₦airaland Forum

@ Stimulus

@Bobbyaf,

You may call them skewed questions - and that is because you had no answers to the sound questions bari_kade offered you. Not only so, he went on to treat the subject in detail, offering text upon to text to the point.

I don't claim to have the answers, but the bible does. You can make all the claim you want but the truth is the truth.

If one is going to obey the "thus saith the Lord", one needs to understand what the Lord says. Romans 10:2 says that some people have zeal without knowledge; and to just be driven by thus saith the Lord without knowing what the Lord says will often lead to the sort of legalistic mindset you're displaying.

I hope you too get the message!

Let me bring back some of the things that bari_kade offered you should seek to carefully understand as a seventh-day sabbatarian:

(a). The Sabbath was to be kept Holy - Exo. 20:8

That I already know thanks to the bible!

(b). No (Servile) Work To Be Done on the Sabbath - Exo. 20:10; 12:16 & Num. 28:25

That I have no problem with since I don't do any servile work on the sabbath, and I don't believe any true sabbath-believing christian does. So what is your point?

(c). Anyone Defiling The Sabbath Be Put To Death - Exo. 31:14-15

Under the Mosaic system such would have been the case. The same would apply to committing other sins like stealing and commiitting adultery, so simply categorising the sabbath requirement doesn't make it less worthy of observance.

(d). The Sabbath Meant to Be Perpetual - Exo. 31:16

That is why it should be kept today, and as a matter of fact the bible says it will be kept in the earth mad new. See Isaiah 66:22,23

(e). No Domestic Fires To Be Kindled In The Home - Exo. 35:3

Not if you had to go look for the wood on a sabbath! Don't fail to see the context under which some of the sabbath-keeping requirements were stipulated. Israel lived in the wilderness for 40 years. That explains some of the restrictions, because of the extent of work it would have required to preprare meals. That is why God fed Israel for 40 years with Manna.

(f). Sabbatarians To Afflict Their Souls Forever or Be Put To Death - Lev. 16:31 & 23:29

Here is a case of a misuse of context. Remember what I said about the use of the word forever? It means for as long as it was meant to last. Besides, no one remained perfect under the Mosaic system, including Moses himself, yet he remained alive until God saw it fit to call him home.

(g). Sabbath Was to be Celebrated From Evening to Evening - Lev. 23:32

I am glad you see it! Do you keep your Sunday holy right through?

(h). A Holy Convocation; No Domestic Work At Home - Lev. 23:3

That we know!

Note (f) above says:

Sabbatarians To Afflict Their Souls Forever or Be Put To Death Lev. 16:31 & 23:29 - "It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever. For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people." And then (h) above as well:

Isn't it obvious that deliberate disobedience in the light of God's reasonable and clear requirements would have attracted that sort of punishment? You are addressing the wrong person, go ask God who implemented the system back then. Besides, please don't see the sabbatha as a problem because of man's failures to keep it the way that God intended it ot be kept.

The same can be argued about the women seeing their periods and still coming to church, right? Why is it that such is the case today? Why was that law or requirement necessary back then? Context may be? Situational context perhaps? How one keeps the sabbath today is far different in terms of situational context, than how it could have been kept back then. In other words if a person was visiting with me on a sabbath and needed some hot beverage for example, should I desist from doing good becasue of some text in the OT that says "don't kindle fire on the sabbath at home"?

(h). A Holy Convocation; No Domestic Work At Home
Lev. 23:3 - "Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings."

Context again Stimulus! Un-necesary work was what the bible referred to. Work that could have been done during the course of the week should not be done on the Lord's holy day.

The Bible is clear that no manner of work should be done on the Sabbath; and sabbatarians are to afflict their souls forever during the sabbaths.

What is your point of contention? None of those texts you have pointed to really deals with the issue of whether or not one should still be remembering God's holy day of rest.

Bobbyaf, do you SDA people follow the stipulations for the sabbath as outlined in the Bible; or you look for excuses that make it convenient for your group? Are you not the same fellow who offered excuses on the following link?

No one can really keep the sabbath perfectly in this life time Stimulus, and that was never my intention to make it sound that way. We do what we can as best we can, keeping in mind that we depend on God for everything. God's mercy and grace are sufficient.

"If the case isn't emergent then such persons usually get the sabbath off." https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-34371.192.html

I am not sure in what context this statement was made so I can't comment. As a medical professional I have performed duties in the hospitals during emergency cases. Does that make me according to you a sabbath breaker? I could have avoided altogether that kind of responsibility, but that was my choice to do good on the sabbath. There is no crime in finding yourself in a particular profession and then having to do the best you can on the sabbath. There are certain professions that are given exemptions in terms of doing a service on the sabbath. Doctors, nurses, medical technologists, firemen, etc. In the case of a fireman wouldn't it be considered legalistic if a fire broke out in an area and he sat down in church all holy and righteous, and not do something about it, especially as a fireman? One must view the coin from both sides. Not doing good on the sabbath is just as bad as sabbath breaking. That is why Jesus referred the legalistic jews to bear in mind that if an animal was in a ditch on the sabbath it should be lifted. Although work was involved in the process, that kind of work was not the work that the command highlighted.

