shadeyinka:


Revelation 13:8
and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.


Exodus 32:32
But now, if you will forgive their sin—but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written. ”

Please also note the tenses: "written before the foundation of the world" and "you have written"

In Revelation 13:8 , the word " before" is not what the Greek Bible manuscript says..
It's misleading & completely changes the actual meaning of the text.
The proper rendition is :
" from the foundation of the world"

You and i already know that there are hundreds of thousands of INTERPRETATIONS from different religious groups (sects) so JWs are people who carefully ascertain the Interpretation that's yielding positive results {Matthew 7:16-18} so even when it sounds unpalatable to physical men {John 6:66} we know the spiritual men have a reason for sticking to it {John 6:68} and our LOVE for God will help us to believe, endure and hope to understand it better! 1Corinthians 13:7
So instead of pitching our tents with just any group we hold unto the skirt of the spiritual men {Zechariah 8:23} because if God is not with them nobody will see their doctrines as the highest of all doctrines just as you're seeing it now! Matthew 5:14

May you have PEACE!

shadeyinka:


I understand you well.
Your interpretations are in harmony with your organisations position.
It doesn't mean that it makes sense to me with respect to the scripture in question.
It is possible for a class to chorus an answer different from what the text really says.
Thanks so much for obliging me your answers. I fully understand your interpretation of the text (it may be different from mine: but that's not the point)

Thank you

DappaD:


Just negodu this man. You opened this thread to ask how JWs would interprete the Scripture in question. It was thoroughly deliberated on. Then you came forward with the highlighted as what—subtle sarcasm? See, John 5:29 is a just a derivation of Daniel 12:2 which can be interpreted in several ways too. We do not just come to abrupt conclusions before making Scriptural findings so if you choose to focus only on John 5:29 without considering other Scriptures that can explain it, then fine the choice is up to you.

The only thing here is, if everybody adopted the same view as you do i.e. literally interpreting the text as it is(as fundamentalists do) then I assure you that many people would find the Bible to be contradictory. That’s the reason why Scripture has to interpret Scripture for it to make sense—for the dots to be connected. But like I said, the choice is up to you to decide what you want for yourself as no one will coerce you into believing what you do not want to. Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves also have a choice to convince themselves that their interpretation is truth. Romans 12:2, 1Thessalonians 5:21

I didn't intend to argue with you, I wanted to understand how you read and comprehend direct scriptures and on this, I think I have an answer.
I see that your official position supersedes the plainly written word.

Let's close this please.

Thanks for your answers and your time

You guys don't know Shadeyinka!
Out of all the religious groups claiming Christians he is able to single out just one for questioning over how they will Interpret the scripture for him, even his own Church ECWA means nothing to him when it comes to the interpretation of scriptures, all other religions he knew quite well their interpretation has no pedigree yet he wants to argue with the one and only group he could sense that their interpretation is taken to all the corners of the earth!
That's why i quickly reminded him what he said about arguments because i'm sure he will pick up arguments once the interpretation doesn't go well with him.
But why in the first place did he single out JWs?
What happens to all other religions around him?
After all he claims they also have doctrines so why can't he throw the same question to them?
Abi nah only JWs get doctrines?

DappaD:


Just negodu this man. You opened this thread to ask how JWs would interprete the Scripture in question. It was thoroughly deliberated on. Then you came forward with the highlighted as what—subtle sarcasm? See, John 5:29 is a just a derivation of Daniel 12:2 which can be interpreted in several ways too. We do not just come to abrupt conclusions before making Scriptural findings so if you choose to focus only on John 5:29 without considering other Scriptures that can explain it, then fine the choice is up to you.

The only thing here is, if everybody adopted the same view as you do i.e. literally interpreting the text as it is(as fundamentalists do) then I assure you that many people would find the Bible to be contradictory. That’s the reason why Scripture has to interpret Scripture for it to make sense—for the dots to be connected. But like I said, the choice is up to you to decide what you want for yourself as no one will coerce you into believing what you do not want to. Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves also have a choice to convince themselves that their interpretation is truth. Romans 12:2, 1Thessalonians 5:21

shadeyinka:

I didn't intend to argue with you, I wanted to understand how you read and comprehend direct scriptures and on this, I think I have an answer.
I see that your official position supersedes the plainly written word.
Let's close this please.
Thanks for your answers and your time

