new and confused

by michaelcabral 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • michaelcabral

    I am stuck on Amos 4:11, Jehovah said he will destroy the way God destroyed Sodom and Gamorah, is this a misprint?

  • Magnum

    What exactly is it that's confusing you?

    Is it that Jehovah refers to "God" as if "God" is a separate entity from Jehovah? If that's your question, then I think the answer is that that's not what it means. It's just one of those weird language things.

    I think it's actually past tense, not future as you show it. I think God was saying something like "look, guys, I punished you the way I did Sodom and Gomorrah, but that didn't even make you come to your senses; you didn't repent."

    What bothers me is vs 10, which indicates (according a lot of translations) that Jah killed (or had killed) innocent horses; I just don't get that.

    Also, the new "generation" teaching (Mt 24:34) really bothers me. It just doesn't seem right. How do you feel about it? Are you aware of the previous teachings on that subject?

  • ttdtt

    Magnum - the horses I know! - that's why he had to REVISE the 10 commandments.

    He forgot he LOVES Animal Cruelty!

    26 “The best of the first ripe fruits of your soil you are to bring to the house of Jehovah your God.s
    “You must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”t27 Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “You are to write down these words,u because in accordance with these words, I am making a covenant with you and with Israel.”v

  • Steel

    Between the old and new testament there is a 450 year period called the intertestamental period where god spoke to no one. There are a number of Jewish writing debating these odd passages in the old testament. How does god speak to speak? do we have one god or two gods etc etc. Strict monolistic Jews were not very comfortable with some of the passages in the scrolls because it made them look like pagans.

    The general idea after the new testament was written was the visible manifestions of god in the old testament were actually Jesus Christ.

    I can't put a neat little bow around it but when John wrote the word was god, that' what he meant.

  • stan livedeath
    stan livedeath

    i think jehovah is much better at destroying things than he is in creating them.

    hes planning a really big destroy fest any day now.

  • michaelcabral

    Magnum, if it is a weird language thing, do you think it may be possible Jehovah wasn't against gay men, maybe he was against rapists?

  • Magnum

    I think others on this board are more qualified than I am to answer that question. Are you gay or perhaps feeling a leaning in that direction and maybe are worried because you don't want to displease God or be destroyed? Or, perhaps are you worried about others who are gay, being concerned about their status in the eyes of God?

    I just wonder whether you ask that because you're concerned about yourself or others. If so, I feel for you. Also, If so, maybe others on here can give you some direction.

    If you're asking simply because you wonder about it as a Biblical doctrinal issue, then, again, I have to say there are others on here who are more knowledgeable than I am about certain Biblical passages. Maybe they can try to answer your question.

  • cofty

    Hello Michael, welcome to the forum.

    Why do you care what the bible says about homosexuality?

    The bible says slavery is a okay. We know that it isn't. The moral opinions of Iron Age goat-herders is not really relevant is it?

  • scratchme1010
    I am stuck on Amos 4:11, Jehovah said he will destroy the way God destroyed Sodom and Gamorah, is this a misprint?

    Yes. The entire bible is a misprint.

    That said, I wonder what your specific concern is. I can't care less about anybody's sexual orientation (other than mine and my husband's), so my concern is more about why that particular piece of information of the bible seems to bother you. Also, if you think about the actual action of the Jehovah in that book, doesn't seem like the action of the same god who claims to be all love.

  • michaelcabral

    I'm am saying if it is a weird translation thing, how do we know the whole book isn't being translated correctly? It could be slavery was not cool, gay was fine but rape wasn't, etc.

Share this