I should remark that if you want to go by the seventh-day Sabbath observance according to the Law, then you must strictly follow its stipulations. There is just no room for any SDA excuses on any point of the Sabbath Law.

You see its very easy for you to throw legalistic views against SDAs in ordr to gainsay the truth about what God requires, and in a way you don't seem to realize that its not us you're contending with, but God Himself. We didn't create the sabbath for man to keep, it was God.

Anyone can approach the OT with a biased view, and that is exactly what you are doing now. Instead of coming with an open mind, you come looking for what you desire to see.

So in summmary the breaking of the sabbaath was not the only thing that merited death back then. The fact that other sins used to warrant death back then and they don't seem to be doing that today makes your point of discussion empty and futile.

What about the sin of adultery, bestiality, homosexuality? Are those laws still applcable today? Things and times have changed haven't they?

@ Sound Mind

Just allow Jesus to be your guide. He has never failed a test and is faithful. "Knock and it shall be opened unto you" He said.

I'd like to recommend a book called "Great Controversy" It can be read online. Its a must read for those who need to know the real mark.

Another must read is "Secret Terrosist" Its also online as well.

@ TheSilent1

Consider this: if Christians are to keep the Sabbath, should they not keep the whole Law? In Galatians 5:3, Paul says just that, substituting circumcision as the part of the Law in question.

I must disagree with that concept. Paul in Galations was addressing the ceremonial law written by Moses. This has nothing to do with the law of 10 commandments of which Paul addressed in Romans 7.

Let me make the distinction. In Galations 5 Paul rebukes the those who try to impose the law on others, but although Paul didn't qualify which law he addressed, his example of circumcision helps to highlight what law he addressed.

Galations 5:1-2
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[a] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

Pretty obvious what the theme of Paul's intent was, isn't it? What was it that triggured Paul's response is what we need to pay attention to. The undue desire to insist that circumcision be seen as salvivic. In other words if a person wasn't circumcised it was thought that such a person had not yet begun to experience salvavtion, or be could not be saved.


3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. By the time Paul had written this phrase the jewish laws had amounted to around 600 or so.

There are a lot of christians who confuse the ceremnial laws with God's moral law of 10 commandments. Notice how Paul makes that all-important difference in hwo he relates to both codes. In Galations 5 he associated the ceremonial laws with bondage. However in Romans 7 he describes another law and its relation to the christian's struggle, and how to find a balance between being dependent on God in the act of being obedient, and fullfiling the moral requirements of such a divine law. This is how he describes the moral law.

Romans 7:7
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

Right away one knows exactly what code of law Paul addresses, and he has qualified the remark with one of its commands, “You shall not covet.”

But look how Paul continues to show the moral law as not being the problem in, and of itself, 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.and in verse 14 he says, 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Do you see the difference in how he addresses both codes of laws?

So while Paul honestly reveals that sin is the problem, he is not sparing the reality that the law is powerless to save, becasue indeed it cannot save, nor can it empower us to be just in God's sight. So we can agree on one thing and that is the law cannot save, but is only a guide for us in our relationship with God.

James the apostle compares it to a mirror that can only show us how dirty we are, but lacks the cleansing power, that only grace alone can supply.

@ Stimulus

There are still at least 14 questions in the link that you haven't addressed; and from bari_kade's outlines, it is clear that the seventh-day Sabbath was not made for Christians. If you have to hold onto it, then you would have to carefully observe its strictest stipulations - there is no room for excuses with the Law.

I am not interested in skewed questions that are geared to go around the "thus saith the Lord" Nothing can go around the simple plain scripture that says:

Ecclesiastes 12:13, NIV. "Here is the conclusion of the matter. Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man(Mankind)."

No amount of questions can beat that. Its our duty to obey God's commandments, and don't confuse being obedient to God with being legalistic either, in case you're even thinking it. It has nothing to do with that. Being obedient to God is based on our love for Him. We are constrained to be because of that love that God demonstrated to us, and the more we focus on that love the more willing we become to do what God requires.

@ Thesilent1

Thanks for that imput! I have always stressed that one needs to watch out for translational errors, because these have a lot to do with the continuing confusion in christendome.

@ Stimulus

I don't think it's a question of it not being "important". It's rather a question of WHO the Law was made for.

Ecclesiastes 12:13, NIV. "Here is the conclusion of the matter. Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man(Mankind)."

@ Nestle

Satuday or sunday which day is true worshiping day

Well, actually one shoud worship God every day, but what I think you meant was which day is the day God has set aside for a more dedicated period of time to spend with Him. No doubt that would be the seventh day sabbath or Saturday as we know it today.

