Posts by aChristian

33

What happened to the fish in the great flood?

by Beans in

now if the world was covered in water was it salt water or fresh water and how did all the fish survive who were not adapted to the other type of water?

aChristian

That our earth has never been completely covered with water since land masses first arose from its primordial global sea has been firmly established by modern science in more ways than I can possibly here begin to mention. For a discussion of this subject matter see Problems with a Global Flood at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html .

Conservative "fundamentalist" Christians' typical response to such information is to say that they choose to believe the Word of God over the findings of scientists. This certainly sounds quite noble. And I suppose I would commend them for their stance if such a stance was called for by the Bible itself. But it is not. For a careful study of the flood account in Genesis reveals that the Bible does not tell us that the flood of Noah's day was global. And an examination of the scientific "evidence" presented by Christian fundamentalists in support of a global flood, sea shells on mountain tops and the like, quickly reveals that the presenters of this so-called evidence have a very poor understanding of science. ( By the way, sea shells on mountain tops are the result of earth's plate tectonics causing land masses to slowly rise from the sea over many millions of years. This process is an ongoing occurrence and can be proven by comparing the measured heights of various mountain peaks today to their measured heights just a few years ago.)

21

Awake Ignores Own Flood Date - Gets Caught

by Jackson in

jw
friends

a recent awake article was about the magnificence of niagra falls and how it straddles the canadian and u.s. borders.

in the february 22nd issue of the awake in "from the readers" at the back, one of the readers complained, "you (the awake) said that the erosion of the river gorge has taken place over the past 12,000 years.

this would not tie in with the bible's account of a global deluge.".

aChristian

Actually, the Awake! was correct in saying what they did. For there is evidence that "the Noachian Flood" "took place less than 5,000 years ago." The problem is that this evidence points to Noah's flood being a large local flood, not a global one. So it would have had no effect on Niagra Falls, or anything else outside of southern Mesopotamia.

14

1957 in Bible Prophecy

by TMS in

jw
friends

an internet site published a couple of years ago a portion of chapter 10 of coc detailing a schroeder, klein, suiter proposal that the phrase this generation of matt.23:34 began in 1957. the idea was that the power of heaven was shaken with the onset of the space age, notably the launching of the first sputnik.. the fact sheet given each governing body member to study was reproduced in the franz book.

evidently, the gb considered the merits of this proposal, deciding to stick with the view of this generation that was current at the time.. this little tidbit affected me greatly, moving me to order coc.

that such a whimsical, ludicrous concept would be entertained by grown men, let alone spirit-directed men astonished me.. as an elder, if a brother had approached me with this idea, my inclination would have leaned toward his having serious mental health issues.. .

aChristian

TMS,

You wrote: : the phrase “this generation” of Matt.23:34 began in 1957. The idea was that the “power of heaven” was shaken with the onset of the space age ... if a brother had approached me with this idea, my inclination would have leaned toward his having serious mental health issues.

Though I agree with you that this does seem nutty, to me it seems a lot less nutty than saying that Daniel 4 clearly shows that the last generation would begin in 1914.

120

Quality of this Forum

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

just a quick thought - i am a firm believer in freedom of speech etc, but having been on this forum for some time i honestly can't say that i can introduce a doubting jw interested in true christianity to this board.

some of the deep discussions on jw doctrine are excellent, but everything else seems to be nonsense in my opinion.

why can't this site be more like the old www.witnesses.net which seemed to have more spiritual meat rather than backbiting, gossip, and rumour and even obscenity.. sorry for my frank opinion

aChristian

Cello,

I appreciated you comments. This subject is one which I will soon be doing some serious study on. As you may know, there are Christians who believe that the Bible uses Satan and his demons only in a metaphorical way, to represent all kinds of mental, spiritual and physical afflictions.

33

What happened to the fish in the great flood?

by Beans in

now if the world was covered in water was it salt water or fresh water and how did all the fish survive who were not adapted to the other type of water?

aChristian

Beans,

Many Christians believe that the Bible is actually describing a flood that was confined to the land of Noah. This subject was recently here discussed at great length in a thread entitled "space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C." Here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17590&site=3
If you are seriously interested in this matter you may want to check it out.

7

The Name of Jehovah or/and the Name of Jesus

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

in an effort to bolster the name of jehovah, the watchtower book entitled "revelation its grand.

climax at hand!

if you want to know who the father is, look at jesus.

aChristian

The name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was taken from God's words to Israel recorded in Isaiah 43:10. For a Christian group to take on such a name clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture. First, as mentioned, the words spoken by God recorded in Isaiah 43:10 were spoken to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. The Bible tells us that Christians are to be witnesses of Jesus just as the Jews were witnesses of Jehovah. Jesus said, "You will be witnesses of me." (Acts 1:8) And the Bible tells us that it was "by divine providence," by God's own direction, that His people in the post-Jewish age would be known by the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 11:26 NWT) Thus, instructing Christians to identify themselves by the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture.

The fact of the matter is, the Watchtower Society's use of the name "Jehovah" is not scriptural. They have added the name "Jehovah" many times to the text of the New Testament even though they admit that, "…no early surviving Greek manuscript of the ‘New Testament’ contains the personal name of God." ( The Watchtower March 1, 1991 p. 28 ) The Watchtower Society has said that they believe that the writers of the New Testament used the divine name in their original writings but that their original writings were later corrupted. However this contradicts what the Society itself has said. The Society tells us that, "Jehovah God has seen to it that his Word has been protected not only from mistakes copyists made but also from attempts of others to make additions to it. The Bible itself contains God’s promise that his Word would be kept in a pure form for us today." ( You Can Live For Ever in Paradise on Earth, 1982 p. 53 ) So, Jehovah's Witnesses had no business inserting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations when that name is not found in any early surviving Greek manuscript of the New Testament.

