankind before the Flood, just like Sodom and Gomorrah needed a "righteous man" in the story-line to warn the inhabitants and give an opportunity to repent before final destruction. Both Genesis stories needed significant reworking to plaster over pesky details that simply weren't an issue to the authors of the Genesis accounts, since early Judaism had no use for this later Christian concept (the account of Job demonstrates the Hebrew belief that God can give and take blessings without any warning, or bothering to explain why, eg Job's children were killed as a result of YHWH handing them over to Satan: no fair notice given, or need to repent; they were simply pawns used to test Job!).

It's amazing to see the evolution of ideas emerging in the early Christian church, seen by reading the Book of St Clement, Book of Wisdom, etc. If a person hasn't heard of the word 'syncretism' before, they really NEED to look it up, as it's fingerprints are apparent in these early church writings which finally reimerge in 2nd Peter.

Kojack said:

"Adamah: it's amazing the things we blindly miss due to complete brainwashing from the WB&TS."

Aint' that the Truth! :) Someone very wise once said, "they have eyes, but they cannot see".

If someone is reading the Bible and makes it past Genesis 9 without smelling a skunk, they're not really paying attention, since the Flood account is just chock-full of 'tells' (I'll write on these others in a future article, as I didn't mention them as they didn't center on the issue of 2nd Peter's claim of Noah being a preacher of righteousness).

Designs said:

"Revisionism that would make any Watchtower writer proud."

The funny thing is, most Christians are blissfully unaware that the Torah itself was subject to HEAVY redaction (editing) while in different hands over the centuries, and was constantly undergoing updating to 'harmonize' additions that were accepted into the Tanakh. In Judaism there's 1000's of pages of discussions amongst rabbis who discuss the implications of various interpretations of the Torah and discussing conflicts with other passages, a process which strongly indicates the work of clever men and not divine inspiration. Then we encounter a slew of intertestamental literature, which served as an opportunity to 'beta-test' concepts, with some beliefs actually sticking, as 2nd Peter became accepted doctrine despite it's suspicious beginnings.

Point being, there's actually a LONG tradition of WT-style revisionism in religion, so the WT is not doing anything new, but only following in the footsteps of a path that is well-wornm being part-and-parcel of ALL religious beliefs. Those words are not meant as an excuse for the WT, but as CONDEMNATION, shared with all religions, being guilty of the oldest scam in the World.

Mrfreeze said:

"Ummm, hello? Noah totally went around with Watchtower magazines."

Hopefully he left them in plastic bags under the welcome mats of the "not-at-homes", since he knew rain was coming. :)

Cantleave said:

"Great research......I am enjoying your blogs."

Thanks for the kind words, and for reading. :)

Adamah

25

More evidence of fraud in 2nd Peter: Noah didn't preach, per Genesis 6

by adamah in

thanks for reading the 3-part series on the contradictory characterization of lot in genesis vs 2nd peter, analyzing genesis 19 and comparing it to 2nd peter 2. in the articles, i took a step-by-step approach to show how 2nd peter's declaring lot as "righteous" was exactly the opposite goal of the author of genesis, since the point of the story is how unrighteous lot was saved not due to his righteousness, but on behalf of his righteous uncle abraham (the star of the torah).. of course, the book of 2nd peter is widely acknowledged by nt scholars to be a fraudulent work, written under a pseudonymous (fake) name in order to 'patch up' some loose ends in the torah, likely to support then-blossoming doctines of christianity.

of particular interest to ex-jws is that one intent was to support the duty to warn others of the coming end of days, including the jw's beloved scripture, matt 28:19, that justifies their preaching work: "go thereforth and make disciples...." the only support for the claim that noah preached before the flood is found in 2nd peter, so it's a dubious claim.. in the latest article, i examine the flood account in genesis 6, showing how god had already condemned mankind even before he offered the covenant agreement to noah, so there's absolutely no reason for noah to be a "preacher of righteousness", as 2nd peter claims, since god's judgment had already been passed, and death sentence had been handed down.. .

http://awgue.weebly.com/genesis-vs-2nd-peter-noah-didnt-preach-bupkis.html.

adamah

Hello!

Thanks for reading the 3-part series on the contradictory characterization of Lot in Genesis vs 2nd Peter, analyzing Genesis 19 and comparing it to 2nd Peter 2. In the articles, I took a step-by-step approach to show how 2nd Peter's declaring Lot as "righteous" was exactly the OPPOSITE GOAL of the author of Genesis, since the point of the story is how unrighteous Lot was saved NOT due to his righteousness, but on behalf of his righteous Uncle Abraham (the star of the Torah).

Of course, the book of 2nd Peter is widely acknowledged by NT scholars to be a fraudulent work, written under a pseudonymous (fake) name in order to 'patch up' some loose ends in the Torah, likely to support then-blossoming doctines of Christianity. Of particular interest to ex-JWs is that one intent was to support the duty to warn others of the coming end of days, including the JW's beloved scripture, Matt 28:19, that justifies their preaching work: "Go thereforth and make disciples...." The only support for the claim that Noah preached before the Flood is found in 2nd Peter, so it's a dubious claim.

In the latest article, I examine the Flood account in Genesis 6, showing how God had already condemned mankind even BEFORE he offered the covenant agreement to Noah, so there's absolutely no reason for Noah to be a "preacher of righteousness", as 2nd Peter claims, since God's judgment had already been passed, and death sentence had been handed down.

http://awgue.weebly.com/genesis-vs-2nd-peter-noah-didnt-preach-bupkis.html

As always, comments are welcome, either here or there.

Adam