By the way why do you ask?

@ djl

Somebody help me to interprete what Colossians 1:15 says. "He(Jesus Christ) is the image of the invisibe God, the first born of all creations"

Christ being the image of the Invisible God would mean that Christ is the ultimate revelation of His Father. Its almost like a mirrow image of an object. That is why Jesus said "If you see me you see the Father"

The expression first-born of all creation simply means that Christ as a human is pre-eminent among all humans. In other words it is Christ who deserves all focus and attention above evry other being of creation by virtue of His sacrifice.

I am aware that the JWs have used the phrase first-born to suggest that Christ was first created by His Father and was later given the power to create. However, the phrase is not unique to the NT. It derived out of the OT.

The phrase was attributed only to sons that were born first in a jewish family who had right of birth, as well as those boys that were born after a girl, but were still called first-born. Noticed that boys who were born second after a girl were still referred to as first-borns? This is why Jesus was seen as the first-born among creation although He was not literally the first to be born, if you see what I am saying. Paul is simply stressing His pre-emminence.

Notice too how Paul refers to Christ as the first-born among the dead in Collosians 1:18. Does Paul want to convey the idea that Christ was the first to be dead and resurrected literally? Obviously not. Once again he stresses the fact that Christ rising from the dead carried more pre-eminence and importance.

Regards.

@ Topic

He is coming back indeed because all the signs that were foretold are very much visible. See Luke 21, matthew 24, and Mark 13.

His coming may seem overdue but that is because God is not willing that any should perish. He has been a very patient and loving Father.

While it may be important to contemplate the second coming, it is even more important to stop and think that before there can be a coming there has to be a judgement. Christ our High Priest has to decide based on an investigative judgement who is worthy or not worhty for eternal life.

Revelation 22:11,12, He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous[e] still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.” Jesus Testifies to the Churches
12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

So after the books have been examined and the cases decided, only then will Christ come again to give a reward to every man. None will excape the reward.

For those who loved and followed Christ they will recieve eternal life, and those who followed another Christ they will recieve eternal damnation.

That is why you must weigh the situation carefully before time runs out. If you haven't accepted Christ as yet, now is the time to do so. Seek Him while He is still your advocate and defense attorney.

I get you bro,

@ Ndipe

I really liked Desire of Ages, but the authors were trying to tow the line of Catholicism when they suggested that the brothers of Jesus Christ were actually Joseph's sons from a previous relationship.

I can't recall seeing that, but can you find that information for me. Thanks!

@ ademiife

I won't shy away from my intimate association with the JWs. That aside, I put these Bible portions before you for clear explanations:

John 14:28 You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[a] ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.

I have said it before but let me repeat it again. The role of Jesus was to completely submitt Himself to His Father. Paul made it clear in Phillipians 2 when he spoke to the issue of Christ's humility. Let us take another look at the issue.

Phil. 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Have you noticed verse 6 that categorically states that Christ "thought it not robbery to be equal with God"? Why do you think that Paul would see the need to qualify Christ's position before He humbled Himself. It was to ensure that there could have been no doubt about Christ deity.

Rev 3:5,12

5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Jesus spoke as our High priest in heaven.

12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.

Yes Jesus uses the word God as it applies to His Father, but that usage in and of itself does not speak to issue of Christ not being equal to His Father. It speaks to His continued role even after His victory over sin.  

/Rev 3:5,12- may I ask if Jesus is the same as the Almighty God?
John 17:3; 20:17- may I ask if Jesus believed in only ONE TRUE GOD Mark 12:29?

Jesus is not the same person that much I know, but He is very much Almighty. Revelation 1:8 says that. 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Notice how the use of the word "Lord" as you people always seem to stress, is written in lower case. Your own rule has betrayed you for there can be no doubt that the person that John saw walking among the 7 golden candlestiks was Jesus Himself, who describes Himself as "Almighty"

The JWs have always taught that Christ was a created being, yet you all have also said that He is "a god" based on your interpretation of John 1.

If the Father is the only true God then where does that leave Jesus? According to your ideas you cannot have two true Gods can you? And if Jesus was created then how can the Father encourage Him to be worshiped and praised when He Himself said that He will not share His glory with another. Yet listen as John speaks:

8 Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. Rev.5:8

11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice: Worthy is the Lamb who was slain To receive power and riches and wisdom, And strength and honor and glory and blessing!” 13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: “ Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”

According to the teachings of the JWs God would be inconsistent to allow a creature to be worshipped. How does that scenario fits into this passage of scripture?

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6

Notice Jesus' prayer in the garden, 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. John 17:5

Its clear as crystal that Jesus in His pre-existent form shared the same glory with His Father.

Your definition of 'to proceed' startled me; and it smacked of all efforts by you to misrepresent the truth of the scriptures. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary says as regard 'proceed' as a verb: 1. to continue doing sth that has already been started; to continue being done. 2. to do sth next after having done sth else first. 3. to move or travel in a particular direction.

