Posts by Christian guy

posted

310
How I recently handled JWs at my door
by Christian guy in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.
Christian guy

An argument could be made that if God wanted to really blow us away and wow us, He could have made the number correlations exact,

Actually it appears that he did make some of them exact. As I pointed out, " The moon and the sun's most commonly published diameter measurements in miles are 2,160 and 864,000 respectively which equals a ratio of exactly 400.00."

And I wrote that, " according to the World Almanac and many other reference works, 'our sun is 400,000 times as bright as the full moon.' Amazingly, this brightness magnitude ratio of four hundred thousand appears to be an exact, or virtually exact, number."

I believe God provides all who are willing to serve him with enough evidence of his existence to give them the faith they need to do so. I also believe that God will never provide someone who is unwilling to serve him with so much evidence of his existence that they cannot choose to deny his existence.

God could have certainly designed every one of these 400s to be an exact number. But then we would all be forced to acknowledge his existence and our obligation to serve him right now. But that would defeat God's own stated purpose. For the Bible tells us that God has chosen to save that time, a time when "every knee will bend" to him, for Judgment Day.
310
How I recently handled JWs at my door
by Christian guy in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.
Christian guy

Bohm,

The words you just took from my post are words that were not written by me. I clearly indentified them as having been written by Knighyt and Butler in their book, Who Built The Moon? I quoted their words only to illustrate the kind of things you can expect to read in their book.

I later clearly stated that, " I believe they did sometimes engage in .... numerical gymnastics. So I am not here enthusiastically endorsing their book. The authors had many pages to fill, and in my opinion they didn't have enough really good material to fill them with."

I would put that passage which I quoted from their book, which you just repeated, into the catagory of 'not really good material.'
310
How I recently handled JWs at my door
by Christian guy in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.
Christian guy

Besty,

You asked me, "what religion would you have been had you been born in afghanistan? you see what i'm saying right?"

No, not really. The answer seems obvious. I would probably be a Moslem. But what is your point?

Maybe you are saying I only believe as I now do because I was born in a largely Christian nation. Well, I admit that fact certainly helped me find the faith I now have. But again, I don't see what you are getting at.

Maybe you are saying that it is highly unlikely that my belief system is valid since it is only held by about one third of the people in the world. Or that the claims of Christians cannot be true since two thirds of people do not accept them.

I'm sorry. I don't get what you mean. I guess you will have to tell me.
310
How I recently handled JWs at my door
by Christian guy in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.
Christian guy

Kate,

Many Christians I have spoken to believe that God only inspired the writing of the Bible writers' original manuscripts, and not the later copying of those manuscripts. That is what they say accounts for the fact that some minor corruptions have found their way into the text of our Bibles over the years, a fact which is acknowledged by nearly all Bible scholars. However, all Christians I have discussed this subject matter with believe that God saw fit to accurately preserve in the Bible all the information that anyone needs to find salvation through Jesus Christ.

We also know that both Jesus Christ himself and his Apostle Paul predicted that a widespread corruption of Christianity would take place after they left the earth. (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43; Acts 20:29,30; 1 Tim. 4:1,2) I believe this corruption included the introduction of sexism into Christ's Church, a corruption which some believe may have been aided by a few corrupt copyists very early on, who altered some of Paul's original writings.

For instance, The Catholic Jerusalem Bible (French 1998 edition) has the following footnote to 1 Cor. 14:34,35. "V. 34-35, which some mss put after v. 40, are a post-Paulinian addition. Not only their calling for obedience to the Law ...hardly resembles Paul, but the requirement of silence for women contradicts [some of Paul's other instructions]."
310
How I recently handled JWs at my door
by Christian guy in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.
Christian guy

Ann,

You wrote: The '400s' are as it stands now.

I am aware of this. But I don't see how this fact is important. Since I believe God intended for these 400s to be seen by us now, not a million years ago or a million years from now.
310
How I recently handled JWs at my door
by Christian guy in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.
Christian guy

Kate,

My study of the scriptures has convinced me that the words written by the apostle Paul which are most often criticized as being "sexist," though they were in fact written by Paul, did not actually reflect the apostle's own beliefs about how women should be treated in the Christian Church. Instead, I believe that the context of all of Paul's allegedly "chauvinistic" words shows that they actually reflected the beliefs of false teachers, beliefs which Paul quoted because he felt they needed to be corrected, and teachers whom Paul turned his attention to because he felt they needed to be rebuked. The words written by Paul to which I here refer are those recorded in 1 Cor. 11:3-10, 1Cor. 14:34,35 and in 1 Tim. 2:8-15.

These words in the New International Version of the Bible read as follows:

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (1 Cor. 11:3-10)

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Cor. 14:34,35)

"I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (1Tim. 2:8-15)

Many Christians have long had a very hard time understanding how the apostle Paul could have written words such as these. Why? Because Paul encouraged Christians to, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:1) And the Bible reveals that Jesus always treated women with respect and gladly discussed spiritual things with them. ( Luke 10:36-42; John 4:7-27) And because Paul was the same man who said that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28) And because we know that Paul accepted both women prophets and women deacons. (Acts 18:26; 21:9 Romans 16:1) And, we can't help but ask, how did Paul expect women to serve as prophets if he did not allow them to teach or even speak in church, as 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:12 would seem to indicate?

With these things in mind, I will here discuss what I believe is strong evidence which clearly indicates that Paul was, in these passages, actually citing false teachings then being promoted by others for the purpose of correcting those false teachings.

I believe that Paul's words in 1 Cor.11:3-10 described a teaching promoted by some in Corinth which the Corinthians sent to Paul for his critique. Paul's words in verse 2 serve as an obvious tip-off that Paul was about to directly quote and then comment upon a false teaching that was then circulating in the Church. For in that verse Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you."

I believe the next words he wrote, recorded in verses 3-10, were those in which Paul then quoted the false teaching which the Corinthians had sent to Paul for him to comment on. That teaching was this: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

The contents of the next several verses, 11-16, clearly show them to be Paul's rebuttal to the false teaching he had just referenced. For the words in these verses clearly rebut the arguments advanced in verses 3-10. Thus they can only be understood as being Paul's own explanation of the true Christian position on this issue, the position which Paul was really promoting. That position was this: "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God."