Historians tell us that the personal name of God, as used in the Old Testament, was not used in either its written or spoken form for many years before the time of Christ. Because the Jews were afraid overuse of the divine name might amount to "taking the name of the Lord in vain," they actually forbid its use altogether. I believe God allowed this to happen in order to make way for the time which was coming, the time when He wanted the name of Jesus to be promoted above every name. (Phil. 2:9)

Jehovah's Witnesses do not do this. Their putting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations and promoting that name above every name, rather than the name of Jesus as the Bible says Christians should be doing, is one of many things which show that Jehovah's Witnesses are not really Christians.

120

Quality of this Forum

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

just a quick thought - i am a firm believer in freedom of speech etc, but having been on this forum for some time i honestly can't say that i can introduce a doubting jw interested in true christianity to this board.

some of the deep discussions on jw doctrine are excellent, but everything else seems to be nonsense in my opinion.

why can't this site be more like the old www.witnesses.net which seemed to have more spiritual meat rather than backbiting, gossip, and rumour and even obscenity.. sorry for my frank opinion

aChristian

Flip,

I wrote: Judging from all the past success people have had in predicting the time of Christ's return, I think that is one topic of discussion that Christians should wisely avoid.

You responded: Why should 'Christians' wisely avoid an amusing pastime? ... the WTBTS has been inferring predictions for years and, unless you're extremely rich, they're doing much better financially than yourself.

You are kidding, I hope. Do you realize how many lives the Watchtower Society has ruined with all of their false predictions? Sure they have made a lot of money doing it. But someone who is willing to destroy lives to make money might as well sell drugs to school kids.

120

Quality of this Forum

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

just a quick thought - i am a firm believer in freedom of speech etc, but having been on this forum for some time i honestly can't say that i can introduce a doubting jw interested in true christianity to this board.

some of the deep discussions on jw doctrine are excellent, but everything else seems to be nonsense in my opinion.

why can't this site be more like the old www.witnesses.net which seemed to have more spiritual meat rather than backbiting, gossip, and rumour and even obscenity.. sorry for my frank opinion

aChristian

Faithful,

Judging from all the past success people have had in predicting the time of Christ's return, I think that is one topic of discussion that Christians should wisely avoid.

120

Quality of this Forum

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

just a quick thought - i am a firm believer in freedom of speech etc, but having been on this forum for some time i honestly can't say that i can introduce a doubting jw interested in true christianity to this board.

some of the deep discussions on jw doctrine are excellent, but everything else seems to be nonsense in my opinion.

why can't this site be more like the old www.witnesses.net which seemed to have more spiritual meat rather than backbiting, gossip, and rumour and even obscenity.. sorry for my frank opinion

aChristian

Name,

Earlier you apparently criticized my position that the Bible speaks of a local flood without having read what I had asked you to read on that subject. Now, you criticize the quality of the evidence that I have presented which I believe proves that the God of the Bible, and no other god but Him, created our universe. However your criticisms do not in any way reference the content of the evidence I presented. So, I'm curious, in this case have you read what you criticize?

120

Quality of this Forum

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

just a quick thought - i am a firm believer in freedom of speech etc, but having been on this forum for some time i honestly can't say that i can introduce a doubting jw interested in true christianity to this board.

some of the deep discussions on jw doctrine are excellent, but everything else seems to be nonsense in my opinion.

why can't this site be more like the old www.witnesses.net which seemed to have more spiritual meat rather than backbiting, gossip, and rumour and even obscenity.. sorry for my frank opinion

aChristian

IW,

You wrote: I would though like to hear your thoughts on why Luke chose to place parts of parallel illustrations to Matthew 24, in Luke 17 instead of Luke 21 ... and on Matthew 24 and Luke 21 in general.

It is possible that Luke related some of Jesus' words out of the actual chronological order in which He spoke them. It is also possible that Jesus spoke the same exact words, or very similar words, on more than one occasion. Have you ever listened to a political candidate give a stump speech at a whistle stop? Of course, you know they give that same speech at every stop. Jesus preached to His disciples and to various crowds of people for several hours every day for three and a half years. He probably repeated several of the same speeches many times over.

I believe that in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 Jesus was primarily telling His disciples of things which would take place before the end of the Jewish nation. As you know its capital city, Jerusalem, was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. In Matt. 24:1,2 and in Luke 21:5,6 we can clearly see that Jesus was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem to come when His disciples asked Him, "When will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7) I believe Matthew records additional questions which they also asked. "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" (Matt. 24:3)

Clearly the various so-called "signs" that we are living close to the time of Christ's return, such as "wars" and "earthquakes" were not meant to be understood as any such thing. Jesus, in fact, said just the opposite. He told his disciples not to understand such things as signs of anything. He said, "When you hear of wars and revolutions do not be frightened. These things must happen first. But the end will not come right away." (Luke 21:9)

In Matthew 24 and Luke 21 (and Mark 13) Jesus was answering several different questions, most of which dealt exclusively with the destruction of the Jewish nation to come which He had just predicted. However, I believe some of the questions Jesus was asked, and some of the answers He gave to those questions referred, at least in part, to events that are yet to come upon the earth.

There are Christians who do not believe in a literal return of Christ. They believe we all personally experience Christ's return when we meet the Lord on Judgment Day. They say that all of Jesus words in Matt. 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 referred to events which entirely took place before Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. This school of thought is called "Preterism" and its adherents are called "Preterists." Some call those like me, who understand that most of Jesus' words in the passages we have just discussed referred to events in the first century, "partial Preterists."