You cannot use a dictionary to defne the contextual meaning or application of words.

The word proceeded as used in your version is not the main verb, and thus acts as an auxillary. When you say that someone proceeded to rest, when you should have simply repeated what the original Hebrew said, which was "God rested" who is being more dis-ingenious, or who is mis-representing the truth?

If one uses the verb "proceeded" alone then its meaning is different than when it is used with another verb. For example If I were to say "let me proceed", it would mean let me continue. The word however denotes a continuous action, and not a complete action. If on the other hand I use the verb along side another verb, the use of the helper verb adds new meaning to the main verb, by qualifying its tense. In this case "proceeded" as used in your version does not make the action a past and complete action. It makes it a past continuous, meaning that the action may have started in the past but not completed, or the action may have been intended to start but because the intention was expressed in the past the word "proceeded" was used.

Can you please, dear, reconsider your 'own' definition of 'proceed' as regard number 2? From what I have learnt from the JWs, they CERTAINLY believed God rested from his creative works as regard the earth. Yes, he rested on the seventh day!

So why didn't they just say rested instead of saying he proceeded to rest? Which is simpler? Can't you see that such expressions give the wrong ideas?

and whether the days are literal or not? No one should be dogmatic about this? Why, in the eyes of the Creator a thousand years is just like a day in the eyes of God! Ponder 2Peter 3:8. Does it sink?

In fact the days are literal. 2 Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with the days of creation. It has to do with the way people and God see time. What we may consider a long time is just a blink to God, and vice verse. So please, !

Its funny that the JWs are saying that now. I can recall sometime go, or some years ago it was the same JWs who used to teach that the days of creation were not literal, and that each of those days of creation represented a period of time, and at one stage that period was 1000 years. As a child I used to read your books, and that was taught in your books. Do you recall the book "Paradise lost, Paradise restored" ?  

Rather than appeal to others' reasoining faculty, you tend to insult their sensibility and reasoning. It is sacrilegious to twist scriptural truths- we must be very careful;

Thanks for the advice but make sure you heed it as well.

Two of my all time favourites are  "Steps to Christ" and "Desire of Ages" by E.G.White, you can read them online.

@ ricadelide

@vchlady,
you say you follow the bible; what do you know about what Jesus Christ came to do for man?
I'd be awaiting your reply.

They have their own version of the bible that has been translated in such a manner so as to hide the truth about the deity of Christ. Its one of the most inconsistent versions I have ever read. Its no wonder they are a confused over the issues. let me give you an example:

Heb. 1:8. "God is your throne forever" (a nonsensical statement) is put intead of "your throne, O God, is forever," because this statement refers to Christ.

Look at Genesis 2:1-2 and notice how complex the sentence construction is. 1 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.

Notice the phrase in bold. God "proceeded to rest" The hebrew specifically states that "God rested" but becasue the JWs do not believe that a day in creation is a literal one, they used the expression proceeded to rest to indicate the long time it took God to commence resting. When one proceeds to do something that one has not yet begun to do the action as yet. If I proceed to cleam my desk it doesn't say if and when I would have started cleaning. The phrase only indicates that I have the intention to do the act, or I may have begun to move towards my desk. Hence there can be no closure to the activiy itself, until the past tense is used, and not the past continuous.

But when you visit their bible and look at the book of Hebrews and its account of the creation you will notice the contradiction. In Hebrews 1:4 this is what is quoted, 4 For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,”

Notice the use of the past tense as it relates to God having rested?

I rest my case.

Well, that would depend on who is defining the term incest, and when it was first defined, and for what reasons. Do you know the origin of the word, and the context for its definition? That is important.

In the beginning incest didn't exist as a sin as we know it today. Inter-familial procreation only became a problem some time after creation. Soon after the flood when men began to separate to different regions because of language barriers, different genetic expressions forced close family members to discontinue inter-familial procreation.

The laws of nature somehow as far as procreation is concerned posed a problem for close family members being able to produce healthy offsprings, due to the effects of sin.

Yes really!

@ Babs787

I like how you're searching. Would you agree with me that Jesus is God or He is not? It has to be one of the two situations, correct?

If your search is genuine as I expect it is, then the truth will bear fruit. I desire to take a more conciliatory approach rather than have to insult and attack.

You may not be aware of it but the role of Sonship is something that Jesus took on. As you correctly implied, being a son would suggest that one is in a submissive role.

Is the sonship of Jesus the only reasoning you're going on to disprove Jesus' is God? 

Wouldn't the Deity of Jesus rests on whether or not He was created? If He weren't then how could He not be God, since only God alone is Creator and not a creature.

For us to view Jesus and to fully understand who He is, wouldn't we need to look at His pre-earthly existence using the bible to see what was said of Him before?