After quoting those who demanded that women wear head coverings to show their submission to men Paul said, "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ... LONG HAIR is given to her AS a covering." So, Paul was saying women do not need head coverings as some false teachers were demanding. Furthermore, Paul clearly pointed out that men and women were equal in the faith. "For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God." (verse 12). This argument by Paul clearly refuted the false teachers' statement made in verses 3 and 8 that, "The head of woman is man," because "man did not come from woman, but woman from man."

I am convinced that the now common "male chauvinistic" understanding of Paul's words developed in large part due to the way in which Paul wrote. Paul's use of sharp contrasts in place of clear transitional phrases is largely responsible for causing some of what he wrote to be widely misunderstood. However, Paul's words would have been perfectly understandable by those to whom he originally addressed his letters. For they knew what Paul had previously taught on such matters. And they knew the teachings of others which they had asked Paul to comment on. However, when a third party, such as ourselves, reads the letters which Paul wrote they do not have such "inside" knowledge. And without it, it is sometimes difficult to recognize when exactly Paul was quoting false teachers and when he was actually setting forth true Christian teachings. Because of such difficulties in understanding Paul's letters many of the words Paul actually wrote for the purpose of refuting false doctrine later became widely used to promote false doctrine. And in the process Paul, God and the New Testament have acquired very undeserved reputations as being "anti-woman."

I'll now comment on 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35. Though I normally use the NIV, I'll use the KJV here because in this passage the NIV is missing an important element. (The Revised Standard Version and others may also be used here. For they contain the same important element.) There we read: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church."

Here again, like 1 Cor. 11:3-10, we can see that Paul was quoting the words of false teachers for the purpose of rebuking them. How can we see this? By simply reading the three following verses, 36-38. There Paul wrote: "What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

Paul identifies false teaching with either strong rebuke or by clearly pointing out the error and correcting it. Or by doing both. But he does so, as I mentioned earlier, while using minimal transitional phraseology. Here that transitional phraseology is extremely minimal. In fact, it consists of only a single word. But for Paul it only took one word to identify a false teaching. That word was one very strong word of rebuke. In case you missed it, that word was, "What?"

Though missing from the NIV, this "particle of distinction between two connected terms," as Strong's Greek dictionary defines the Greek word used at the beginning of verse 36, is translated as "What?" in the KJV and the Amplified Bible and as "What!" in other translations of the Bible. By Paul's use of that Greek word to begin his thoughts recorded in verse 36 it certainly appears that Paul was expressing both shock and outrage at the blatant sexism which some false teachers were then promoting as Christian doctrine. For those who question if that is truly the sentiment which Paul meant to convey by the first word he used in verse 36, the many words of rebuke which followed Paul's "What?" show beyond a doubt that he was disgusted that such chauvinistic teachings were being promoted in Christian congregations. And he reminded the Corinthians that, unlike the false teachers who were demeaning Christian women, "The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (verse 37) One of the things to which he obviously here referred was his consistent teaching that in Christ, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

It is also worth noting that the content of this passage (1 Cor. 14:34,35) itself clearly indicates that the sentiments expressed therein could not have been those of Paul. For verse 34 says that women "are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." But, as I am sure you know, Paul was the apostle who continually preached Christian freedom and how Christians were not under either the Mosaic law or the pharisaic oral law, to which Paul must have here referred since the Mosaic law contains no such commands. Thus the idea that Paul would have used the authority of Jewish law to support his teachings seems, to put it mildly, most unlikely. So it seems quite clear, that when discussing here and elsewhere the idea that women should be treated differently than men within the Christian Church, Paul was citing the false teaching of some legalistic Jewish Christians. He was not presenting his own beliefs and teachings.

This also raises an interesting question. How was the text in Paul's letters originally formatted? Though I don't believe the actual text of any of Paul's letters has been corrupted over the years, I do believe it is entirely possible that Paul may have differently formatted, "italicized" or bolded some of his original written words. (The Greek language in Paul's day did not use punctuation marks.) I believe he may well have done so in a way that made it perfectly clear to any who read his original letters, when exactly he was writing his own words and when he was quoting the false teachings of others.

Imagine, for instance, if Paul had written his words in a way such as this:

Let your women keep silence in the churches
For it is not permitted unto them to speak
WHAT Was it from YOU that the word of God first went forth or has it come to YOU ONLY

Though the words have not changed, it is much harder now for us to miss what Paul was clearly saying to such false teachers. And I tend to believe Paul's original letters employed a similar means of making his meaning quite clear, a means which was lost, not in translation but in transcription.

The evidence also indicates that 1 Timothy 2:8-15, like 1 Cor. 11:3-10 and 14:34 and 35, were words written by Paul quoting false teachers. In the last verse of 1 Timothy chapter 1 the apostle Paul was explaining to Timothy about Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme." Thus we have reason to believe that in the early part of 1 Timothy chapter 2 Paul was actually refuting some of the teachings of these men. Then in verse 7 Paul pointed out forcefully that, "I am telling the truth, I am not lying - and am a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles." These words of his in verse 7 indicate that he was there contrasting his position as a teacher of truth with the false teachers he had just been discussing and whom he would now quote.

With this in mind, Paul's words in 1 Tim. 2:8 through the end of Chapter 2 can be seen to be a false teaching he was quoting for the purpose of exposing it as such. There Paul wrote, "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

In the very next verse (1 Tim 3:1), in referring to what he was next to write, Paul wrote, "Here is the trustworthy saying." With these words, "Here is the trustworthy saying," Paul clearly indicated, as he did elsewhere when using that same phrase (1 Tim. 1:15; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11), that he had previously been referring to either people or ways of thinking which were not trustworthy.

As mentioned earlier, Paul's scant use of transitional phrases, clearly distinguishing his own teachings from the false teachings he sometimes cited for comment, is largely to blame for the problems we now have in understanding the passages we are here discussing. And Paul's use of such transitional phrases is certainly quite scant in this passage of scripture. Fortunately, however, we here have additional reason to understand that Paul must have here been citing the doctrine of false teachers. What reason is that? We know that Paul could not have here been presenting his own beliefs because he had already shown in 1 Cor. 11:12 that the argument, "Adam was formed first, then Eve," (1 Tim. 2:13) in no way proves that man is superior to woman. For, as Paul there pointed out, "As woman came from man, so also man is born of woman." So, why would Paul present an argument which he himself had previously shown to be flawed? ( 1 Timothy was written after 1 Corinthians ) The evidence shows that he would not and that he did not.

