the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
Faithful,
You wrote: Do you go to church? If so where? Are you catholic? I read a few years ago that the pope believes that God put a soul in evolved apes to create humans. So I thought you two might hang out together.
Yup. A nondenominational Christian fellowship. That means I am not Catholic. And I have never met the Pope. He seems like a nice guy though. Snazzy dresser too. I especially like his hats.
the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
Gweedo,
You asked: Do Adam and Eve get a resurrection?
I'll give you my opinion. Because I am the world's foremost authority on my opinion.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Jesus said, "A time is coming when ALL who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out - those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." (John 5:28,29 NIV) Acts 24:15 confirms Christ's words in John 5:28,29 by telling us that "There will be a resurrection of BOTH the righteous and the wicked." And Romans 14:12 says that "EACH of us will give an account of himself to God." We also know that Hebrews 9:27 tells us that "Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." So, even if Adam and Eve were "perfect people," and thus not able to be forgiven for their sins as the Watchtower teaches (which I believe is an incorrect understanding of scripture), teaching that Adam and Eve will not be resurrected makes no sense. For the Bible indicates that God has no intention of letting evil people pass into eternal rest thinking they got away with their evil deeds. The Bible tells us that God intends to bring back all the bad guys from their graves to face God's condemnation for the way they lived their lives. If Adam and Eve were bad guys I think they would have to be included in that group. However, I tend to think they will be among the good guys. I think that when God made clothes for Adam and Eve from animal skins He must have killed some animals to do so.(Gen. 3:21) I think that shedding of blood which then occurred and God's act of covering Adam and Eve with what resulted from the shedding of that blood was meant to picture that Adam and Eve would be covered by what resulted from the shedding of Christ's blood, God's forgiveness for sin.
the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
Alan,
I wrote: The Bible tells us that God will one day bring an end to evil. And it tells us that when He does so, because He is all loving, all knowing and all powerful, He will then bring an end to all evil.
You wrote: Do you have any time frame on this?
As I understand the scriptures, this will take place at the end of Christ's 1,000 year reign over all the earth, a reign which I believe will soon begin. Please don't ask me to define "soon." Though I have my suspicions as to when Christ will return, I have no intention of putting those suspicions in writing. For anyone who has ever done so has only managed to make himself look like a total fool. And since I consider myself to be only a partial fool, I'm not going there.
You wrote: Are you plugging the "lion shall lie down with the lamb" idea? If so, then it appears to me that you're going along with the JW notion of a paradise earth that [will] last forever. What, then, of humans that are born? Do they live forever on earth? Or do they die in human form at some point and then go off to heaven, or wherever? Perhaps if you'd give an overall picture of your views, readers will understand how the bits and pieces we've seen so far fit together into a coherent whole.
I'm not plugging any idea. As you know, there are many different ways of understanding what the Bible has to say about what God has in store for the planet earth, and for the human race. Any of them is just as valid as my own. But since you have asked for my beliefs, I'll give them to you. I will not, however, quote scriptures to try to prove my speculations are correct. For all of the scriptures I could quote to support my present beliefs are understood differently by other Christians. Only time will tell which of the many ways Christians now understand the Bible in these matters is correct, or if they are all incorrect. Maybe I shouldn't do this because I don't want to start an eschatology debate. Because, like I said, I believe anyone's opinion on such matters is as valid as another. But here goes.
