Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[Samael_Khan]

Oh you're sweet. I grew up in an oil camp so that was pretty routine stuff in our town.

That is SO cool! It must have taken a lot of work right? From what I have read it is a pretty delicate process.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Flash floods in Riyadh and Jeddah..That's why KSA has built over 300 dams to capture ground water.. Many are recharge dams.

None the less KSA was never flooded.. God knows the country has been crawling with geologists for 70 years. They would have found flood sediment if one existed.

Local floods, but not covered miles deep for a year. This is typical and in accord with evidence from the rest of the world to. The Atacama Desert of South America has stretches of exposed surface that have not seen rainfall for over 100,000 years based on the evidence and no evidence for surface inundation going back millions of years.

 

[Audie]

Well, this is the year of the rat and I am born of the rat, so it must be your lucky day.

Though if you like, I can go all creationistic on you and just pull a bunch of BS out my backside...?

Me too also Rat.
And nooooo, dont go over to the dark side.

Speaking of which, it is 2 a.m. here, my usual
sleepy time so its good night lil Audie.

 

[Audie]

That is SO cool! It must have taken a lot of work right? From what I have read it is a pretty delicate process.

(Not that you asked me, but it is cool to see all the tiny
fossils under a microscope)

 

[Samael_Khan]

(Not that you asked me, but it is cool to see all the tiny
fossils under a microscope)

It definitely sounds cool.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please name a "land locked area where flooding is non-existent"

Outside of a couple of deserts, next stop, the Moon.

 

[oldbadger]

So I was just rechecking my posts to see whether I might have said anything that might portray that I view JWs as liars.

I think it might be because of this:

"It is applied to potential child sexual abuse situations yet is obviously incapable of determining the truth of the situation because nobody abuses a child in the presence of another person who isnt also involved. So they will keep child abusers in the congregation unless the abuser is confesses him or herself. "

What I meant was that child abusers would stay in the congregation because the elders would have no way of detecting whether someone is a child abuser unless that person confesses himself or herself. Not that they willfully keep child abusers in the congregation knowing that they are child abusers. Which is why I mentiomed the Two Witness rule.

No.
Any JW has the right to call the police to report any crime. Where I live any JW can arrest any person for committing and indictable offence, and any sexual assault is indictable.

I can imagine that the Watchtower might prefer an internal reporting in some cases, but JWs are subject to the laws of their own countries.

The reason why I can be so aggressive in such conversations is that any religions, companies, clubs, offices, institutions can try to put pressure on to victims not to report such offences, and many have tried to conceal such crimes before, so when a religion like the JWs get picked out I am immediately looking for an agenda. Where I live those on the sexual offences register come from a wide variety of backgrounds and so to point at a religion of mostly very honourable folks seems quite loaded. That's all, really.

 

[3rdAngel]

And I saw that and though I do agree that they had the belief that sex was a sin, you do not seem to understand that Paul went beyond that.
He was clearly anti sex. Let me try to post this again and I will clean it up now that I am at home and put in bold the parts you need to pay attention to: "8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Perhaps it may be helpful to add all the context your leaving out. They did not agree or say anywhere in these scriptures that sex was a sin at all. According to the scriptures their view was that "FORNICATION" was a sin which is unlawful sex outside of marriage. Here let me post the whole conversation with the context added back in that you leave out through cherry picking a single scripture to try and give it a different meaning.

This is what is being discussed in the CONTEXT of 1 CORINTHIANS 7 in........

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-20
[9], KNOW YOU NOT THAT THE UNRIGHTEOUS SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD? BE NOT DECEIVED: NEITHER FORNICATORS, NOR IDOLATERS, NOR ADULTERERS, NOR EFFEMINATE, NOR ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND,
[10], Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
[11], And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
[12], All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
[13], Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. NOW THE BODY IS NOT FOR FORNICATION, BUT FOR THE LORD; AND THE LORD FOR THE BODY.
[14], And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
[15], Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
[16], What? know you not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, said he, shall be one flesh.
[17], But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.
[18], FLEE FORNICATION. EVERY SIN THAT A MAN DOES IS WITHOUT THE BODY; BUT HE THAT COMMITS FORNICATION SINS AGAINST HIS OWN BODY.
[19], What? know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own?
[20], For you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Continuing....