The highlighted shouldn't be your problem, if you want to follow the plainly written word there's no need for INTERPRETATIONS!
For your information Daniel said only the wise will understand but the wicked will continue to argue and argue and argue over the written words! Daniel 12:10
Jesus said by their FRUITS you will be able to distinguish between those who understands and those who aren't getting it right! Matthew 7:16-18
So the ball is in your court, you're free to continue asking other religions about how that scripture should be interpreted, at least you now know HOW JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES INTERPRETS it, go and try the next door!

shadeyinka:
I don't want to argue anything, I only want to understand your views
John 5:28-29 NWT
"28 Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice
29 and come out , those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment. "

The Questions:
1. ALL those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice!
To my understanding ALL means both the righteous and the unrighteous: Who are the ALL referred to here?
2. Those who hear His voice will come out!
To my understanding, coming out means RESURRECTION of both the good and the bad: Do Jehovah's witness believe in the resurrection of the unrighteous?
3. Those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment. "
To my understanding, there is judgement of the unrighteous AFTER this resurrection: Do Jehovah's witness believe in the judgement of the unrighteous?

If you agree that there would be resurrection of the ungodly, how will Jehovah kill them again: will it be in the lake of fire?

Note:
Please, I'm not for any argument on this.
Thanks

1.
ALL the righteous and the unrighteous in God's memory, who died before Armageddon & were not eye Witnesses of 2 Thess1:7-9.

2.
JWs believe the holy scriptures- John 5:28-29 & Acts 24:15.

3.
Yes.,JWs believe in the judgement of the unrighteous but not according to Christendom belief.
Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death.
The resurrected unrighteous paid the wages for sin when they died.
Sin sent them to the prison of death & God released them to grant them opportunity to gain eternal life, why would God judge them with the deeds of death imprisonment they have served?

Romans 10:4, those who have died have been acquited from sin"
The resurrection of judgement is Christ 1000 year reign (Not 24 hours).
Those who choose to practice Jehovah's standard of righteous throughout the 1000 years rule & after Satan's brief release from the abyss, continue to a resurrection of life.
For those who do the exact opposite, theirs is the resurrection of judgement which means their second death, alias "lake of fire."
That is,Destruction without any prospect of resurrection.



(The resurrection of the unrighteous excludes individuals sentenced to death by God's direct righteous punishment,eg Adam, Noah's day evil doers, Sodom/ Gomorrah ,Pharaoh, Ananias & Sapphira etc).

My Brother Dappa, beautiful night to you.

My random observations:
1. The JW guys here, and their organisation, since they represent their organisation's views, seem to create an added picture to Bible passages.
For example, on "those who practice vile things...." one of them said:

"After their release from the grave, Christians on planet earth will start teaching them all the commandments of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Whoever yield will live up to the 1,000 years but some will not accept Christ's Counsels they will feel it's their former form of righteousness that will continue to keep them alive so after 100 years of their resurrection they will die again permanently! Isaiah 65:20"

First, nothing in that verse say all these things stated in that explanation. Second, Isaiah 65 never said it is those RESURRECTED that the 100 years statement applies to.

What I see is their reading meanings into these passage to make it conform to their organisation's position. It would have been helpful if clear passages agreeing with their stated positions were provided.

On Rev. 13:8; even if the better translation is "from" it still means that their names had a PRIOR recording. So, it is not just enough to say that so and so is a better rendition, it is to show how that better translation applies.

sagenaija:
My random observations:
1. The JW guys here, and their organisation, since they represent their organisation's views, seem to create an added picture to Bible passages.
For example, on "those who practice vile things...." one of them said:

First, nothing in that verse say all these things stated in that explanation. Second, Isaiah 65 never said it is those RESURRECTED that the 100 years statement applies to.

What I see is their reading meanings into these passage to make it conform to their organisation's position. It would have been helpful if clear passages agreeing with their stated positions were provided.

On Rev. 13:8; even if the better translation is "from" it still means that their names had a PRIOR recording. So, it is not just enough to say that so and so is a better rendition, it is to show how that better translation applies.

Thanks for your concern!

The OP said from the onset:

shadeyinka:
Note:
Please, I'm not for any argument on this.
Thanks

Therefore it's not a comparison between how we interpreted it to how anyone feels it's to be interpreted, rather it's about How JWs Interpreted it!