I am submitting to you that the Hebrews dealt directly with the Son. It was the Son who spoke to Moses in the burning bush. It was the Son who spoke to Abraham about the destruction of Sodom. It was the Son who dealt with the prophets of old. It was the Son who wrote the 10 commandments on ount Sinai.

I could go on,   





Bless.

@ Babs787

2nd Timothy 3 v 16-17: all scriptures is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that th man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


Does the above holds for all verses in the bible?

Very much so Babs. I am not sure why the others are afraid to say it.

@ sojiboy

Stop fooling yourself All JEHOVA WITNESSESS re pretender i know them very well ok

That is not a fair statement to make. You are not in a position to question someone's sincerity regardless of whether you think they have or don't have the truth. In all fairness you have to assume that everyone is seeking the truth until proven otherwise.

Its our duty to show the way rather than turn off people from hearing what is being shared.

@ maxpecas

so back to the original question; what was the fruit they ate. However, you cannot say the name of the fruit was knowledge. What was the name of the fruit then, that made then realise that they were naked?

That fruit was like any other fruit. The only difference about it was that it was used by God as a means of testing Adam's as well as Eve's loyalty. The fruit within itself had no power as such, but was a means to an end. In other words the act of disobeying God would have resulted in their knowing about evil as well, but not in the way God knew it. At the time before the fall only God had a perfect knowledge of both good and evil. Why else would He desire to keep us from evil if He didn't know about it's consequence? God didn't practise evil of course, but He knew about it, seeing He is omni-scient, and what it would lead to if humans or any of His intelligent creatures yielded to it.

And what was God's purpose for not wanting them to eat of that fruit?

I am glad you raised that question. That fruit stood as a test to see if they would obey God out of love and respect for Him. It brings into question the matter of trust. Lucifer the rebel angel had brought up this question of trusting God in heaven, and now on earth after he was expelled from heaven he was introducing the very same issue among Adam and Eve. This is what he said to the woman:

Genesis 3:4 “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

In other words God was not being fair. He was holding back their potential to be wiser, and greater. The very same argument he had put to the angels, a third of them, who sided and rebelled with him.

So Gwaine that includes you too it seems, right?

so do u buddy!!!!!!!!!! Get the right interpreting of the Bible before u try 2 go off preaching!!!! BOOBBYAF

Its in my blood, but I'd rather see myself as a teacher than a preacher. I notice you have not been able to disprove all I have said so far using the bible. I honestly wish you'd at least try. All of you JWs sound the same, programmed! None of you dare step out the box and see the bible for what it is.

As I said only God can deliver you!

Oh boy! You have a lot to learn vchlady. Only God can deliver you now!

@ vchlady

I think Jehovah witnesses are the true religion.

You think?

I grew up in a Church learned nothing! didn't even know much about the Bible until I started studying with Jehovah's Witnesses. My life style wasn't the best but they showed me in the Bible how I could draw close to Jehovah and it just made me get my life on tract

You learnt nothing because you were not ready to start learning. Anyone can learn in any organization if you desire truth badly enough, and that includes being in the JW's organization. Thats like a student blaming his school for not fascilitating his learning. Learning should n't depend on extrinsic factors mostly, but intrinsic ones.

I know a lot of JWs who left the organization because they were prepared to study for themselves, and were not so dependent on what their organization taught. The denomination cannot search on your behalf. You must do that for yourself.

BUT I feel GOOD knowing that Jehovah loves me and he wants me to get to know him.

Good to know that, but Jehovah has directed all eyes to His Son Jesus Christ. If you're not doing that then you'd have failed to recognise the essence of the plan of salvation. Jesus is the bridge between the Father and you. Listen to what Jesus said:

John 14:8-, Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?

Just like you the disciples were bent on learning more about the Father, but Jesus had to clarify that getting to know Him was the way to know the Father.

I read a response that said Jehovah's witnesses Bible wasn't the real Bible they made it to fit there beliefs! Well I got news for you at Psalms 83:18 IF YOUR BIBLE DOESN'T HAVE THE NAME JEHOVAH written there then may be you don't have the right Bible.

Were you made aware at your organization that the word Jehovah is not an accurate translation form the Hebrew? All the vowels in the word, that is e, o, and a were placed there by jewish writers who departed from the original manuscript. You of all persons should have known that the original expression resembled YHWH.

Originally Hebrew didn't have any vowels, and was written right to left, although some of the consonants carry with them the indication of associated vowel sounds. For instance, the "Y" is associated with the sound of a "long e",  as in "team".  The H is associated with the sound of a "short a" as "ah!"  The Vav is associated with the vowel "u" and produces the sound in the word "cool." Thus, the name of the Creator sounds something like "ee-ah oo' ah", with the accent on the second of the three syllables, as is the pronunciation convention in Hebrew.

Hence the closer pronunciation, or sounding for the name is Yahweh, and not Jehovah which is a man-made concoction.  