1 CORINTHIANS 7:1-9
[1] Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me (Context 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-20 FORNICATION): It is good for a man not to touch a woman (Context to FORNICATION in the previous section).
[2], NEVERTHELESS, TO AVOID FORNICATION, LET EVERY MAN HAVE HIS OWN WIFE, AND LET EVERY WOMAN HAVE HER OWN HUSBAND.
[3], Let the husband render to the wife due benevolence (sex in marriage): and likewise also the wife to the husband (sex in marriage).
[4], THE WIFE HAS NOT POWER OF HER OWN BODY, BUT THE HUSBAND: AND LIKEWISE ALSO THE HUSBAND HAS NOT POWER OF HIS OWN BODY, BUT THE WIFE (sex in marriage).
[5], DEFRAUD YOU NOT ONE THE OTHER, EXCEPT IT BE WITH CONSENT FOR A TIME (sex in marriage), that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
[6], But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
[7], For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
[8], I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
[9], BUT IF THEY CANNOT CONTAIN, LET THEM MARRY: FOR IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN (due to FORNICATION).

Adding the context back the topic of conversation is about fornication; the body is the temple of God, those who practice fornication will not enter into God's Kinfdom, departing from fornication, if you cannot control yourself get married and have sex in marriage. Nothing more and nothing less.

Clearly this goes beyond simply saying that sex should be in marriage only. He only wants marriage in case a person could not control himself. , otherwise why would he say it is "good for them to stay unmarried"?

Not really my friend. There is about 20 verses in this section of the conversation above proving that the "CONTEXT" of the topic of conversation is not anti marriage or anti sex but in regards to "FORNICATION" (unlawful sex outside of marriage) and warnings about "FORNICATION".

You here simply try to cherry pick one scripture without context to try and give it a meaning it does not say. In the scripture you pick out of the context provided above, Paul says in 1 CORINTHIANS 7:8-9 [8], I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. [9], BUT IF THEY CANNOT CONTAIN, LET THEM MARRY: FOR IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN (due to FORNICATION).

Paul is talking to unmarried widows in this scripture and that it is good for them to abide as he is, which was single unmarried and not practicing fornication, because more of their time can be devoted to God rather then someone else. If they cannot rather abide as he was doing without fornication than go get married. Context matters. Cherry picking scripture does not help your cause but only shows you do not understand the scriptures because you do not know God. Context matters and you have provided none.

Hope this helps.

 

[Samael_Khan]

No.
Any JW has the right to call the police to report any crime. Where I live any JW can arrest any person for committing and indictable offence, and any sexual assault is indictable.

I can imagine that the Watchtower might prefer an internal reporting in some cases, but JWs are subject to the laws of their own countries.

The reason why I can be so aggressive in such conversations is that any religions, companies, clubs, offices, institutions can try to put pressure on to victims not to report such offences, and many have tried to conceal such crimes before, so when a religion like the JWs get picked out I am immediately looking for an agenda. Where I live those on the sexual offences register come from a wide variety of backgrounds and so to point at a religion of mostly very honourable folks seems quite loaded. That's all, really.

Ok. So I understand where you are coming from better now.

There are many reasons why people bring this up.

Personally, the times I mostly bring the child abuse issue up is when JWs criticize other religions, when people ask me why I left and wont return or i am in a discussion about indoctrination. The reason why I brought this up on this thread was in response to a JWs criticism of other religions, saying that they were from Satan, as if their religion is the best in the world, and another person disbuted that. They also say that their interpretations are correct so i point out interpretations which are problematic.

So, if a JW accepts what actually goes on in their organisation, makes known that they have internal problems and doesnt criticise other religions for the sake of making their own organisation look great, then I will hardly ever bring these points up.

I do the same with other religions and groups which have problems. I call out catholics and muslims as well and I call people out when they misrepresent JW doctrine or say that JWs are evil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps it may be helpful to add all the context your leaving out. They did not agree or say anywhere in these scriptures that sex was a sin at all. According to the scriptures their view was that "FORNICATION" was a sin which is unlawful sex outside of marriage. Here let me post the whole conversation with the context added back in that you leave out through cherry picking a single scripture to try and give it a different meaning.