I believe that when Christ returns He will first resurrect all who have ever died as one of God's servants. (By "resurrection" I mean Christ acting to awaken their sleeping spirits and then giving those spirits new glorified, immortal, incorruptible bodies in which to dwell.) I believe Christ will then gather His elect who are alive at the time of His return (those He then judges to be true Christians) from all over the earth. I believe Christ will then give those Christians the same kind of glorified bodies He just gave to those who had died as one of God's servants. I believe Christ will then appoint all of these glorified servants of God to act as kings and priests on the earth during His thousand year reign. I believe they will then lead the efforts to bring the good news of Jesus Christ to the approximately 2/3 of the earths population which has now never heard it, and possibly to properly present it to many in the Christian world who have heard only a corrupted version of it. I believe Christ will also ask these glorified king/priests to judge the hearts of "men and angels" who have heard the good news of Jesus Christ but rejected it for one reason or another. Whether they do this judging work at the beginning of Christ's thousand year reign, during that reign, at its end, or all of the above, I have not yet formed an opinion. I believe that, other than the fact that Satan and his fellow fallen angels will not be allowed to have any influence over the earth during this time, life on planet earth will go on in many ways as it always has. ( Lions will continue killing gazelles and spiders will continue killing flies. For I believe "The lion will lie down with the lamb," is simply a biblical metaphor for a peaceful earth.) However, I expect there will be great advances in all the sciences, especially medicine and agriculture, during this time. Add this to the fact that earth will then also have millions (I understand the number "144,000" to be a symbolic number) of new perfectly righteous rulers, and the fact that they will almost certainly act to eliminate all national borders and all weapons of war, and in my mind I see something not too far from the JW view of paradise. I believe that at the end of the millennium Satan and his demons will be allowed to influence the earth again briefly before all who oppose Christ's rule are destroyed. I believe at that time, when the thousand years have ended - not during the thousand years as JWs teach - that the second resurrection will take place. I believe this resurrection will include all who have ever lived and died. I believe that God may then judge all people's hearts knowing how they would have responded to the gospel if they had had it properly presented to them. I believe that all who are then judged favorably will also be given glorified bodies. I believe at that time heaven will descend to earth, in other words heaven and earth will become one. This will amount to "a new heavens and a new earth" which will be entirely new. I believe that a fully glorified human race will then reside with God Himself in a spiritual universe completely free of all evil, all pain, and all unrighteousness forever.
You wrote: It's not clear to me if you think that the physical universe is just a temporary stepping stone to life on a purely "spiritual plane".
I wrote: Yes, I do.
You wrote: Based on what?
My personal interpretation of the scriptures.
You wrote: The process seems to me to be unnecessarily long and complicated.
I wrote: To us, at this tiny moment in eternity, yes it does.
You wrote: Well, I don't consider a billion years a "tiny moment in eternity".
Any period of time, even a billion times a billion years, is a tiny moment in eternity.
You wrote: If God says directly that he will one day resurrect all who have died, then believing this and acting on it is not a presumption. It's taking God at his word. Thus the problem I posed in my earlier post remains: since God will set everything right in the end, what is the point of "morality"?
Even God cannot "set everything right in the end." If you kill someone, even if God later resurrects them, you cause them great physical pain, deprive them of life for a period of time, and cause their loved ones great emotion pain, none of which you have any right to do. If you hurt anyone in any way, you cause them either emotional or physical pain that a later action by God will not retroactively remove. The point to morality is to avoid hurting others in the here and now, which we all live in all the time.
You wrote: The point is that if you argue that God's killing someone directly or allowing them to die via neglect is ok because in the end they'll be resurrected, then no matter what happens, it's all according to God's plan, and so no one should be too bothered by any "crimes" that are committed.
The God who created the universe has the intelligence and the wisdom to always correctly decide when taking a life is justified. You and I do not. For that reason God has forbidden us to do some things which He allows Himself to do.
You wrote: "Is there a moral standard apart from God?"
Yes. I believe that standard is pretty simple. It is immoral to deliberately do anything that may hurt others for our own gain or pleasure. It is also immoral to deliberately do anything that may hurt others while attempting to accomplish "a much greater good," if we have no way of knowing that our actions really will accomplish "a much greater good." Some say that God's moral standard is, "Whatever I do is right." I disagree. I believe God operates by the same moral standard that I just mentioned. The only difference between us and God is that God possesses infinite knowledge, including a knowledge of the future. So what may seem to us to have been an immoral act on His part, I believe, was always done to accomplish a much greater good, while knowing that His action really would accomplish that "much greater good."
I wrote: I believe that at some point during the physical evolution of our species God intervened and gave highly evolved primates the ability to comprehend "spiritual" concepts, such as eternity, morality, justice and God.
You wrote: When, and what hard evidence do you have for this belief?
I believe this probably took place at the time Homo Sapiens appeared on earth, though it may have happened sooner. I forget now what I read a while back about when scientists believe that manlike creatures first began burying their dead together with flowers, which has been interpreted by some as indicating their belief in an afterlife. I have no real hard evidence to support my beliefs.
I wrote: I believe He also then began giving them eternal spirits. I believe these were the creative acts spoken of in Gen. 1:27.