Thus we must conclude that 1 Timothy chapter 2:8-15 contain the false teachings of Hymenaeus and Alexander, and that Paul there quoted their teachings for the purpose of indicating to Timothy that he considered them to be neither "true" nor "trustworthy."

Something which also helps us to identify the teachings recorded in 1 Tim. 2:8-15 as being those of false teachers is the fact that they are full of regulations and restrictions typical of legalistic Jewish-Christian sects which were already beginning to spring up in the first century. Such sects promoted a form of prayer, during which the men only raised their hands, common to the first century Jewish religion. They also promoted a dress code for women but not for men and in effect dictated a women's lifestyle, (leaving more money for the men or contributions for the leaders by eliminating expensive jewelry) all on the pretense that God was being served by such.

As I read the words of 1 Tim. 2:11,12, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent," I recall the movie "Yentyl" with Barbra Streisand. Anyone who saw that film can appreciate the effect such doctrine had and has on women and why Paul would condemn those who promoted it.

These are the passages in the New Testament which are most often criticized for allegedly containing "sexist" thinking. Other passages which are sometimes attacked as being sexist are, I believe, very unfairly criticized. In such passages women are encouraged to be good wives and mothers and are instructed to willingly submit to their husbands at home and in their own personal lives. By doing so it is said Christian wives might be able to help win over their unbelieving husbands and be a good example of Christian humility to all. However, women are never told that they must submit themselves to men within the Church. Wives willingly submitting themselves to their husbands within their homes and women submitting themselves to men in general are two very different things. It should be remembered that Christian slaves were also encouraged to continue willingly submitting themselves to their masters. (Eph.6:5, 1 Pet.2:18) This did not mean that Paul and Peter considered slave masters to be superior to their slaves in any way. Neither does it indicate that Christian slaves were not allowed to hold teaching positions in early Christian congregations. For within the Christian Church Paul said there was "Neither slave nor free." (Gal. 3:28)

Paul's intent in instructing Christian wives to continue submitting themselves to their husbands and Christian slaves to continue submitting themselves to their masters was to cause Christians and Christianity to become well spoken of among the nations. Paul asked Christian wives and Christian slaves to willingly surrender outside of the Church what they were given inside of the Church, full equality with their husbands and their masters. He asked them to do so in order to help spread the good news of Jesus Christ, who, as Paul and the other apostles reminded them, also suffered unjustly for them. (See 1 Pet. 2:18-21)

The scriptures reveal that in the early Church men usually took the lead in most matters, as they still tend to do today. And Paul's letters were written with that fact of life in mind. But this does not mean that women were then or should be today excluded from being appointed as servants in their Churches. This can be seen by reading 1 Tim. 3:8,11. There Paul wrote, "Deacons are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine .... In the same way, their wives (or "deaconesses" as in some manuscripts- see footnote in some Bibles) are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything." This, of course, reminds us of what Paul wrote to the Romans: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (or "deaconess") of the Church which is at Cenchrea." (Romans 16:1)

Some use Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2, where he said that "an overseer must be ... a husband of but one wife," to support their teaching that, though Paul may have permitted women to serve as "deacons" in their congregations, he did not permit them to serve as "elders." To this I say, Bunk! Why? Because it is obvious from their context that Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2 did not exclude women from serving as "elders." How is this fact obvious from that verse's context? Because the context of 1 Tim. 3:2, namely verses 1-7, clearly shows that Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2 were meant to be understood only in a very general way.

We can see this by the fact that he said, "An elder must be ... the husband of one wife." Thus those who say that this verse proves that an "elder" must be a man must also say that an "elder" must be married. However, very few of those who say that this verse proves Paul only permitted men to serve as elders say that it proves that Paul only permitted married men to do so. For those who say that would also have to believe that Paul did not permit widowers to serve as elders. For a widower is not "the husband of one wife." Also to be considered is the fact that Paul said that an elder must have "children who obey him." (verse 4) So, according to the "an elder must be a man, because Paul said they must be husbands" logic, all elders must also have children, but not just any children, children who still live at home. For only such children are required to "obey" their parents. But is it really reasonable to believe that in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 Paul was saying that all elders had to be married men with young children? No, it is not. For to believe this we would also have to believe that Paul required that elders give up their positions in their congregations when and if their wives ever died and when and if their children ever died or grew up and moved out on their own. For then those elders would no longer be "husbands of one wife" and then they would no longer have "children who obey them."

These things show that the only reasonable way to understand 1 Timothy 3:2 is to understand that in that verse Paul was simply indicating that the majority of the time elders were going to be men. Why? Because at the time Paul wrote his letter to Timothy few women had enough education to be "able to teach," which is what elders largely did. (verse2) Also in the first century, before the advent of birth control, disposable diapers, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers and TV dinners, the vast majority of women were far too busy at home to be able to take on the responsibilities of teaching and shepherding a congregation. Because of such things Paul knew that few women in the first century would be able to serve as "elders." However, as I have here shown, Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 no more disqualify women from serving as elders than they disqualify widowers and men without small children from serving as elders.

With these things in mind we have no reason to believe that women were prohibited by Paul from serving as elders in early Christian Churches. The fact of the matter is that, despite the efforts of false teachers to the contrary, we know that women did serve as teachers in first century Christian Churches. For Jesus Jesus Christ Himself told us so. He did so when He instructed His apostle John to write to the Church in Thyatira and chastise them for tolerating the false teachings of a woman named "Jezebel." Though Jesus said that He was displeased with what that woman was teaching, He did not say that He was displeased with the fact that a woman was teaching. That the Church in Thyatira had allowed a woman to hold a teaching position for what was apparently a long time clearly shows that women were allowed to teach in first century Christian Churches. (Rev. 2:18-25) In fact, Paul seems to indicate that there was at least one woman who was even called an apostle. At Romans 16:7 he tells Christians to "greet Andronicus and Junia" who he says were "notable ones among the apostles". The name Junia is feminine (not masculine as many translations would have it). Furthermore, the normal way of reading the Greek would suggest that she was one among those called an "apostle", not just one who was highly respected by them.

The fact that women did at times serve as "elders" (aka "Bishops" or "overseers") in the early Church is also supported by strong historical evidence. Consider the following: An early mosaic in a Roman basilica portrays a female figure titled "Bishop Theodora." A Christian inscription from 2nd or 3rd century Egypt reads: "Artemidoras...fell asleep in the Lord, her mother Paniskianes being an elder (presbytera)." The bishop Diogenes in the 3rd century set up a memorial for Ammion the elder (presbytera, feminine form). A 4th or 5th century epitaph in Sicily refers to Kale the elder (presbytis, also feminine.)