This is what is being discussed in the CONTEXT of 1 CORINTHIANS 7 in........

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-20
[9], KNOW YOU NOT THAT THE UNRIGHTEOUS SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD? BE NOT DECEIVED: NEITHER FORNICATORS, NOR IDOLATERS, NOR ADULTERERS, NOR EFFEMINATE, NOR ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND,
[10], Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
[11], And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
[12], All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
[13], Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. NOW THE BODY IS NOT FOR FORNICATION, BUT FOR THE LORD; AND THE LORD FOR THE BODY.
[14], And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
[15], Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
[16], What? know you not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, said he, shall be one flesh.
[17], But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.
[18], FLEE FORNICATION. EVERY SIN THAT A MAN DOES IS WITHOUT THE BODY; BUT HE THAT COMMITS FORNICATION SINS AGAINST HIS OWN BODY.
[19], What? know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own?
[20], For you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Continuing....

1 CORINTHIANS 7:1-9
[1] Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me (Context 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-20 FORNICATION): It is good for a man not to touch a woman (Context to FORNICATION in the previous section).
[2], NEVERTHELESS, TO AVOID FORNICATION, LET EVERY MAN HAVE HIS OWN WIFE, AND LET EVERY WOMAN HAVE HER OWN HUSBAND.
[3], Let the husband render to the wife due benevolence (sex in marriage): and likewise also the wife to the husband (sex in marriage).
[4], THE WIFE HAS NOT POWER OF HER OWN BODY, BUT THE HUSBAND: AND LIKEWISE ALSO THE HUSBAND HAS NOT POWER OF HIS OWN BODY, BUT THE WIFE (sex in marriage).
[5], DEFRAUD YOU NOT ONE THE OTHER, EXCEPT IT BE WITH CONSENT FOR A TIME (sex in marriage), that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
[6], But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
[7], For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
[8], I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
[9], BUT IF THEY CANNOT CONTAIN, LET THEM MARRY: FOR IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN (due to FORNICATION).

Adding the context back the topic of conversation is about fornication; the body is the temple of God, those who practice fornication will not enter into God's Kinfdom, departing from fornication, if you cannot control yourself get married and have sex in marriage. Nothing more and nothing less.

Not really my friend. There is about 20 verses in this section of the conversation above proving that the "CONTEXT" of the topic of conversation is not anti marriage or anti sex but in regards to "FORNICATION" (unlawful sex outside of marriage) and warnings about "FORNICATION".

You here simply try to cherry pick one scripture without context to try and give it a meaning it does not say. In the scripture you pick out of the context provided above, Paul says in 1 CORINTHIANS 7:8-9 [8], I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. [9], BUT IF THEY CANNOT CONTAIN, LET THEM MARRY: FOR IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN (due to FORNICATION).

Paul is talking to unmarried widows in this scripture and that it is good for them to abide as he is, which was single unmarried and not practicing fornication, because more of their time can be devoted to God rather then someone else. If they cannot rather abide as he was doing without fornication than go get married. Context matters. Cherry picking scripture does not help your cause but only shows you do not understand the scriptures because you do not know God. Context matters and you have provided none.

Hope this helps.

Context does not help you. You appear to be trying to use a strawman argument. No one denies that sex outside of marriage was seen as a sin. Listing that is just fluff at this point since that is not what is being debated. It is whether Paul went beyond that and my post that you did not address shows that he did. And you are wrong. It is not just about fornication. You ignored the key line, that if a person is unwed it is better that he stay unwed. Why would Paul make such a stupid statement? Unless he believed that sex was a sin. A belief that arose from the fact that there was no birth control at that time. He went beyond saying "No sex outside of marriage". His opinion was clearly "better to have no sex at all, but if you have to then get married". Marriage for him was a last ditch excuse. Something that you have not been able to show. This is also why so many literalists have trouble understanding the Bible. They can't see past the end of their nose. Anything outside of their narrow range of beliefs does not exist in the Bible.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Way more than two accounts of mermaids and dragons.

