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.
Six,
Thank you for the kind words.
By the way, when you researched the Bible and found no "intelligent arguments for it coming from a supernatural source," do you think that your research might have been incomplete? In other words, do you think it is possible that some Bible believers who were previously skeptics, like myself, might have become believers only after considering "intelligent arguments" which you have not yet considered?
Just wondering.
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 was perfectly content to let this whole "flood" thread sink into oblivion. I don't know what more there is to be said on the subject. Then Clash drags it up just for the purpose of calling me a liar. Believe me, I was really tempted just to let it go. I guess I should have. I'm sure anyone who read his dumb accusation would have considered the source. He is presently baiting me into entering another thread he has started. I have not entered it and I have no intention of doing so. As you say, there is no point.
Clash,
You wrote: aChristian doesn't from his post believe in a historic Jesus that bible believing evangelicals talk about.
Will you please stop your attacks? I believe in Christ's virgin birth. I believe in Christ's miracles. I believe in Christ's sacrificial death. I believe in Christ's resurrection and in His ascension to heaven. I have never said anything to the contrary. Now, please leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.
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,
You call me a "liar" because I said the following: Hebrew lexicons tell us that "yom" had "several meanings," including "a period of time of unspecified duration." (see Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, 1985, pg. 54)
Why do you call me a liar? Because you tell us that you have not found those words on "pg 270" of your "1981" edition of "Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament."
Now that makes a lot of sense, Clash. Sometimes I actually wonder if you are for real or just putting us all on in an attempt to make Christians, or at least "fundamentalist" Christians, look stupid.
But just in case you are serious, I've got to ask you, do you really think I made up that reference? I have the book I quoted from right here in front of me, opened to page 54, and I'm now looking right at the words I quoted. Of course, I could be lying again, couldn't I Clash? So let's forget about my book. OK, Clash? Do you even realize that part of what you just cut and pasted says basically the same thing? Do you even read what you post?
You just posted the following: From vol. 2 pg. 420, speaking of the Hebrew word yom [quote]”as a measurement of time the term (yom) has three principal uses. (a) Its primary meaning is the time of daylight as distinct from the period of darkness ... (b) The term is also used for day in the sense of the complete cycle that includes both daytime and nighttime ...(c) The term day is also used in a variety of extended meanings, for instance, to indicate one’s lifetime.
"A VARIETY OF EXTENDED MEANINGS." I'll translate your own post for you, Clash. That means that the Hebrew word, "yom," which is translated into English as "day," the word Moses used repeatedly in Genesis chapter one, often means something other than a 24 hour day.
Clash, will you please stop this nonsense? Don't you realize how bad you make yourself look when you constantly call everyone who disagrees with you nasty names?
my (favorite)uncle(bud) was shot eight times at almost point blank range by the pennsylvania highway patrol officers.. he is my uncle from my fathers side there were four brothers alive when i was young, and ever single one seem to be fearless.. they did pretty much as they pleased and got away with alot.
none of them to my recollection seem to fear death(at least never showed it).. i remember picking out buckshot from my father's hand that my uncle bud(as we called him his real name was the same as my grandfather elmer).. my uncle roger was in the rodeo and was also a blacksmith.
one time he lassoed my cousin and myself when he was drunk and gave us rope burns around our neck.
DW,
How long were you a JW? How long an elder? What caused you to leave the JWs? Just curious.
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 have no intention of responding to any more of your posts. I might if you treated me and others here kindly. But you don't. You continually call us "crooked," "liars" and other such slanderous names. Besides I see no point in arguing with you any longer. I already answered all of the objections raised in the articles written by Gunn in my previous posts. You either didn't bother to read them or couldn't comprehend what you read. In either case there seems to me to be no point in again writing something you will probably not read anyway.