You say that Jehovah wants us to call and use His name, so how come Jesus called Him Father? How come Jesus taught His disciples to address His Father as Father also? How come Jesus referred to Him as God, and not Jehovah? On the cross Jesus cried out "Eloi, Eloi" which means God.

Can you find any evidence in the New Testament that any of the disciples referred to the Father as Jehovah seeing that the word Jehovah incorrectly came from the Tetragammon YHWH? Kindly go back to the NT manuscript and see if any reference was ever made to Jehovah. The only word that scholars are familiar with is Κυριος, a greek word which means Lord, and often it was associated with Jesus.  

Isaiah 44:6 Jehovah is here speaking himself he says: "Iam the first and the last and besides me there is no God."

I am glad you raised this issue. Its funny how you are quick to teach that Jesus is a lesser God, and that the Father is the true God. In John 1 the JWs teach that Jesus is a God, or a lesser God than the Father. That would mean that there are 2 Gods. One is greater than the other according to JWs. The very text you quoted contradicts your beliefs.

The very quote you supplied in Isaiah 44:6 does not suport your teaching. Yet in the book of Hebrews the Father calls His Son God. Let us read it:

Hebrews 1:6 says, "Let all the angels of God worship Him.” The Him in the verse is God's Son. Why would the Father allow another to be worshipped if He alone is due worship?

let us view Revelation 1 and see how John describes Jesus:

Revelation 1,
9 I, John, both[e] your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,”[f] and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia:

Notice how Jesus was similarly described as Isaiah described God in chapter 44 as being the "first and the last"?

John continues identifying whose voice he heard behind him, 12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man,

This is what Jesus said: 17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me,  “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last.

I also want you to notice how your own words have betrayed you. You say that whenever we see the word Lord as its seen now in the sentence, being written in lower case it means the Son right? This is what you said earlier: Well Jehovah wants us to know his so anywhere in your Bible where LORD is in capital letters Jehovah's name is suppose to be there and when you see lower case letters Jesus name is suppose to be there.

How then do you explain Revelation 1:8 which says:  “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

The "ord" in the word Lord has been written in lower case, and is a direct reference to Jesus being Almighty.

Its very clear to me that you need to search the scriptures for yourself outside of the pressure to conform to an organization. I can speak for myself that even though I belong to an organization called the SDA church, I am allowed to differ in opinion until there is clarification. I am not sure that any JW can afford to challenge the set doctrines.

@ firdaus4us

Stimulus if you think Jesus is God, then please give explaination to the verses below:

1) I do nothing of myself  (From the NIV Bible, John 8:28)"

2) "My Father (GOD) is greater than I  (From the NIV Bible, John 14:28)"

3) "Father (GOD), into thy hands I commend my spirit  (From the NIV Bible, Luke 23:46)"

4) "And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.  (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

5) "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.  (From the   NIV Bible, Matthew 24:36)"

To me the above verses affirm that Jesus is not, at all, in the same level with the Creator of the Universe

Not necessarily my friend. Those statements don't necessarily make inferior the status of Christ as it relates to His Father, when you stop to think that Christ took on a role of humility when He became a man. That role was to be totally submitted to His father's will, even though He had a will of His own.

Don't confuse that role with the status or position of Christ. Let me share with you a few texts to clear up the issue.

John 17:5, 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Here Jesus the Son makes reference to a time when He and His Father shared or possessed the same glory. And this is precisely the point I made earlier when I spoke to the issue of Christ's role as the "son of man"

Let me give an illustration. Let us imagine a king playing the role of a pauper. He leaves his kingdom dressed up in tattered garments, and decides to live among the poor and feel what the poor are feeling. He literally lives like the poor. He eats and drinks like the poor. Would you say that he is not a king by virtue of his role? Absolutely not!

Listen as the apostle Paul explains a similar story as it relates to Jesus.

Phillipians 2:5-8, 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Noticed what verse 6 says? If Christ was a creature how could He be in God's form? And why would He not consider it robbery to be equal with God, if indeed He were created?

Addendum:

1)If Jesus is/was God, then when he died for atleast three days who was in control of the entire creation during that period?

Your problem lies in not fully understanding what the word God connotes. The word God is a title, and is not attributed to the Father alone. It is attributed to His Son as well. It means government. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are seen as Deity based on their attributes. They are not three Gods, but one. The title of God belongs to all three.

Hence based on the role of Jesus having to humble Himself and die a sinner's death, His Father who was always in charge, remained in charge during His Son's rest in the grave.

Another thing to understand as well, is that Christ having to put aside His divinity didn't mean He put aside His being God. Christ is the God-Man. 100% God and 100% man. Thats called the mystery of Godliness.   You and I will never fathom it.

2) Who resurrected him?

Remember what Jesus said to Mary after she complained about lazarus's death? He said "I am the resurrection and the life, " Christ's death didn't remove His divinity. The divinity that exists in His Father and Himself brought Him back to Life.