You wrote: I see. Since you believe that "Bible chronology" pegs Noah's Flood at 2350 B.C., do you also feel that Adam & Eve were created in this manner somewhere around 6000 years ago? Please elaborate.
I believe Adam and Eve were created in the year 4005 B.C. As you may recall, I believe that all the 40s and 400s in the Bible were meant to point to the fact that exactly 4,000 years would pass between the creation of Adam and the birth of Christ. However, I believe Adam and Eve were created in exactly the way Genesis describes their creations. I believe Adam was not "the first man" in an absolute chronological sense. I believe God created Adam and Eve to serve as representatives of the human race and then orchestrated all of the events in Eden to illustrate several important lessons. I believe that when God created Adam from the earth He was illustrating the fact that He had previously created the human race from already existing organic materials, i.e. highly evolved primates. I believe that when God breathed into Adam the breath of life (a Hebrew word which is also translated as "spirit") He was illustrating the fact that He had at a much earlier time began giving eternal spirits to all members of the human race.
I wrote: I believe that from that time on the spirits of all humans who died went "in cold storage until the resurrection," as you say.
You wrote: Please do elaborate. Are you saying that when a human is born (or conceived, or whatever) God creates a "spirit" and somehow attaches it to the physical body? Where do you find justification for these beliefs? Any specific Bible statements? Or are they deductions?
They are mainly deductions. Though I have already presented you with biblical evidence that all humans possess spirits "which return to God who gave them" to us.
You wrote: This entire scene [the Bible's story of Saul contacting the departed spirit of Samuel through a spirit medium - 1 Sam. 28] seems to me to be pure hocus pocus. We have some wild-eyed ancient "witch" going through some motions that "bring up" Samuel. Just how does this "bringing up" work? Who brings it up? Who "awakens" it? Does this happen on command by any human? Or only witches and necromancers?
It was Saul who decided to go to the witch of Endor to try to contact the recently deceased Samuel. He did so even though attempting to contact the dead in such a way was forbidden in the Mosaic Law. I do not believe it is normally possible to speak with the dead in such a way. I believe the Jewish Law forbid attempting to do so because those who attempt to communicate with the dead normally end up contacting conscious spirits, i.e. demons, rather than unconscious ones, i.e. the departed spirits of people. However, I believe in this one possibly very unique instance God allowed someone with the aid of a necromancer to successfully awaken the spirit of a departed human. It seems God did so in order to have the departed spirit of Samuel condemn Saul for his recent actions, by prophesying his death as well as that of his sons the next day in battle.
You wrote: If the "awakened spirit" can speak and think, and has the full memories and personality of the "dead" human to which it was once attached, then the concept of a "resurrection from the dead" takes on a rather different meaning than appears to be the case in many parts of the Bible. For example, when Lazarus died, his "spirit" would have gone into "cold storage" for a short time, and then been "called back" and reattached to a rejuventated physical body, right? How strange that sounds.
I believe "resurrection" occurs when a dead person's spirit is permanently united with a new body of some sort. In the case of Samuel, evidently God allowed his spirit to temporarily inhabit and speak through the body of the witch of Endor. I believe our departed spirits remain unconscious until they are put into a body, much like a piece of computer software remains "inanimate" until it is "animated" by a computer's hardware.
You wrote: And in the end, when all these "spirits" are "resurrected" to a "spiritual plane", just what does that mean? And how do you derive all this from the Bible?
Alan, I could go on and on telling you what I think is probably the case and giving you some verses in scripture which I think may indicate I am on the right track. But what would be the point? The fact of the matter is that the Bible does not provide clear answers to many such questions.
You wrote: Your answer ["I would do whatever God told me to do."] is behind a great deal of evil done in the name of God, Allah or whatever, by those who truly think that God has told them to do something. ... . The results of this philosophy include aberrations in the Jehovah's Witness religion such as causing people to die over the blood transfusion issue, mass killings of Jews and Protestants by various Catholic Inquisitors, burnings of "witches", and even the mass terrorism of an Osama bin Laden engaged in jihad. ...The sad thing is that it all stems from a willingness to obey God, or whoever one believes speaks for God, over and above doing what one otherwise knows is right.