A reasonable and open minded person would note
that there is no physical evidence in geology or biology
for the "flood".
They would also note the data that is wholly inconsistent
with the "flood" model.

They would not employ grossly inconsistent standards for
evidence that disproves theories. ( see "Cambrian" as
disproof of ToE) v polar ice disproving "flood".

Reasonable people do not find it necessary to hand wave
all research methods that dont dance to their tune.

Oh, and open minded intellectually honest do not do
conclusion first then try to make such frozen mammoths
force fit as proof.

You keep mentioning the “frozen Mammoths.” (You know they exist, right? Or don’t you?)

How did these 1000’s (millions?) get preserved underneath the permafrost? Some with vegetation still in their mouths?

Simply put — try to grasp this, now — some of the water of the Flood, originated where? From the “waters above the expanse”.

What would a global-encompassing water canopy, do to Earth’s atmosphere? It would provide for somewhat temperate weather, depending of course on how much water was suspended between the current boundary layer, then up through the troposphere to the mesosphere & exosphere. Apparently there was quite a lot, extending outward. Thereby creating a warmer climate, to some degree.

(Whatever mechanisms held those waters in place may be currently unknown, but some of them still exist somewhat in a weakened capacity, for even now there’s approximately 37.5 million billion gallons estimated to surround the Earth, denser in some locations, less in others.There is still a lot to learn! )

But once those waters fell, the warmer conditions the Earth enjoyed quickly diminished, causing a rapid drop in temperature near the poles, freezing whatever animals lived in those latitudes.

so, the pre-Flood ice wouldn’t “float”....it would simply create more.

 

[sooda]

You keep mentioning the “frozen Mammoths.” (You know they exist, right? Or don’t you?)

How did these 1000’s (millions?) get preserved underneath the permafrost? Some with vegetation still in their mouths?

Simply put — try to grasp this, now — some of the water of the Flood, originated where? From the “waters above the expanse”.

What would a global-encompassing water canopy, do to Earth’s atmosphere? It would provide for somewhat temperate weather, depending of course on how much water was suspended between the current boundary layer, then up through the troposphere to the mesosphere & exosphere. Apparently there was quite a lot, extending outward. Thereby creating a warmer climate, to some degree.

(Whatever mechanisms held those waters in place may be currently unknown, but some of them still exist somewhat in a weakened capacity, for even now there’s approximately 37.5 million billion gallons estimated to surround the Earth, denser in some locations, less in others.There is still a lot to learn! )

But once those waters fell, the warmer conditions the Earth enjoyed quickly diminished, causing a rapid drop in temperature near the poles, freezing whatever animals lived in those latitudes.

so, the pre-Flood ice wouldn’t “float”....it would simply create more.

That's an old hoax.


Did the Frozen Mammoths Die in the Flood or in the Ice Age ...
www.icr.org/article/did-frozen-mammoths-die...
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 1993 We've all heard the stories of how "millions of frozen mammoths are found preserved in Siberia, frozen so quickly their flesh could still be eaten today, complete with sub-tropical vegetation in their mouths."

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's an old hoax.


Did the Frozen Mammoths Die in the Flood or in the Ice Age ...
www.icr.org/article/did-frozen-mammoths-die...
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 1993 We've all heard the stories of how "millions of frozen mammoths are found preserved in Siberia, frozen so quickly their flesh could still be eaten today, complete with sub-tropical vegetation in their mouths."

At least ICR was honest enough to admit that it was food stuck between their teeth, and not "in their mouths". When a creationist source refutes a believer you know that they really went off the deep end.

 

[sooda]

At least ICR was honest enough to admit that it was food stuck between their teeth, and not "in their mouths". When a creationist source refutes a believer you know that they really went off the deep end.

Creationists are typically halfassed in every claim they make.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And how do you verify that a particular interpretation is the valid one.....