The humanity and humility of Christ didn't allow Him to utilise that divinity, but it doesn't mean that He never had access to it either. Christ had an independent will, but refrained form using it as He was tempted many times to do.

Just bear in mind what Jesus said, "I am the resurrection, "

I agree with the other posters, but Love king why do you believe that God is above Jesus? On what basis are you saying that?

Let us reason!

@ Horus

They don’t know where hell is, or if such a place really exists. They can’t even decide what hell is. Which one is it? Is it the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10) or the pit (Revelation 11:7) or is it a place where you will be given oozing pus to drink like the Koran describes (Koran 14:16), or a place where you will be roasted (Koran 17:18), or a prison (Koran 17:? Also, how did the pit get there? How did a big place of fire get beneath us? Did God create it down there? Why is it that scientists haven’t discovered it yet being they have dug holes straight down to the center of the Earth?

To be honest the use of the word hell in christian circles, and other circles, as a word, has caused so much confusion its heart rending. On the other hand I can only comment on the biblical use of the word hell, and assure you that when you get the proper understanding of it you will walk away feeling better.  

There are three different Greek words that are translated “Hell” in our English New Testaments. It’s important to know this, for they each mean something different. They are “Tartarus,” “Gehenna,” and “Hades.” Tartarus is used only once in the New Testament, in 2 Peter 2:4. The Scripture says,

“God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.” (2 Peter 2:4, KJV).

This verse says that “the angels that sinned,” which would include Lucifer, too, have already been cast down “to hell” by God Himself. Yet they aren’t roasting right now, obviously, and they certainly aren’t suffering somewhere far beneath Los Angeles or Tokyo. Tartarus means “dark abyss” or “place of restraint.” It isn’t a place of punishment either. Look carefully. 2 Peter 2:4 says Satan’s angels are “reserved unto judgment,” which means their punishment is yet future. For Lucifer and his demons, the fire hasn’t started yet. So much for Tartarus.

Next word: “Gehenna.” All authorities admit this word is derived from the name of the narrow, rocky valley of Hinnom just south of Jerusalem where trash, filth, and the bodies of dead animals were burned up in Bible days. Jesus Christ spoke about Gehenna many times such as in Matthew 5:22, 29 & 30 where He warned about “the danger of hell [Gehenna] fire” (Matthew 5:22). Gehenna definitely suggests real flames. But a key question is: when will this fire burn? In Matthew 13:40-42, in His explanation to His disciples about His parable concerning plants, reapers and a harvest, Jesus provided this definite answer:

“The harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the weeds are gathered in burned in the fire, so shall it be at the end of this world. The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire, and there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 13:40 -42, italics added).

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” As to when the fire burns, what should we hear? Christ’s direct answer is, “at the end of this world” (verse 40). Amazingly, Peter taught the same thing when he wrote:

“But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” (2 Peter 3:7).

Peter’s words may seem radical, but they are the truth of God. By analysing carefully 2 Peter 3:7, we discover:

A real fire is coming.
It will burn “the heavens” – the polluted atmosphere we breathe.
It will burn “the earth” – the ground we walk on.
These flames will blaze on “the day of judgment.”
“Ungodly men” will end up in this fire.
Three verses later, Peter elaborated further,

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night; in the which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” (2 Peter 3:10).

This passage is crystal clear. At some point in the future the sky above and the earth beneath will literally catch fire and “melt with fervent heat.” So if you’ve been taught that the sum total of hell-fire is some smoky place beneath the ground, think again. The Bible says our entire sin-polluted planet is destined for the flames.

In addition to that the bible makes it clear where the fire will fall from. In Revelation 20 it specifically says that the fire will fall from heaven just as how it fell on Sodom.

Revelation 20:9,10
And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[b] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Its pretty clear where the fire will come from. Now the expression "cast into the lake" is also confusing because some walk away feeling that there is a place somewhere under the earth, or somewhere specially dedicated for people to burn. Such expressions must be seen in the light of context and logics. This lake obviously would be formed as a result of the fire falling form heaven anyway, if you see the point I am making. This lake isn't now in existence, bu tis yet future.

Now if you notice the phrase "devoured them" as apposed to the one that says "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever", you will walk away more confused than anything else if you don't do your home work.   Any honest greek student should walk away knowing that the expression forever and ever is a false traslation. Those who translated it thus inserted it in order to impose their religious dogma. You can't have one verse saying devoured implying an completed act, and one expression denoting an indefinite act. These are the issues that lead people from the word, at least those who are not prepared to go beyond the call of duty, and really dig into God's word properly.

What I believe is confusing people is the manner in whcih they view scripture. They isolate passages and attempt to give it a particular meaning, without paying attention to the weight of evidence of the majority of scriptures that contribute to a particular topic.

Peter continued thus,

“Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein righteousness dwells.” (2 Peter 3:13).