Note the topic of the thread:

"Jehovah's Witnesses: How Do We Interpret This Scripture?"

So there's no need for any counterargument, the OP purposely demanded for the Interpretation of that scripture from JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES and we've presented our interpretation of the quoted verse just as the OP requested!

If you feel like presenting a better Interpretation then you need to first introduce your own Church, then present the interpretation for the OP to compare!

Thanks!

sagenaija:
My random observations:
1. The JW guys here, and their organisation, since they represent their organisation's views, seem to create an added picture to Bible passages.
For example, on "those who practice vile things...." one of them said:

First, nothing in that verse say all these things stated in that explanation. Second, Isaiah 65 never said it is those RESURRECTED that the 100 years statement applies to.

What I see is their reading meanings into these passage to make it conform to their organisation's position. It would have been helpful if clear passages agreeing with their stated positions were provided.

On Rev. 13:8; even if the better translation is "from" it still means that their names had a PRIOR recording. So, it is not just enough to say that so and so is a better rendition, it is to show how that better translation applies.

Wetin this sagenaija think say he dey yarn sef !
Bros,Your claim is NOT true.
After resurrection in fulfilment of John 5:28-29 & Rev 21:3-5, the paradisaic conditions of Isaiah 65:20 will prevail during Christ 1000 years rule.

Biblical precedence, did God write down Abraham's name in the book of life prior to his existence ?

Did God write down Barabbas name ( criminal executed beside Jesus) in the book of life prior to Barabbas existence on earth?


Bros, Will Jesus come down to earth to teach the Bible lessons to "those who practice vile things" during his 1000 year rulership?

Bros, Jesus Christ himself converted the 12 apostles & few others.
@ Acts 2:42-47 did Jesus personally preach & converted the large gathering of believers who received holy spirit @ Pentecost & thereafter?

Those unrighteous resurrected ones "who practice vile things" the bolded words Hebrew 13:7 applies to them
"Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life "
Isaiah 65:20 is straight forward enough.

Jehovah's faithful servants who survive Armageddon have the assignment to "[i]speak the word of God" (Hebrew 13:7) to those who practice vile things" and guide them to draw closer to God.
Ananias performed a similar role to Paul @ Acts 9:5-15..


Each point JWs have made on this thread is thoroughly scriptural, no added picture to Bible passages. [/i]

Notice guys I said 'My random observations'.

MaxInDHouse:
You guys don't know Shadeyinka!
Out of all the religious groups claiming Christians he is able to single out just one for questioning over how they will Interpret the scripture for him, even his own Church ECWA means nothing to him when it comes to the interpretation of scriptures, all other religions he knew quite well their interpretation has no pedigree yet he wants to argue with the one and only group he could sense that their interpretation is taken to all the corners of the earth!
That's why i quickly reminded him what he said about arguments because i'm sure he will pick up arguments once the interpretation doesn't go well with him.
But why in the first place did he single out JWs?
What happens to all other religions around him?
After all he claims they also have doctrines so why can't he throw the same question to them?
Abi nah only JWs get doctrines?

What bothers me is that he said he’s more concerned about the literal interpretation of the verse AFTER saying that he wasn’t looking for arguments. Okay, so if that had been his position all along, why open the thread in the first place? Doesn’t that show that he was looking for arguments?

sagenaija:
My random observations:
1. The JW guys here, and their organisation, since they represent their organisation's views, seem to create an added picture to Bible passages.
For example, on "those who practice vile things...." one of them said:
First, nothing in that verse say all these things stated in that explanation. Second, Isaiah 65 never said it is those RESURRECTED that the 100 years statement applies to.
What I see is their reading meanings into these passage to make it conform to their organisation's position. It would have been helpful if clear passages agreeing with their stated positions were provided.
On Rev. 13:8; even if the better translation is "from" it still means that their names had a PRIOR recording. So, it is not just enough to say that so and so is a better rendition, it is to show how that better translation applies.

The “clear passages” that support our position are Romans 6:7,23. Talking about the unrighteous person(not the wicked) who has died will not have his sins held up against him during the resurrection. Acts 24:15
The thief beside Jesus on the stake would not have his sins held up against him when he is resurrected in Paradise. Luke 23:43
That’s why there needs to be added information for John 5:29.