Other passages which are sometimes said to brand Paul as a sexist are Titus 2:3-5 and 1 Tim. 5:11-14.

Titus 2:3-5: "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

These do not appear to me to be sexist remarks. Though I can see that there here exists an opportunity to take offense, if one is looking for such an opportunity.

1 Tim. 5:11-14: "As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander."

The early Church had the custom of financially supporting widows. Here Paul was advising Timothy to no longer put young women who had lost their husbands on the list of widows who would be supported by the congregation. Why did he so advise Timothy? For one thing, when this was done it gave younger widows who were fully capable of supporting themselves too much time on their hands, time which often ended up being used in nonproductive ways. For another thing, Paul felt that many of the younger widows who were unable to support themselves were capable of finding new husbands who would support them, and by so doing they would no longer pose a financial burden to the congregation. Paul could have, and probably would have, made similar comments about young widowers, if young widowers were being supported by their congregations. But they were not. So he did not. With these things in mind, I do not feel it is fair to label these comments by Paul as "sexist."

Some have asked, if this understanding of Paul's words is correct, why do the writings of many of the early "Church Fathers" indicate that they treated women as second class citizens of the Church? The answer to this question is that even during Paul's lifetime false teachers were busy trying to corrupt what Paul taught concerning full equality of the sexes within the body of Christ. By the time the early "Church Fathers" wrote on this subject the thinking of the false teachers who had been so busy promoting sexism in Paul's day had infiltrated most Christian Churches. This should not come as a great surprise. For the fact that a corruption of Christianity would take place after Christ and His apostles left the earth was predicted by both Jesus and Paul. (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43; Acts 20:29,30; 1 Tim. 4:1,2)

I now firmly believe that the man God used to write much of the New Testament did not, as is often alleged, promote sexism. Rather, I am convinced that the apostle Paul was actually a very strong promoter and defender of full equality of the sexes within the Christian Church.
310
How I recently handled JWs at my door
by Christian guy in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.
Christian guy

It sounds like the foolishness of the bible code.

No. The major 400s in the sun and the moon are seen by and pointed out to us by atheistic astronomers in every article they ever write discussing solar eclipses. No atheist has ever said they see any amazing coincidences in "the Bible code."
310
How I recently handled JWs at my door
by Christian guy in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.
Christian guy

Besty,

Yes, but you may want to carefully read all I just wrote on this subject. I said I believe the Bible dates Adam's creation to 4005 BC, but that it does not present Adam as being the first man who ever lived. I also recommended a good book explaining this understanding, Historical Genesis, by Richard fischer.
310
How I recently handled JWs at my door
by Christian guy in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.
Christian guy

Cofty,

I warned you that this was going to be a long story. So long in fact that I will be surprised if anyone here actually reads all of this. But I got myself into this by agreeing to provide evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible to anyone who told me they were sincerely interested in hearing it. So here goes.

If you want to offer evidence that there is a god I for one am sincerely interested in hearing it. .... Being an atheist means that you find the case for god unconvincing. It does not mean you have a closed mind on the subject.

Then I think you might be more of an agnostic than an atheist. But it makes no difference what label we assign you because you tell me you have an open mind when it comes to the question of the existence of God.

I hope you are starting from a position of first accepting reality.

I am.

Once we acknowledge the age of the universe and the evolution of all living things through natural processes.

I do.

Genesis indicates that God seldom intervened in the history of life on Earth. Notice that we are not told that God created vegetation or that God created living creatures. Genesis actually tells us that "the land produced vegetation" and that "the land produced living creatures." (Gen 1:12,24)

If we can accept the fact that there was no Adam and Eve,

The Bible presents Adam and Eve as real people. And I believe they were. But surprisingly, a close study of the Bible reveals that it does not present them as being the first people who ever lived. I believe God merely used Adam and Eve, and orchestrated the events in Eden, to illustrate the unrighteous condition of all mankind. I understand that Genesis chapter one tells us of God's creation of the human race, long before his creation of Adam and Eve, probably by his then beginning to give highly evolved primates eternal spirits.This understanding of Scripture also answers the often asked questions, "Where did Cain get his wife?" and "Who were the people living in the land of Nod, east of Eden, who Cain was afraid might kill him?" ( Gen. 4:13-17) This way of understanding Genesis is fairly well explained by Richard Fischer in his book "Historical Genesis." http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Genesis-Richard-James-Fischer/dp/0761838074

The only place in Scripture Adam is referred to as the "first" man is in 1 Cor.15:45-47. There Adam is called "the first man." But there we also find that Jesus is called "the second man." The context shows that the writer of those words was referring to Adam as the "first" man only in his relative chronological position to Christ. In other words, since Adam came "first" and Christ came "second," Adam came before Christ. The only other place the Bible seems to clearly point to Adam as being the first man in an absolute chronological sense is Acts 17:26 which tells us, in most translations of the Bible, that all nations of men came from "one man." However, several ancient manuscripts do not here contain the words "one man." Rather they contain the words "one blood" or "one stock." For this reason some translations of the Bible, such as the Amplified Bible, do not here contain the words "one man" and instead use the words "one common origin" and "one source." If the human race originated in Africa and from there spread around the the world this reading of Acts 17:26 is an historically accurate statement.

I believe that God directly created Adam and Eve and gave them a beautiful garden home in order to tell a story and to prove a point. If Adam and Eve in paradise, without a problem in the world, were unable to follow one very easy and very simple command from God, what chance do any of us have to live perfectly righteous lives, and by so doing prove ourselves worthy of eternal life? No chance at all. By their actions in Eden Adam and Eve clearly demonstrated that no human being is capable of living a perfectly righteous life. This includes those who lived before Adam and Eve, their contemporaries then living in other parts of the world, as well as all of us who have come after them. And because none of us is without sin, according to the very high standards of a totally righteous God, none of us deserve to live forever. I believe God created Adam and Eve to serve as representatives of the human race. They were our two very best. But even our two best proved themselves unable to pass a very simple test of righteousness. By failing that test Adam and Eve brought God’s condemnation upon the entire human race. For their disobedience demonstrated that all human beings are sinful, and thus the only hope any of us have to ever live forever is to be forgiven of our sins by God and to then be given eternal life by him as an undeserved gift.