One more thing, I never said or implied that I was able to read biblical Hebrew. I am not. I am, however, able to read biblical Hebrew lexicons which tell us the meaning of biblical Hebrew words like "yom," the Hebrew word Moses used in Genesis chapter one which is translated into English as "day." As I pointed out earlier (a phrase I often use when talking to Clash), Hebrew lexicons tell us that "yom" had "several meanings," including "a period of time of unspecified duration." (see Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, 1985, pg. 54)
Clash, I see no point in discussing these things further with you. I do not believe our salvation as Christians will be affected by how we understand the Hebrew word "yom," or by whether we believe the flood of Noah's day was local or global. It may, however, be affected by how we treat others. Something you might do well to remember as you continue to interact with others on this discussion board.
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.
IW,
Thanks for reading my essay on Paul and women and for commenting on it.
You wrote: Paul was direct, he did not mince words. At 1 Timothy 2:8 he said, "I desire that in every place the men carry on prayer" note the use of the pronoun "I", verse 9 states "Likewise I desire the women to adorn themselves.." again the pronoun "I", verse 12: "I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence", "I" again. Is it too much to assume that with each use of the pronoun "I" Paul was speaking of himself, that these were things HE taught or felt proper?
Yes, it is. For the Greek from which Paul's words have been translated into English contains no such pronoun. Translators have merely inserted the pronoun "I" into Paul's words, two or three times depending on the translation you are reading, in order to create proper English sentences. However, I believe that they should have inserted the pronoun "We" in those places instead of "I." For, as I have said, the context of Paul's words clearly shows that he was quoting the words of false teachers which he had been asked to critique.
You wrote: In addition, when the writings of the so called early Church Fathers of the Second Century are compared to the writings of Paul they set forth the same policy as Paul did regarding women.
By that time the Judaizers had managed to corrupt many of the teachings of Christ and of Paul, including their common teaching of full equality of the sexes within the body of Christ. 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.
You wrote: [If Paul] was alluding to a false teaching in an attempt to correct it he failed to make his meaning clear to even the earliest of his male disciples.
I don't think so. For, as I pointed out in my essay, despite the Judaizers' efforts to the contrary, women did often serve as teachers in First Century Christian churches. Jesus instructed His apostle John to write to the church in Thyatira 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 shows that women were almost certainly often allowed to teach in First Century Christian churches. (Rev. 2:18-25)
You wrote: if the Gospels were written as early as some scholars believe then it's even harder to explain the contradictions found among them since there would have been many eyewitnesses still alive who would be able to supply a more accurate account.
As you might guess, I do not believe there are any "contradictions found among them." Several apparent contradictions, but nothing that I have not been able to fully reconcile with a little bit of study.
You wrote: I do believe there are many beautiful and true things said in the Bible, but I also have come to feel that not every word is inspired.
These are things we must all come to our own conclusions on. I understand how you feel. I felt pretty much the same way a few years ago and for many years after leaving the Watchtower. Thanks for all your kind words.
one of the reasons i thought armageddon was close at hand was.
the impending obsolescence of the bible as a source of revelation.. the bible was written within the context of a large number of.
conditions that eventually would be changed by technology, i reasoned,.
DW,
Thank you for your kind words. Feel free to E mail me if you would like.
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,
You obviously did not write the two long articles you just posted. That being the case, you should have given the author credit for his work. Since you did not write the material you just posted, and probably did not even thoroughly read it, I am not going to take much time to comment on it. I will only say that the first article contains much faulty reasoning and that the information contained in the second article has little or nothing to do with the subjects we have been discussing.
I suggest that in the future, if you think that some articles on the Net might be of interest to some of us here, that you post links to those articles rather than waste this board's bandwidth. I also suggest that if you cannot answer questions which some here have asked you, that you admit that your positions cannot be defended, and then politely bow out of this discussion. For as it is, your continued presence here, while ignoring several tough questions which you have been asked, only makes "young earth creationists" and "flood geologists" look quite foolish.
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.
IW,
You wrote: I am not a believer in the miracles reported in the NT. I do respect the man who is reported to have said the words of his Father, words that have enlightened and freed so many.