I guess the answer to that is that no one should ever do something that seems wrong to them, even if they think God wants them to do it. For, as I pointed out earlier, no one can ever really be sure that it is "God" who is telling them to do something. After all, as the scriptures tell us, "Satan often appears as an angel of light." But we do know for certain that God has given us our consciences. That being the case, I think we would all do well to always follow them, rather than anyone's possibly mistaken interpretation of the scriptures, or even any "Godly" voice which may pop in our head or "heavenly" vision that may appear to us. If by chance that voice or vision telling us to do something that does not seem right to us really does turn out to be God, I'm sure He will understand that we chose to follow our God given consciences instead.
the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
Alan,
I added an additional paragraph to my last post to you at about the same time you just added your latest post to this thread. I will try to respond late tonight. I've got to go to work right now for a few hours.
the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
Clash,
I believe I already answered most of your questions in my other posts. There are a few reasons I don't respond to your posts. To begin with, it appears to me that your reading comprehension skills are not the best. For instance, you confused what I said about Eden's "Tree of Life" with its "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." On top of that, your grammar, sentence structure and spelling are all so bad that I sometimes have a hard time understanding what you are saying. Since you find it difficult to understand what I am saying and I find it difficult to understand what you are saying there seems to be little point in us trying to communicate.
Besides, I have little time to spend on this board. And I think my time would be better spent talking to someone who has not yet accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord. You believe in a young earth, a global flood, and that God did not use evolution as His means of creation. I believe otherwise. However, though I believe your understandings on these things are in error, I see little point in trying to convince you of the error of your ways. For I do not believe that God requires Christians to understand all parts of the Bible correctly, or even that He requires us to all understand all parts of the Bible in exactly the same way. That being the case, I see little reason to try to make you understand Genesis exactly as I do.
I believe you now have salvation through Jesus Christ since you have faith in the power of His sacrificial death to atone for your sins. So I don't worry about you, Clash. I hope you had a great Christmas.
the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
Alan,
You wrote: If I, as the parent of a small child, don't make sure that my child is safe from dangers that are very clear to me, then it inevitably follows that I don't care whether the child gets hurt, in the sense that if I did care, I would ensure that he is safe. This is simply a tautology. There's an even more obvious tautology in my example of God creating life as he has. Here we have God not simply allowing pain and suffering to happen, but actually designing his world so that it happens.
Some people feel that the existence of evil, for any length of time, is impossible to harmonize with the existence of a loving God. They say that the instant any evil appeared in a good God's universe He would have to immediately put an end to it. However, I believe God allows evil to exist, and actually designed our world with evil as a very important part of it, so that we may come to know both good and evil. I believe this first hand knowledge of both good and evil will serve all people well for all eternity, long after all evil has been removed from the universe. By God having designed a world where all people are certain to gain a first hand knowledge of evil, and more importantly the harmful effects of evil, all who choose to serve God will gain an understanding of why God's ways are the best ways, an understanding that will serve them well for all eternity.
Possibly you see some sense in this. Some of those who do say that, even if God desired his children to be temporarily exposed to evil as a learning experience, a good God could never allow so much evil to exist. They say a good God would certainly severely limit the pain and suffering that He allowed His children to endure as a result of the evil He allowed to temporarily exist. They look at the great suffering many people throughout history have endured and ask, "Wouldn't a loving God, if He existed, have stepped in and limited the amount of evil, pain and suffering these people had to endure? I believe questions such as this actually get to the heart of the problem of God permitting evil.
Let me ask you this. If a good God does exist, would you really believe He exists if you saw less evil in the world, if you saw people suffering less? I doubt it. For you know as well as I do that an all loving God, once He decided to stop evil, would have to stop all evil. If He were to stop only part of the evil, then wouldn't you still be asking the question, "If an all loving God exists, why is there evil in the world?" Would you really be any more likely to accept the existence of the God of the Bible if He stopped all pain caused by "natural causes," diseases, earthquakes and the like, but allowed people to continue hurting each other? I doubt it. For a perfectly righteous God, once He decided to bring about an end to evil, would have to bring about an end to all evil. He could not end all "natural" forms of evil but allow people to continue to murder each other. He could not prevent all murder but continue to permit beatings and rapes. He could not stop all beatings and rapes but continue to allow all robberies, cheating and adultery.