I told the OP that if everybody used the approach of literally interpreting each single verse without considering other scriptures, then trouble will burst because then the Bible will appear to contradict itself and I was right. If some before they were even born had their names either imprinted in or blotted out of the book of life, can you explain the concept of free will? Joshua 24:15, 1Kings 18:21
Why would anyone have to choose to exercise faith in Jesus and do God’s will if before he was born, he finds out his name will never be in the book of life? Does that make sense to you? Added information is therefore needed to understand the Revelation 13:8 which you quoted.

sagenaija:

Notice guys I said 'My random observations'.

YES, your random observation.

But the OP emphatically mentioned his preferred Church on the matter even when a commentator wanted to intervene the OP reminded him that it's JW affairs.

So after we've presented our interpretation of the quoted scripture what remains is a better Interpretation from another church not just fruitless counterargument of no benefit.
Do you agree with the JWs Interpretation?
If YES say so if not then introduce yourself and your church, and present the interpretation your church gave the quoted scripture. PERIOD!

After the first time i rendered him speechless in his other thread he's been avoiding me like a plague!
And can you imagine that before he opened that thread i pleaded with him not to engage any JW in scriptural debate because i noticed all what he's carrying in his head is how to argue about failed prophecies.
So i told him it's not going to yield any positive result but he kept pestering me as if i'm hiding something from him. Until after divulging all what is in his brains and finding out that it's of no use then he changed from
"i want to expose you"
to
"it's OK we are all for Christ"
that's when i openly told him
"if you're not a JW, you can't possibly worship my own God"
then he turned to cheap blackmail which made him appear stupid before everyone!

DappaD:

What bothers me is that he said he’s more concerned about the literal interpretation of the verse AFTER saying that he wasn’t looking for arguments. Okay, so if that had been his position all along, why open the thread in the first place? Doesn’t that show that he was looking for arguments?

It is obvious to anyone who has been on NAIRALAND for a while that you CANNOT stop others from commenting on any thread.

Even the exclusively Moslem area still has other non-moslem come in as long as they "subscribe" to the conversion call.

What the main posters in any thread can do is focus on themselves. Other contributions may help them see things from different perspectives or assist them in clarifying their positions.

A position may only be fruitless if a reader refuses to look at the issues being presented. If nothing else, a post can help the reader understand the reasoning of the writer. Agreeing or disagreeing is another matter entirely.

sagenaija:
It is obvious to anyone who has been on NAIRALAND for a while that you CANNOT stop others from commenting on any thread.

Even the exclusively Moslem area still has other non-moslem come in as long as they "subscribe" to the conversion call.

What the main posters in any thread can do is focus on themselves. Other contributions may help them see things from different perspectives or assist them in clarifying their positions.

A position may only be fruitless if a reader refuses to look at the issues being presented. If nothing else, a post can help the reader understand the reasoning of the writer. Agreeing or disagreeing is another matter entirely.

Nobody is telling you not to comment but your comment is useless if you're not a JW says the OP:

shadeyinka:

y dear Kobojunkie,
I do not think you are a JW, your answer will not solve the problems of the asked questions!

But both the OP and most importantly JWs will appreciate your contribution if you're here to introduce another religion and How they Interpreted the quoted scripture!

This is not one of those threads where you just come in to argue or comment without substance.

MaxInDHouse:


Nobody is telling you not to comment but your comment is useless if you're not a JW says the OP:

But both the OP and most importantly JWs will appreciate your contribution if you're here to introduce another religion and How they Interpreted the quoted scripture!

This is not one of those threads where you just come in to argue or comment without substance.

What would constitute 'substance'?

sagenaija:

What would constitute 'substance'?

When you come into a thread and make a difference not just drop a comment.

OP asked questions about a specific scripture from a particular group. Every right thinking person should know that the only reason such could happen is he has noticed a uniqueness or oneness in thought regarding the group.
So your coming in to repeat what he said after finding out that all JWs agreed on the same Interpretation is a sign of unintelligent mind.

What any intellectual will expect from a commentator afterwards is another Interpretation that's held by another group just as JWs have done. Not coming in to ask as if you're surprised that JWs agreed on the same Interpretation when the OP specifically invited them to know HOW THEY WILL INTERPRET for him!