The Bible tells us that God now offers this undeserved gift to all who will now accept the death of his son Jesus as payment for their sins. We do not have to be physically descended from Jesus Christ to be considered by God to be "righteous ones." We are considered by God to be righteous ones because of what Christ did on the Cross. Christ's righteousness is credited to all who put their faith in him. Neither do we have to be physically descended from Adam to be considered by God to be sinners. Because Adam's actions clearly demonstrated that human beings are sinful, all of us are considered by God to be such until we put our faith in Christ. “Through the disobedience of the one man, many were constituted sinners. So also through the obedience of one, shall many be constituted righteous.” ( Romans 5:19 – Darby, Phillips, YLT, and other translations.) To “constitute” means “to formally establish something.” Adam's disobedience in Eden "formally established" that human beings are all sinners and that none of us, by our own efforts, will ever be worthy of eternal life. Because we will not be, the only way any of us can ever expect to live forever is if we are given eternal life as a free gift by God. " For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord. " (Rom. 6:23)

Many “conservative” Christians will no doubt offer several objections to this way of understanding the scriptures. I am fully prepared to deal with all of their objections. My understandings of the Scriptures will no doubt also offend “conservative” Christians in several other ways. For instance, I believe that the flood of Noah’s day was not a worldwide flood and that the Bible does not, in fact, tell us that it was. Neither did that flood destroy the entire human race. For archaeologists and anthropologists now assure us that people inhabited all parts of the globe at the time of Noah’s flood, which Bible chronology dates to the year 2350 BC. I also understand some other parts of Genesis, and some other parts the Bible, in ways that would almost certainly offend some "conservative" Christians.

no original sin or fall from perfection.

Agreed.

Once we understand that the bible is hopelessly contradictory

I disagree, though I admit it certainly does appear to be that way in many passages.

and biblical literalism is a failed hypothesis.

Agreed.

Then we may be in a position to make an interesting case for a god that does not require intellectual suicide and the suppression of knowledge.

I believe we are now in that position. As I previously mentioned, I have discovered what I consider to be strong evidence that the God of the Bible created the universe. I found this evidence through a very basic study of astronomy, and a very thorough study of the Bible.

Jesus said, "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars." ( Luke 21:25 ) In this post I will discuss what I believe to be the "signs" he referred to in the sun and moon. I believe these signs personally identify Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe. I will leave discussing the "signs" I believe Christ referred to in the "stars" for a possible later post.

In 2005 a book was published by Watkins Publishing in the UK and distributed in the USA and Canada by Stirling Publishing. It was entitled, "Who Built The Moon?" It was written by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler, both of whom are atheists. http://www.amazon.com/Who-Built-Moon-Christophewwwr-Knight/dp/1842931636 Their book describes at great length many of the moon's specific dimensions, movements, and location, which the authors say clearly indicate that the moon must have been designed, built, and placed into its present orbit by someone possessing great intelligence. They say this because they do not see any other way to account for all of the moon's properties which they say clearly appear to be the result of intelligent design. They say all of the elements of our moon's apparently intelligently designed characteristics cannot possibly be the result of mere chance.

The primary reason they say this is because of what clearly seems to be a numerical message (or messages) which repetitively appears in the moon's dimensions, location, and movements. The primary numerical "message" which they say clearly appears to have been built into the moon in several different ways is the number 400. In their book Knight and Butler point out that the moon is one 400th the size of the sun in diameter. The moon and the sun's most commonly published measurements in miles are 2,160 and 864,000 respectively which equals a ratio of exactly 400.00. http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/1008/1008_feature.html However we do sometimes see the sun's diameter published a tiny bit differently, but not enough to change the moon/sun diameter ratio from 400. Here, for instance, in km those measurements are given as as 3,476 and 1,392,000 which equals a ratio of 400.46. http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/scale.html

Knight and Butler also point out that the moon is always "about 400 times closer to the Earth than the sun." Although this 400 times distance ratio is very seldom exact, and always changing due to the Earth and the moon both having slightly elliptical orbits, it is always close to 400.

The moon and sun's 400 times diameter ratio together with their 400 times distance ratio is what allows us view what has been called "the greatest spectacle in nature," a total eclipse of the sun. When the moon passes in front of the sun, due to their 400 times diameter and distance ratios, Earth's two great sources of light then appear to fit together perfectly in the sky, with the moon covering the sun like a lid fits its own jar, briefly turning daytime into nighttime. http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/1008/1008_feature.html

Few people are fortunate enough to personally be able to witness a total eclipse of the sun, because in order for us to do so from any one spot on planet Earth we will have to wait, “on average, about 400 years.” Though this statistic is sometimes published as both a somewhat smaller and a somewhat larger number. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12000855/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/your-guide-total-solar-eclipse/#.UeF1CNK1GSo http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/1008/1008_feature.html http://www.scribd.com/doc/88615592/Eclipse-Duncan-Steel

Knight and Butler go on to point out that, "the moon is rotating at a rate of 400 km per earth day" compared to the Earth which rotates at 40,000 km per day, "precisely 100 times more".

Though Knight and Butler failed to mention it, I will here add that, according to the World Almanac and many other reference works, “our sun is 400,000 times as bright as the full moon.” Amazingly, this brightness magnitude ratio of four hundred thousand appears to be an exact, or virtually exact, number. It is seldom published as anything other than "400,000." The greatest variance from a ratio of exactly 400,000 that I have seen published is “398,359.” http://www.weegy.com/?ConversationId=9A071UMI

I also find it interesting that our sun's 11 year sunspot cycle is actually referred to by scientists as a cycle of "4,000 days." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1953.tb01074.x/pdf

After carefully examining several of these uncanny lunar related occurrences of the number 400, along with several other of the moon's properties and characteristics which they say clearly indicated to them that our moon must be the product of a highly intelligent designer, Knight and Butler say that they came to the following conclusions:

"1. The moon was engineered by an unknown agency circa 4.6 billion years ago, to act as an incubator to promote intelligent life on Earth.

2. The unknown agency knew that humanoids [with a base ten system of math due to their having extremities with ten digits] would be the result of the evolutionary chain.

3. That unknown agency wanted the resulting humanoids to know what had been done and they left a message indicated by the dynamics of the Moon."