I think you get my point. Some maintain that any amount of pain or unrighteousness in the universe proves there is no God. However, I maintain that it has actually been by God's purpose that pain, death and evil have long existed in order for all of us to learn valuable lessons while being exposed to them. And because God is all loving, all knowing and all powerful, He cannot stop only some evil. The Bible tells us that God will one day bring an end to evil. And it tells us that when He does so, because He is all loving, all knowing and all powerful, He will then bring an end to all evil.
You wrote: It's not clear to me if you think that the physical universe is just a temporary stepping stone to life on a purely "spiritual plane".
Yes, I do.
You wrote: The process seems to me to be unnecessarily long and complicated.
To us, at this tiny moment in eternity, yes it does.
You wrote: You're speculating that God deliberately designed a world in which pain and suffering was an integral part for more than half a billion years? To what end? For what observers?
I believe there are many events which God arranged to take place in the past, including many events which are recorded in the scriptures, for the purpose of teaching mankind great lessons, many of which we will probably not understand for a long, long time.
You wrote: I hope you refrained from answering many of my questions because of lack of time.
I hope to find time to answer all of your questions as best I can. As I'm sure you know, this has been a very busy week for most of us.
You wrote: If God says directly that he will one day resurrect all who have died, then believing this and acting on it is not a presumption. It's taking God at his word. Thus the problem I posed in my earlier post remains: since God will set everything right in the end, what is the point of "morality"?
Is it OK to steal someone's car if you know that his insurance company is going to pay him for his loss? No, it is not. It is wrong to force someone else to fix our mistakes, even if we know that they will.
You wrote: If humans are actually some sort of combination of a physical body plus a "soul" or "spirit", then what is the point of your overall scenario where for perhaps several million years, early humans were born, somehow attached to this "spirit" thingy, then died, and then the "spirit" thingy put in cold storage until resurrection? Perhaps if you give an overall picture of your views on the "evolution of man" from apish forebears to the ultimate form, that would help. Just how do all the individuals who have ever lived fit in?
I don't understand why my beliefs about early humans poses a problem. As I have said before, I believe that at some point during the physical evolution of our species God intervened and gave highly evolved primates the ability to comprehend "spiritual" concepts, such as eternity, morality, justice and God. I believe He also then began giving them eternal spirits. I believe these were the creative acts spoken of in Gen. 1:27. I believe that from that time on the spirits of all humans who died went "in cold storage until the resurrection," as you say.
You wrote: Just answer the question. If God ordered you to kill your family and neighbors, would you do it? ... Inherent in my question is the supposition that you know for certain that God is doing the ordering.
Though I have tried my best to do so, I guess you are not going to let me avoid answering this question. I have said that I am absolutely sure that my God would never ask me to do such a thing. I have said that I am so sure of it, that I would not believe any such order was really coming from God. However, as you correctly pointed out, Abraham had good reason to feel the same way when God ordered him to kill his son. But somehow Abraham became convinced that it was, in fact, God giving him the order. So, if Abraham could become convinced, then I guess so could I. And the Bible tells us what happened when Abraham became convinced that God was giving him that order. "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, 'It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.' " (Heb. 11:17, 18)
So then, with Abraham as my example, I will finally answer your question. If God ordered me to kill my family and neighbors, and I knew for certain that it was God doing the ordering, I would try my best to do so. And I would do so for the same reason that Abraham did so. "Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead." (Heb. 11:19)
The sentiment I just expressed reflected what is, of course, the technically correct response to your question for a servant of God who recognizes Abraham as an outstanding example of a true man of faith. However, the vast majority of Christians including myself do not possess the kind of faith that Abraham did. Because we do not, the vast majority of Christians, including myself, would not be able to do what Abraham did. I believe God understands this fact. And just as He forgave Peter for denying Christ three times, I believe He would forgive the vast majority of Christians, including myself, if we lacked the faith necessary to obey such a command.
the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
DW,
You wrote: If this is true and sin didn't come from one man Adam but was already with the human race, then why did Christ have do die as a ransom?