There are two things Jesus stated, that might answer your question:
1) At Luke 10:21, Jesus said his Father ‘reveals’ accurate interpretation, right? So do you think, maybe, to get these accurate revelations, a group would have to be obedient to God’s requirements as outlined for Christians, ie., followers of His Son?
For example, how does God view fornication? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Colossians 3:5-6, etc., tell us. (That’s really a big one today, considering the world we live in!) If a group allows such behavior among its members....do you think it will receive enlightenment? Hardly!

And then, there’s this...
2) John 13:34-35; it would identify Jesus’ followers. Does it stipulate, “Unless there’s a war”? Nope. It’s during the times of war, where such love would really ID Jesus’ followers! This resulting neutrality would certainly instigate the world’s hatred.

John 15:17-19

 

[sooda]

There are two things Jesus stated, that might answer your question:
1) At Luke 10:21, Jesus said his Father ‘reveals’ accurate interpretation, right? So do you think, maybe, to get these accurate revelations, a group would have to be obedient to God’s requirements as outlined for Christians, ie., followers of His Son?
For example, how does God view fornication? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Colossians 3:5-6, etc., tell us. (That’s really a big one today, considering the world we live in!) If a group allows such behavior among its members....do you think it will receive enlightenment? Hardly!

And then, there’s this...
2) John 13:34-35; it would identify Jesus’ followers. Does it stipulate, “Unless there’s a war”? Nope. It’s during the times of war, where such love would really ID Jesus’ followers! This resulting neutrality would certainly instigate the world’s hatred.

John 15:17-19

Luke never met Jesus.. Its doubtful that Luke was ever in Palestine because he screws up the geography so badly.. He may have written his gospel from Antioch.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's an old hoax.


Did the Frozen Mammoths Die in the Flood or in the Ice Age ...
www.icr.org/article/did-frozen-mammoths-die...
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 1993 We've all heard the stories of how "millions of frozen mammoths are found preserved in Siberia, frozen so quickly their flesh could still be eaten today, complete with sub-tropical vegetation in their mouths."

ICR is a Young-Earth” supporter. The article presents no valid, acceptable refutation of what I posted.

(Some) mammoths lived after the Flood? No problem. But many died during the Flood. And before, for thousands of years, of course.

 

[sooda]

ICR is a Young-Earth” supporter. The article presents no valid, acceptable refutation of what I posted.

(Some) mammoths lived after the Flood? No problem. But many died during the Flood. And before, for thousands of years, of course.

LOLOL.. The flood wasn't global .. It was a 4 day flood of the Euphrates River Basin in 2900 BC caused by spring snowmelt from the mountains combined with spring rains.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

LOLOL.. The flood wasn't global .. It was a 4 day flood of the Euphrates River Basin in 2900 BC caused by spring snowmelt from the mountains combined with spring rains.

You present some shallow thinking, but so do many others.

From where, do you think, the fresh water came, to form the ice that caused the Freeze (Ice Age)? It was massive volumes!!
Have you ever thought of that?

Probably not. It just happened, eh?

 

[3rdAngel]

Context does not help you. You appear to be trying to use a strawman argument. No one denies that sex outside of marriage was seen as a sin. Listing that is just fluff at this point since that is not what is being debated. It is whether Paul went beyond that and my post that you did not address shows that he did. And you are wrong. It is not just about fornication. You ignored the key line, that if a person is unwed it is better that he stay unwed. Why would Paul make such a stupid statement? Unless he believed that sex was a sin. A belief that arose from the fact that there was no birth control at that time. He went beyond saying "No sex outside of marriage". His opinion was clearly "better to have no sex at all, but if you have to then get married". Marriage for him was a last ditch excuse. Something that you have not been able to show. This is also why so many literalists have trouble understanding the Bible. They can't see past the end of their nose. Anything outside of their narrow range of beliefs does not exist in the Bible.

Goodness nice hand waive. All you have shown is your reluctance to face the evidence provided to you in post # 688 linked that proves why you are in error by cherry picking the scriptures to try and make them say things they do not say.

If you disagree address post # 688 above that proves why you are in error. If you cannot why not simply accept correction and benefit by it. Your only demonstrating you do not understand the scriptures because you do not know God and proving the bible true... as they say spiritual things are spiritually discerned and the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them....

Sorry my friend context matter and you have provided none.