However, due to the fact that both Knight and Butler do not believe in God, let alone the God of the Bible, they could only suggest that this "unknown agency" must have been either visitors from outer space or time travelers from Earth's future. No kidding. Those are the only two suggestions they were able to come up with that they say might explain the origin of the moon's many unmistakable signs of intelligent design. However, they then found themselves totally unable to offer their readers any suggestions as to what message the moon's designer might have meant to convey to us by so often and so prominently incorporating the number 400 into the design and construction of our moon (and I would say sun). They could only say that our moon's designer wanted us to know that intelligent life exists, or once existed, elsewhere in our universe.

Most atheists here will, no doubt, very quickly and somewhat understandably call Knight and Butler "crackpots," and totally dismiss their written work out of hand. For I remember Carl Sagan in a couple of his books saying how some people who are looking for evidence of the supernatural usually have no trouble at all finding it. For they always seem to be able to find their favorite numbers lurking in just about everything. He said that such people always seem to find what they are looking for. And he said this seems to be especially true when it comes to people who are looking for their favorite numbers.

For instance, some say they clearly see some of the Bible's most often used symbolic numbers in the diameters of the sun and moon themselves, not just in their diameters' comparative ratios. The sun's diameter of 864,000 miles is seen by them as 12 X 12 X 6000 miles and the moon's diameter of 2,160 miles is seen by them as 6 X 6 X 60 miles. Even the way we tell time is believed by some to have been designed by God to provide us with numerical signs. Why do they believe this? Because they see those same biblical numbers built into all of our clocks and wrist watches. For our days all contain two 12 hour periods of time, which each contain 60 minutes, which each contain 60 seconds. Some of these same folks also point out that the number of miles in our sun's diameter, 864,000, is same as the number of seconds in 10 days (10 X 24 hours X 60 minutes X 60 seconds = 864,000). I could here mention several other such supposed numerical "signs" from God, which some people see in the sun, moon, and stars, and elsewhere in the world around us.

But I wont. Because I now see nearly all such supposed numerical "signs" from God in the same way that Carl Sagan saw such numbers. I see most of them as simply examples of people "finding what they were looking for." With so many symbolic biblical numbers to choose from, and so many possible combinations of those numbers, almost any number can be seen as being the sum of, or the product of, some combination of biblical numbers.

In their book, Who Built The Moon?, Knight and Butler, as atheists, never spent any time looking for biblical numbers in the moon's design. However, I believe they did sometimes engage in a very similar kind of numerical gymnastics. So I am not here enthusiastically endorsing their book. The authors had many pages to fill, and in my opinion they didn't have enough really good material to fill them with.

But when it comes to the 400 ratios discussed by Knight and Butler, which are clearly seen by all astronomers in the sun and the moon's most often referenced measurements during a total eclipse of the sun, I really believe we have to consider the possibility that these ratios might be the result of more than just coincidence. For if they are merely coincidental, astronomers tell us they amount to "a coincidence unmatched in our solar system." For no other planet in our solar system, even those with multiple moons, has a moon of exactly the right size to perfectly cover the sun as seen from the surface of that planet. Let alone a moon that, while doing so, directs the attention of its most informed observers to a precise three digit multiple of 10, like the number 400. (National Geographic, May 1992)

I believe that, because of the very special and highly unlikely relationship which the Earth, moon, and sun have with the number 400, everyone here who is truly open to the possibility of God's existence should now seriously consider the evidence I will here present for the existence of the God of the Bible.

When I first became aware of the fact that the number 400 can be easily seen in several solar and lunar measurement ratios it took me very little time to guess what message the maker of the sun and moon probably meant to send us by incorporating that number so often into their interrelated designs. That is if their maker was the God of the Bible. For I was someone who had just been studying how the Bible uses the number 400, and the numbers 4 and 40 which are abbreviated forms of that number. And I had just determined that the Bible nearly always uses the numbers 4, 40, and 400 in symbolic reference to Jesus Christ.

For instance: The Bible's creation account tells us that the sun, moon and stars first appeared in Earth's skies on the 4th creative day. And the Bible, which tells the story of Jesus Christ in 4 "gospels", connects this 4th "day" of creation with Jesus Christ by calling him "the light of the world." (Genesis 1:14-19; John 8:12)

Just as 40 days of rain washed away all sin from the land of Noah, Christ's coming was prophesied to be "like showers watering the earth." For, like the rains which cleansed the land of sin in the days of Noah, the Bible tells us that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ now "cleanses us from all sin." (Genesis 6:11-17; Psalms 72:6; 1 John 1:7)

As Moses, who mediated the Old Covenant between God and the Israelites, twice spent 40 days on Mount Sinai, Jesus Christ now acts as the Mediator of the New Covenant which he established between God and Christians. (Exodus 19:3-9; Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15)

As the Israelites wandered aimlessly in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years prior to the time God gave them their promised land, all mankind was lost in a spiritual wilderness before God gave us our promised Savior. (Luke 19:10)

As Saul, who ruled for 40 years, was Israel's first king, Jesus Christ is "the First and the Last" "King" of "the Israel of God." (Revelation 1:17; 1Timothy 6:15; Galatians 6:16)

Long after David Had ruled Israel for 40 years Isaiah prophesied that the promised Savior, Jesus Christ, would "reign on David's throne and over his kingdom." For this reason Jesus was called "the son of David." (Isaiah 9:6,7; Luke 1:32; Matthew 1:1)

Many spiritual connections can be found in the Bible between Solomon, who ruled all Israel for 40 years, and Jesus Christ. Solomon, for instance, built God's Temple in Jerusalem. While Jesus Christ built God's spiritual Temple.(1Kings 6:1-38; Matthew 16:15-18; 1 Corinthians 3:11,16) For this reason, and others, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ is "greater than Solomon." (Matthew 12:42)

The spiritual connection between Jonah, who prophesied that Nineveh would be overthrown in "40 more days,” and Jesus Christ was firmly established by Jesus himself. For he said, “as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish", so Christ would "be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”, after his death and before his resurrection. (Matthew 12:40)

Just before he began His ministry Jesus Christ fasted for 40 days. At the end of those 40 days "He was hungry." And so were those who had been eagerly anticipating the arrival of mankind's long awaited Savior. For their "hunger" had been "for righteousness", a hunger which only Jesus Christ could satisfy, and a righteousness which only Jesus Christ himself could give them. (Matthew 4:2; 5:6; John 6:35; Romans 3:21,22)