Advocates of "The Fall" doctrine say that Adam must have literally been the first man. Because if he was not, then we are not all Adam's descendants. And if we are not, then we could not all have inherited Adam's "fallen," "sinful" nature. And if we did not, then they say, we do not all need God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ, as the Bible tells us we all do. (Romans 3:23,24; 1 John 2:2)
However, the Bible also clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10)
And the Scriptures say that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
I do not believe the Bible teaches that mankind "fell." Rather, I believe it tells us that God originally created the human race as free people. Free to do both right and wrong. In the exact same way we are free to do so today. Unfortunately we often choose to do what is wrong rather than what is right. God, however, cannot do wrong. For God is "Incorruptible." (Romans 1:23) So, because we can and often do behave unrighteously, and because God cannot and never does behave unrighteously, we are less righteous than God. And, because "all unrighteousness is sin" we are all born "sinful". (1 John 5:17, New American Standard Bible; Psalms 51:5)
Being able to do wrong, Adam was, from his very beginning, also less righteous than God. And he later proved his "sinful" condition by his behavior. Because Adam in paradise could not manage to obey one simple command from God, he clearly demonstrated that he and the entire human race, including those who had lived before him and those who would live after him, were far less righteous than God.
So, with these things in mind, Paul accurately referred to Adam when he wrote, "By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) This is true because Adam's disobedience demonstrated that the entire human race was not only capable of doing wrong but incapable of not doing wrong. So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to retroactively condemn the entire human race as being deserving of the deaths they had been suffering, and undeserving of eternal life, a gift God had not yet given to any human being.
So, if mankind did not "fall," what did happen in Eden? I believe those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" also basically misunderstand the events which transpired in Eden.
The Genesis account clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created mortal with a dying nature just like us. The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life." (Genesis 2:9) Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to continue to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life."
Genesis indicates that had Adam and Eve been allowed to continue eating from "the tree of life" their lives would have been prolonged indefinitely. (Genesis 3:22-24) But when God prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life" they died what were apparently natural deaths. A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.
Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life." I believe that "tree of life" was meant to picture Jesus Christ.
For, as we have seen, God was going to give Adam and Eve eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life," only if they passed a very simple test. And the Bible tells us that we will be given eternal life from an outside source, Jesus Christ, only if we pass a very simple test. That test is to simply believe in our hearts that Christ's death was sufficient payment to buy every human being God's full forgiveness, forgiveness for both our sinful nature and our sinful acts.
Jesus Christ's sacrificial death, "the ransom," did not pay the price for just Adam's sin. It paid the price for "the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2) The Bible tells us that God allowed his only begotten son to pay for the unrighteousness of billions of human beings with his own life. How could God consider only one death, a death which only lasted from Friday afternoon until the following Sunday morning, to have equal or greater value than many billions of human deaths, deaths which would last forever? He could do so because he considered the three days of life which his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, gave up to be more valuable than many billions of eternal human lives. Why? Because God knew that Jesus Christ was far more than a human being. God also knew that Jesus Christ was far more than "a perfect human being," or "Adam's equal" as some cults like to call him in their explanation of "the ransom." God knew that Jesus Christ, as his only begotten son, was also God. And because Jesus Christ was God, his father considered his death, and his three lost days of life which followed his death, to be worth far more than many billions of eternal human lives.
the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
Alan,
You wrote: How can you argue that it's fine for God to do exactly the same thing he condemns humans for doing?
God is the Father of the human race. Much like any parent, God is allowed to make rules for his children which he himself does not have to follow. A parent may tell his small children that they are not allowed to cross the street but a parent is not being hypocritical for crossing the street himself. Parents decide what is right and wrong for their children and cannot be accused of behaving unrighteously if they themselves do not always follow all of the rules they give to their children.
Parents can rightly tell their children that they are not allowed to make unauthorized long distance phone calls, even though the parents themselves occasionally make long distance phone calls. Why? Because the parents believe their children do not have the wisdom to decide when such expensive phone calls are necessary, do not have the ability to pay for the calls, and do not have the right to presume that their parents will pay for their unauthorized calls, even though those children have heard their parents say that they always pay their phone bills. God can rightly tell us that we are not allowed to kill people, even though He Himself has done so. Why? Because God knows we do not have the wisdom to decide when such acts are justified, do not have the ability to resurrect the dead, and do not have the right to presume God will resurrect the people we kill, even though we know God has said He will one day resurrect all who have died.
You wrote: The resurrection is a very nice idea that, when you carefully examine its mechanism, creates more problems than it solves. The basic problem is this: for a person to be resurrected, there must be continuity of physical existence from the original person to the resurrected one. ... According to what I clearly understand the Bible to say, when a person dies he is unconscious, perhaps even completely out of existence. ... What scriptures can you find that clearly indicate a continuity of physical existence?