So as I have continuosly asked over and over, if hell will last forever where would this new earth and heaven be? If, according to the advocates of everlasting burning, that the fire would not cease, and since Peter says that the earth and heavens will be on fire, should we take it that the new heaven and earth that God speaks of is somewhere other than where everlasting fire takes place?

Thats a big fat no! This earth and pulluted heavens will be cleansed once and for all of sin, and when sin and sinners are burnt up according to Mallachi 4:1, then God will make a "new heavens and earth"

It as simple as that.

@ Stimulus

@Bobbyaf,

I would have obliged you the 'favour', but we have been there before.

To what extent I am not sure. , that is the easy way out Stimulus.

Your answer to my question as to How long exactly you think the lake of fire will last received a reply of "How would I know?" There's just no contest there - because if you don't know, what would be the use of arguing or debating the translations and original manuscripts with you?

My not knowing how long the fiery punishment will last has no bearing on your unwillingness to debate the issue. Besides, when one compares the original transcripts with some translations one would see the obvious errors. I have said it over and over again that translational errors provide the basis for a lot of beliefs today. Hence its extremely important to go back to the Greek.

You're trying to reharsh the debate that has already been tired-out in the other thread on this subject; which is not taking us anywhere, and I'm least interested in that.

As far as I recall you were the one who responded to my post. If you think now that the whole discussion on my part was a rehash then why did you bother to bring up what you already discussed in another thread? You were the one who jumped in.

My concern in this present one is simple: If you use II Pet. 3:10 to identify the EARTH as the LAKE OF FIRE, then my question is:

I urge you to stop making up stuff. I didn't identify the earth as the lake of fire. I said in response to another's query about hell fire being uniquely an event, as also being located in a place. I went on to say that the earth is that place. You then brought up the issue of the heavens which I explained was the immediate surrounding of the earth which is pretty obvious.

Are the HEAVENS also the same location as the LAKE OF FIRE?

You keep asking me the same question. Not sure what you're trying to prove. The question is wrongly constructed. You are making a comparison by your use of the word "as" as seen in bold. The lake of fire is not a place in and of itself. Its not a special spot on the earth. The whole globe will be on fire, including the atmosphere and stratosphere which the bible refers to as the heavens. Hence the earth will become the place. Stop trying hard to make it look as If I am saying that the earth or the heavens is the lake of fire.

Why leave out the heavens that are mentioned in the same connection with the earth as is evident in verses 7 and 12? People who have been holding on to the idea that the earth is the place of the lake of fire are reading their own thoughts into Scripture. And if I was greatly mistaken, then I wonder why they really haven't been able to deal with the mention of the heavens in the same connection.

Well, please see my above explanation.

@ Stimulus

Can you do me a favour?

1. Can you locate all those texts that suggest that the lake of fire will be indefinite?

2. After you have located those texts can you compare them to the original transcript in Greek and say if any of those translations fit the original transcript or not. In other words can you be 100% certain that the expressions you utillise to support an everlasting hell fire are honest translations of the original?

Looking forward to your research.

@ Stimulus

Heavens as mentioned there is really the immediate atmosphere surrounding the earth that has been defiled by man's activities. I will hasten to say its not the heaven of heavens where God dwells. I asume you already know that.

Let me repeat again. No one is saying that the earth or heaven is the lake of fire. What I am saying is that the fire that falls from heaven as recorded in Revelation 20 will cleanse both the heavens (atmospheric and stratospheric) and the earth.

I am also saying that this experience is both an event and that the place where this event will ocurr is the earth. Hence the whole globe and its surrounding atmosphere will be engulfed in fire as Peter described.

I do not find the word 'UNTIL' remotely suggested there; and those introducing that idea are doing so simply to force their own interpretation into Scripture.

The same can be said of those who see the word "unquenchable" as being indefinite.

I figured you would tow that ine of response. God's love and justice does allow Him to pour out His wrath on evil; and any idea of euphemizing His indignation is simply humanistic reasoning.

Thank God that is your opinion and not the bible's. besides no one is suggesting that God isn't free to pour out His wrath on evil, because you're exactly correct on that point. However, allowing evil to exist indefinitely according to your theory doesn't make sense.

In other words does God need an indefinite time period to destroy evil? How would that solve the sin problem? How would He re-create a new heaven and a new earth if He allowed sin to linger? The fact that God, assuming thats the case, allows an indefinite burning of sinners suggest that the sin problem would never be solved as long as the redeemed are reminded of it happening.

Jesus taught that the meek will inherit the earth, and John reminds us that God will dwell on the earth with the redeemed. If Peter says that the fire will engulf physically sinners, and the earth, how can it be even remotely believed that this fire will burn indefinitely, if we are expected to live with God on the earth made new?

If you can explain that paradox for want of a better word, go ahead.

@ Ricadelide

nferyn, somze, bobbyjaf et al,

you guys should check this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/06/hardtalk/mackay06sep.ram

and let me know what you think.

Interesting indeed how the level of interest in creationism is growing. Thanks for the link.