One well known example of the Bible's use of the # 400 involves the period of time that Abraham's descendants were "enslaved and oppressed" before being set free from their bondage in Egypt. The Bible tells us that period of time was "400 years." The Bible also tells us that, much like the Israelites, all mankind had once been enslaved and oppressed for a long period of time. However, this slavery and oppression was by sin and death, from which the Bible tells us Jesus Christ came to set us free. We are told Christ did so by buying with his own life both God's forgiveness and immortality for all who will accept him as their Lord. (Genesis 15:13; Matthew 20:28; Luke 4:18; Ephesians 1:7; John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 15:54)

Interestingly, the Bible also tells us that the Israelites' 400 years of oppression and slavery came to an end immediately following a plague in which God took the life of every firstborn son in Egypt. And it also tells us that all mankind was offered freedom from the oppression and slavery of sin and death following the death of God's Firstborn Son, Jesus Christ. (Exodus 11:4,5; Hebrews 11:28; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:5,6)

So, having just studied these things, I knew that the Bible uses the numbers 4, 40, and 400 in connection with things which are strongly connected to Jesus Christ. I also knew that the Bible tells us, while referring to Jesus Christ, that "All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:3) And again, while speaking of Jesus Christ, it tells us that "By him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth." (Col. 1:16) This would of course include both the sun and the moon.

So, since the number 400, and its abbreviated forms 4 and 40, nearly always have a strong connection to Jesus Christ in the Bible, and since the Bible identifies Jesus Christ as the Creator of our sun and moon, I was able to quickly come to a rather simple conclusion. If Jesus Christ did indeed create our sun and moon he probably incorporated the number 400 so often and so prominently into their designs in order to personally identify himself as their Creator. Just as a human artist almost always adds his signature to his artwork in order to identify himself as the creator of that work.

"But why," I asked myself, "would Jesus Christ choose to use the numbers 4, 40 and 400 as some sort of 'signs' which would direct our attention to himself, both in the Scriptures and in the sun and the moon?" One answer immediately occurred to me. It had a lot to do with Bible Chronology. (As an ex-JW, I knew a little bit about Bible chronology. For when I was a JW we often studied the chronological history recorded in the Scriptures in an effort to better understand Bible prophecy and to find possible clues concerning the time of Jesus Christ's return and the coming battle of Armageddon.) The answer that occurred to me was that Jesus Christ may have chosen to use the numbers 4, 40 and 400 as signs directing people's attention to himself because all three of those numbers are abbreviated forms of the number 4,000. And as an ex-JW I knew that Bible chronology seems to tell us that 4,000 is the approximate number of years which passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus Christ. (As a JW I was told that Bible chronology indicates that God created Adam in the year 4026 BC and that Jesus was born in the year 2 BC.) So, I thought that Christ may have chosen the numbers 4, 40 and 400 to serve as signs of himself because they are all "short forms" of the time of Christ's birth, approximately 4,000 years after the creation of Adam.

This thought actually occurred to me very shortly after I had solved a bit of a puzzle. I couldn't figure out why God would have allowed Abraham's descendants to "be persecuted and enslaved for 400 years." For I knew the Bible describes Abraham as God's most faithful servant ever. In fact, among all of God's servants written about in the Bible only Abraham is spoken of so highly. He, and he alone, is there referred to as "the father of all who believe" and "the friend of God." (Rom. 4:11 ; Jas. 2:23 ) So I asked myself, "Why would God have done such a thing to Abraham, or for that matter his descendants?"

I discovered the answer to this question when I read what Paul wrote about Abraham in Galatians 4:22-31. There Paul told us about some of the important events in Abraham's life. In verse 24 he wrote that things that happened in Abraham's life were intended by God to serve as "allegory." ( An a llegory is " a literary device in which characters or events ... represent or symbolize ideas and concepts. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory ) Paul told us that Abraham fathered two sons. The mother of his first son was a slave woman. The mother of his second son was free. He told us that those two women were meant by God to picture God's two covenants with mankind. He said that the Old Covenant, pictured by Hagar, produced children who were slaves to the Jewish Law. And he said that God's New Covenant, pictured by Sarah, produced children who were set free from that set of laws by Christ.

So it is clear that in this prophetic allegory Abraham was meant to picture God himself. For not only did Abraham have children by two women, the first one a slave and the second one free, as God became the Father of spiritual children through two covenants, the first one a covenant that produced children who were slaves to law and the second one a covenant that produced children who were free in Christ. But, as we all know, Abraham also offered the life of his son Isaac in sacrifice, just as God offered the life of his son Jesus in sacrifice. (Gen. 22:1-18; Heb 11:17; John 3:16)

So, understanding that the life of Abraham was meant to serve as a prophetic allegory, and that in that allegory Abraham was meant to picture God himself, I understood why God saw to it that Abraham's descendants, who came to be known as the Israelites, would "be persecuted and enslaved" for a long period of time. (Gen. 15:13) Why? Because God's children, all mankind, would be persecuted and enslaved for an even longer period of time. We would continue to be afflicted by sin and thus remain subjugated to death for all the years that passed, from the time of Adam until the time of Christ.

I also then understood why God specifically chose a period of 400 years for Abraham's descendants to be persecuted and enslaved. As a student of the Scriptures I understood that God used the special relationship he had with the Israelites to represent the special place in his heart which the entire human race had always occupied. Abraham's descendants were Tithe payers. They were people who paid a tenth of all they had to God. ( Lev. 27:30-33 ) With this fact in mind, it made sense to me why God would specifically choose a period of 400 years to have Abraham's descendants persecuted and enslaved. For by doing so, God was illustrating the fact that all mankind would remain afflicted by sin and held in bondage to death for ten times 400 years, for 4,000 years. Those 4,000 years would run from the time of Adam until the time of Christ.

However, as an ex-JW, I immediately saw one problem with this understanding. I remember that JWs had taught me that the Bible's own greatly detailed, chronological, historical record clearly dates God's creation of Adam to the year 4026 BC. And I remembered that JWs had taught me that both history and Scripture clearly point to a 2 BC date for the birth of Jesus Christ.

But when I took a closer look at the way JWs understand Bible chronology I quickly discovered that what they had taught me on this subject matter actually posed no problem for my understanding that exactly 4,000 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Christ. For I soon discovered that JWs base their contention that God created Adam in the year 4026 BC on an incorrect understanding of both the Bible and of ancient history. I found that JWs incorrectly teach that Babylon destroyed the city of Jerusalem in the year 607 BC. Everyone else dates that event to either 587 or 586 BC. I also discovered that most New Testament historians tell us that they believe Jesus Christ was born sometime between the years 6 and 4 BC. And I found that those who preferred one particular year over another usually choose the year 5 BC.