If we do not believe the miracles which the gospel writers recorded as actually having taken place, how can we really believe that a man named Jesus spoke the words those same writers attributed to him? After all, many of the words they quote him as having said were words they tell us he said in the course of performing the very miracles you do not believe ever took place. If they made up all those words, why should we believe they did not also make up most of the rest?
You wrote: What appeared to you as belief was merely an attempt to show Clash that his beliefs concerning women's place in the congregation is contrary to the place that Jesus (in the writings of the Apostle John) gave women, as opposed to Paul's writings.
I believe you are wrong about Paul's writings concerning women's place in the congregation.
I strongly believe that the words written by the apostle Paul, which are often understood to say that women are not allowed to hold positions of authority in Christian Churches, did not actually reflect the apostle Paul's own beliefs. The context of Paul's writings clearly indicates that Paul was in those passages actually citing false teachings then being promoted by others for the purpose of correcting those false teachings. This is not just my belief. Several books and articles have been written on this subject matter. I have explained this on this forum before. See this thread, a few posts down from the top:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17102&site=3
If you have not read this essay, I hope you will do so before discussing this subject further. (In other words, try not to follow the example of Crash.)
You wrote: Jesus' teachings, illustrations, parables, etc., are not referred to by Paul. He really is silent on these things.
The same could be said just as easily of the writings of James, John, and Peter. Paul's letters and all the other writings which make up the New Testament were obviously not written as commentaries on the gospels. However, just because Paul did not extensively quote or comment on Christ's words does not indicate that he and his writings were not greatly influenced by the teachings of Jesus Christ. Paul taught extensively on the importance of showing love to others, as did Jesus Christ. Paul taught extensively on the importance of our Christian freedom, which Christ said his teachings would give us. When Paul said things like, "I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing," and "It is more blessed to give than to receive," he obviously had in mind "words the Lord Jesus himself said." (Acts 20:33-35; Matt. 10:8-10; Luke 6:38)
You wrote: The early congregations did not have the Gospels in hand, they had Paul's letters.
Many scholars disagree with you on that. There is, however, little disagreement among scholars that all of Paul's letters were written between the years AD 50 and 64, most of them in the later years of that time frame. John A. T. Robinson who is not a "conservative" Christian, with the help of much historical evidence, dates the writing of Matthew to AD 40! (Redating The New Testament - 1976) The fact is, even many quite liberal scholars believe that a very lengthy written account of the life of Christ was widely circulated among Christians before the year AD 50. They believe both Matthew and Mark based their gospels upon this document, which they refer to as "Q."
The early church fathers tell us that Matthew wrote his account first. Many modern critics say Mark wrote his first. In either case, almost everyone agrees that they both wrote before Luke. So, let's figure this out. It is evident that the book of Acts was written in approximately AD 62. Why? First, because it does not mention the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, an event which would have been impossible to omit since Jerusalem is central to so much of Acts. Second, neither is anything mentioned about Nero's great persecution of Christians in AD 64. Third, Acts ends with Paul in Rome under the confinement of Nero. But it does not mention his martyrdom in AD 64. Why not? After all, it records the deaths of both Stephen and James.
With such things in mind, it is widely understood that Acts was almost certainly written in about the year AD 61. And since it was, the gospel of Luke must have been written even earlier, probably in the late 50s. Why? Because Luke wrote Acts and in doing so he referred back to the writing of his earlier gospel account when he said, "The first account I composed, Theophilus (the Roman official to whom Luke addressed the book of Acts and his account of Christ's life and teachings), about all that Jesus began to do and teach." (Acts 1:1; Luke 1:1-3) So, since we know that Acts was written in about AD 61, and that Luke was written before Acts, and that Matthew and Mark were written before Luke, and that most of Paul's letters were written in the late 50s and early 60s, we have every reason to believe that any early congregations which possessed Paul's letters or copies of them also possessed copies of Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's gospels.
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.
IW,
You wrote: It is my firm belief that even though you both may be sincere, you will without a doubt both be deeply disappointed.
What makes you so certain my faith is founded on falsehoods? I was surprised to see you write this. From some things you wrote earlier I thought you were a believer.