Come on, Alan, that is JW theology. It is not biblical theology. The Bible teaches that everyone has a "spirit" or "soul" within them which survives the death of their body and "returns to God who gave it" at the time of their death. (Ecl. 12:6,7) If this is not the case then Jesus' words recorded in Matthew 10:28 make no sense. There we find that Jesus said, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." If we are, in effect, nothing but bodies, as JWs teach, and if no part of us survives our deaths, as JWs also teach, then those who kill our bodies do, in fact, kill our souls. But as I said, the scriptures indicate otherwise. For instance, Luke 23:46 tells us that just before breathing his last breath, "Jesus called out with a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.' " And Acts 7:59 tells us that "While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' " Do you really think that when Jesus and Stephen spoke the words they did that they thought no part of them was going to survive the death of their bodies?
You may also want to read 1 Samuel 28:7-20 without wearing JW glasses. There we find that after the death of Samuel, Saul consulted a spirit medium in order to seek Samuel's advise. This passage of scripture clearly indicates that Saul's attempt to contact Samuel in this way, following Samuel's death, was successful. Verse 15 tells us what the departed "Samuel said to Saul." Verse 16 also tells us what "Samuel said" at the time. Verse 20 tells us that, following their conversation, Saul was "filled with fear because of Samuel's words." JWs say this must have been a demon impersonating Samuel. But this passage of scripture says nothing of the sort. Rather, it repeatedly tells us that "Samuel" himself was the one who was then speaking to Saul. For reasons which are quite clear to anyone who reads this entire passage and its larger context, God allowed Saul to successfully communicate with Samuel's "soul" or "spirit" following Samuel's death. Saul could not have done so if no part of Samuel had survived his death.
The scriptures indicate that our "souls" or "spirits" normally "sleep" following our deaths, prior to the time we are resurrected. (Acts 7:60; 1 Thes. 4:14,15) Thus we can understand Samuel's comment to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" (1 Sam. 28:15) JWs love to quote a verse which says that "the dead are conscious of nothing at all." (Ecl. 9:5) But there is a big difference between a person being "asleep" or unconscious and a person being nonexistent, as JWs say all who have died are. As I think I have shown, the scriptures indicate that JWs are wrong about this, and that there is, in fact, continuity of physical existence from the original person to the resurrected one.
You wrote: Tell me, aChristian, if God directly told you to kill your family, would you do it?
I answered: I am convinced beyond all doubt that God would never tell me to do such things. ... Thus, if anyone ever ordered me to kill my family or my neighbors there is nothing the person or entity who was giving me such instructions could do to convince me they were God.
You responded: This is much like asking a Jehovah's Witness, "What would you do if the Society told you to start worshiping Jesus rather than God?"
Your analogy is incorrect. The fallacy of it is that no JW could say, "There is nothing anyone could ever do to convince me that such instructions actually came from the Society." For such instructions would only have to be printed in Watchtower Society publications and read from the platform at the Kingdom Hall and all JWs would know the Society had changed their teaching on this matter, in exactly the same way that all JWs have become convinced that the Society has changed their teachings on other matters.
Since your analogy was incorrect, and you cannot show that my response to your question was inaccurate, it remains. "If anyone ever ordered me to kill my family or my neighbors there is nothing the person or entity who was giving me such instructions could do to convince me they were God."
You wrote: Are you certain that those ancient commands will never be repeated?
Yes, I am.
the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
Gambler,
I couldn't help but laugh when I read your post. The fun you poked at me was, well ... quite funny. Thanks for the humor. You made my Christmas Day a bit merrier.
In your light hearted way you wrote: I am very confused as to what you belive from your insane babalings.Let me get this straight, You belive adam and eve came from homo erectis and that all that junk about eve coming from a rib must be a metaphor about evaloution.
The above spelling, of course, was your own. : ) I'm not picking on you. I enjoyed it. It actually made your post even more humorous. Anyway, it sounds as if you may actually be interested in knowing what I believe about the story of Adam and Eve, since I have already said that I believe God used evolution to create all life on earth including the human race. And it sounds like you may be wondering how I manage to decide which parts of the Bible are to be understood as actual historical accounts and which parts should be understood as simply fictional stories meant to be understood metaphorically or allegorically.