So I substituted the date 586 BC for the JWs' 607 BC date for Jerusalem's destruction and started counting backwards in time following the same set of Bible passages which the JWs use to date Adam's creation. This 21 year difference resulted in a date of 4005 BC for God's creation of Adam. And I then saw that the date of 4005 BC was exactly 4,000 years before the date of 5 BC, which I had found is now most often assigned by New Testament historians to the birth of Christ.

But I then found that I had to deal with another problem, which turned into a much bigger problem, for my understanding that exactly 4,000 years passed between Adam and Christ. I knew that if the JWs are wrong about both the time of Jerusalem's destruction and the time of Christ's birth they might very well be wrong about other matters relating to Bible chronology, matters which would then totally invalidate my hypothesis that exactly 4,000 passed between Adam and Christ, and my belief that the numbers 40 and 400 were so often incorporated into the Bible's historical accounts by God and into his designs of the sun and the moon, in symbolic reference to that 4,000 year period of time. So I knew I had to thoroughly study the rest of the Bible's chronological records, which the JWs and many other students of the Scriptures have long understood as indicating that only about 4,000 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus Christ.

I did this hoping to find no other problems with my new understandings of the Scriptures. For everything now in my mind fit together so neatly. And I knew that I really did not have the time, the energy, or the desire to get involved in any long complicated studies of either the Bible or of ancient history, let alone both. But that is exactly what I ended up very deeply involved in for the last few years. Why? Because I discovered one more very big problem for those who understand that the Bible teaches that a full 4,000 years (or more in the case of the JWs) passed between the creation of Adam and the Birth of Christ.

I found out that such an understanding of Bible chronology has long depended on understanding that the kingdom of Israel was divided into two kingdoms, the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah, 390 years before Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem, an understanding that is entirely based on a highly questionable interpretation of Ezekiel 4: 1-4. I also found out that historians tell us that such an understanding of Ezekiel 4: 1-4 must be an incorrect understanding. They say this because they have found several ancient historical records which all clearly indicate that the kingdom of Israel could not have been divided into two kingdoms anywhere near as early as 390 years before Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem.

390 years before 586 BC was the year 976 BC. But historians tell us that such a date for the division of the kingdom of Israel is at least 40 years too early. In fact the date that is now most often assigned to that event is 931 BC, 45 years years later than the 976 BC date I had been using to date God's creation of Adam to the year 4005 BC. I found that the 931 BC date that is now most often cited as the probable date for the division of the kingdom, was arrived at by Edwin R. Thiele after an exhaustive study of all the Bible has to say on this subject matter, along with all of the related findings of those who have closely examined the historical annals of ancient Israel's and Judah's neighboring nations. Thiele published his findings in a book he very appropriately entitled, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. I found his work to be very impressive. However, I also found that, by his own admission, he was not able to make sense out of several of the Bible's apparently conflicting statements pertaining to when exactly some of Israel's and Judah's kings began and ended their reigns. I also found that in his book Thiele offered no explanation at all as to how he thought Ezekiel 4:1-4, the passage that has long caused many Bible readers to understand that 390 years passed between the division of the kingdom and Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem, should be understood.

After reading Thiele's book, and finding it unsatisfying in several ways, I felt compelled to do what I had earlier told myself I had no time, energy, or desire to do. I plunged into a very long and very complicated study of both the Bible and ancient history. By the end of my study I found what cynics will probably say I was looking for. Because I am now more convinced than I ever was before that the Bible's own chronological, historical record was actually perfectly preserved by God in the Scriptures in order to inform us that exactly 4,000 years passed between God's creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus Christ.

I am now recording the results of my study of the chronological history of the divided kingdom in a book I am now writing. That book is entitled, Forty-Two kings and Two Queens - A New Understanding of the Chronological History of Ancient Israel's Royal Rulers, Reconciling All Notable Sacred and Secular Data. My written work on this subject matter does just as its subtitle indicates. It establishes full harmony between all of its subject's extant witnesses. To begin with, it demonstrates that all biblical (Masoretic Text) chronological information speaks in full agreement. My work then goes on to show that all, and I do mean all, extra-biblical chronological information now in our possession pertaining to this subject matter, both sacred and secular, is not only historically accurate but absolutely necessary for us to accept as such if we are to properly reconstruct the chronological history of the divided kingdom.

When I here refer to "all extra-biblical chronological information," I am referring to all numbers pertaining to all of the Hebrew kings' years of reign and to all synchronisms linking the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah which are found in non-Masoretic Text sacred and secular documents. I am also referring to all synchronisms between the Hebrew kings and the kings of Israel's and Judah's neighboring nations which are contained in their own historical annals. This includes all "variant" chronological information, including that which is contained in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), all which is found in what is commonly referred to as the "Lucianic recension" of the LXX (also called the "Antiochene text"), all which is contained in the LXX Vaticanus, all which is found in the works of Josephus, and all which is found in the Chronicle of Eusebius.

As hard as this may be to believe, my work actually demonstrates that all of this often apparently contradictory information is, in fact, both totally accurate and fully complimentary to the Bible's own chronological information pertaining to this time period.

I am also now working on another book. Its working title is, The Sign of the Son of Man. In it I intend to present in much greater detail the information I have here discussed. I believe that when all of this evidence is fully presented it will be sufficient to convince anyone who is truly willing to believe in the God of the Bible that he must have created our universe. For the same numbers that fill our Bibles, for the purpose of directing our attention to Jesus Christ, can now be easily seen in earth's skies, clearly placed there by Jesus Christ, for the purpose of personally identifying himself as the Creator of everything, "in heaven and on earth." (Col. 1:16)
310
How I recently handled JWs at my door
by Christian guy in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jws stopped by my house a couple weeks ago on a saturday morning.

i knew that with others most likely waiting for them out in the car they probably did not then have much time to engage in any serious conversation.

so i let them talk while i feigned interest in what they had to say.
Christian guy

I tried telling you, you have to be nice to them at the door so they will come back. Then they will have more time to field your already prepared questions. Questions designed to get them thinking, not to provide you with information.

Cofty, I am working on putting together your evidence. I've had to work some long hours this week to pay the bills. Shouldn't be too much longer.