My position is simple. I do not believe the Bible contains any fictional stories. I believe all of the Bible's stories, including its stories of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood, actually happened just as the Bible tells us they did. However, I believe God often staged various historical events to serve as lessons for us all.
The apostle Paul understood this to be the case. For concerning the Bible's story of Abraham, whom the Jewish people certainly believed was an actual historical figure, Paul wrote, "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother." (Gal. 4:24-26)
I believe that the Bible tells us of God's creation of the human race in Gen.1:26-30. I believe that the Bible tells us of God's later creation of Adam and Eve in Gen. 2:4-3:24.
I believe that God "created" the human race when He began giving highly evolved primates the ability to comprehend various "spiritual" concepts and, more importantly, when He began giving them eternal spirits. I believe these were the creative acts spoken of in Gen. 1:27.
I believe Adam and Eve were individually created by God, just as Genesis tells us they were, many thousands of years after God created the human race to serve as representatives of their race for the purpose of illustrating some important lessons. The first lesson I believe God used Adam and Eve to teach us was that all human beings are less righteous than God. And because we all are less righteous than God, none of us is deserving of eternal life.
The story of Adam and Eve also illustrated the fact that because we are always less righteous than God we are always in need of His forgiveness even when we have not recently committed any "sinful" act. I believe this lesson was illustrated by Adam and Eve being totally unaware of their nakedness before God until after they had committed a blatant act of disobedience. (Nakedness is a condition always portrayed as shameful in the scriptures.) Then, suddenly, after they had "sinned" they became aware of their nakedness and felt the need to "hide from God." Just as we often only become aware of our shameful condition before God after committing some "sinful act." And just as we then often feel ashamed of ourselves and try to hide from God by withdrawing from Him by not praying or by not attending Church, etc., until we finally get over our guilt. However, the fact is, we are no more worthy to stand in the presence of a perfect God before committing a "sinful act" than we are after doing so. Just as Adam and Eve were, in reality, just as naked before they disobeyed God as they were after doing so. They just didn't realize it.
This understanding, that the Bible does not portray Adam as the first man in an absolute chronological sense, also answers the often asked questions, "Where did Cain get his wife?" and "Who were the people living in the land 'east of Eden' whom Cain was afraid might kill him?" (Gen. 4:14-17)
By the way, 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.
Some may object to this understanding, pointing out that Genesis 3:20 tells us "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all living." However, a careful reading of Genesis 3's context shows us that Adam did so only after God prophesied that He would raise up a Savior and that He would count that Savior as Eve's descendent. (Genesis 3:15) Since everyone given eternal life by God will call that Savior their "Eternal Father" ( Isaiah 9:6 ), Adam could truly say that Eve "would become the mother of all living." For she was the one God said would be counted as the original human ancestor of that promised Savior and "Eternal Father."
Some may also point out that their Bible tells them that God "made from one man every nation of men." (Acts 17:26) However, the words "one man" do not appear in Acts 17:26 in any ancient Bible manuscript. Most ancient manuscripts simply say that God "made from one every nation of Men." Other ancient Greek manuscripts, from which this portion of the Bible is translated, tell us that God "made from one blood every nation of men." For this reason The Amplified Bible here reads God "made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations of men." The New English Bible translates this verse to tell us that God created every race of men from "one stock." So, Acts 17:26 can only be used to confirm that all people on earth are descended from ancestors who came from the same gene pool, and that all people on earth have the same original source of origin, a teaching which fully agrees with the findings of modern science. This verse does not say, in any Greek manuscript, that mankind's common origin was one man.
Most other objections to this understanding of Scripture come from those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind. This doctrine is based on what I believe is are misunderstandings of the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1 Corinthians 15:21,22.
That should be enough to thoroughly confuse you for now. : )
the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
Larc,
The reason I pointed out that I believe the flood was local is that such an understanding immediately eliminates many of the problems which a global flood presents. For such an understanding maintains that Noah would have then brought only representative samples of animals from his land, not "hundreds of thousands of species requiring large amounts food." So far as how, Noah and his three sons could have built such a large ark, I suspect that with what may have been 120 years given to them to do so (Gen. 6:3), they would have been able to accomplish the task, especially with their ability to hire some help.
