₦airaland Forum

truthislight: @op

you were right saying that the issue was that of circumcission.

But you were wrong and leading along the wrong idea that it was Moses life that the lord was after.

Does the law on circumcission to cost the Life of the father or the life of the individual not circumciss?

Read GENESIS 17:14.

It is the life of the uncircumciss that was to be cut off.

So it was moses sons life and not moses life.

How do we even know whose feet was touch?
Son, Angel, or moses?
Dont go beyond what is written.

OLAADEGBU: Yes. Zipporah, his wife saved Moses from death because he failed to obey the Abrahamic covenant God made with the Israelites:

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.... And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:10,14).

Thank God that his wife quickly did the right thing otherwise Moses would have met his waterloo.

Ihedinobi: My final submission: if you don't believe in the Trinity of God, you do not know the salvation of God. If, like Frosbel, you believe that Jesus is God but that God is not a Trinity, your salvation is fine, but your effectiveness for God is under tremendous limitation.

No man can lay claim to the Salvation of God whose salvation is not founded entirely on the revelation that it was God Who became man to set men free from their enmity toward God and bring them into family relationship with Himself. Knock yourself out attacking this position.

Edited.

Ihedinobi: Likewise those of the line who thought nothing of the sacrifice were rejected by the Lord as being of men and not His, just like Cain was.

If the purity of the line had been maintained and not corrupted by those marriage alliances, wickedness would not have filled the earth resulting in having only one righteous man approved of the Lord in that entire generation. But for the Flood, things would have degenerated to the point that we'd have completely lost God in our imaginations and there'd be no line through which the Messiah would come. This was why the Flood.

In fact, I understood God's statement about His Spirit striving with man for the first time doing this re-examination. The instant the marriages began to happen, it became incontrovertible that even these sons of God were flesh and could no longer be counted on. They would eventually lose sight of the significance of the purity of their line and God's last link to the earth He created would be gone. To secure that link, the Lord destroyed everything that threatened it.

I don't mean to explain the Flood. I mean to explain that the sons of God were certain people with peculiar characteristics. They were people like Abel, like Enoch, like Noah. You'll see the significance of the issue of marital purity later with Abraham and his children, then later the children of Israel and finally us Christians.

There's a great deal in this study. Many things that are thrown up as a result of defining these sons of God. That's one reason I said it's very hard work. And I hate to do it for anyone who doesn't belong in the House because doing so makes nonsense of the sacred things I present and causes incredible bitterness as as result of the wrangling that ensues.

Ihedinobi: My beloved brother, I do not mind telling you that that is hard work. But I'll do my best to make it short work and avoid muddling things up along the way.

First off, I also held the notion that they were angels for two reasons: (a) the Nephilim that were mentioned later and I'd assumed were their progeny and (b) the two verses in Job that appeared to include Satan among the sons of God (Job 1:6, 2:1).

(a) The same verse where the Nephilim were mentioned was the same where the notion that they were borne of these marriages was destroyed. In the Amplified, Genesis 6:4 reads

"there were giants on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God lived with the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

The Nephilim, that is, the giants were part of the environment, not the product of those marriages.

(b) I read the two verses in Job from four translations to get the true picture. I didn't quite need to, because there is Psalm 82 to address assumptions. In the Amplified Bible, the word, angels, was put in square brackets to explain the sons of God. In the New Living Translation, the expression is "members of the heavenly court". In the New International Version, the word was angels with a footnote saying that the Hebrew is "sons of God". King James Version, New King James Version, and the Revised Standard Version all run with "sons of God".

Again I declare, nothing in the Scriptures may be interpreted alone. The Scriptures must be interpreted by Scriptures. Eph 3:10 record in the Amplified Bible, "[The purpose is] that through the church the complicated, many-sided wisdom of God in all its infinite variety and innumerable aspects might now be made known to the angelic rulers and authorities (principalities and powers) in the heavenly sphere."

Psalm 82 speaks of God having a council of sorts with authorities. The latter chapters of Daniel are filled with speakings of angelic authorities operating under God. Paul's letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians are quite rife with mentions of spiritual authorities that are not human in nature. These all lend their meaning to Job 1 and 2. So, the sons of God there are most likely angelic authorities charged with oversight of the Old Creation, that which is passing away. But do they as well lend their meaning to Genesis 6? We have Jesus's words to educate us there. Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:36 speak of one essential difference between the human and the angel: the human marries and bears children, the angel doesn't. It is extreme liberality with the Scriptures that result in careless meanings like that the sons of God of Genesis 6 are the sons of God of Job 1 and 2.

However, who are the sons of God in Genesis 6?
Before anything else is said, it must be known without question that they were human. They most definitely were.

Having said that, I'll go on to say that they were, possibly among others Seth's lineage. Adam had two distinctive sons who represented the two paths available to the human race: (1) Cain and (2) Abel. We know what Cain did to Abel. We probably also know why. But do we know the significance of Eve's utterance in Gen 4:25 when she had Seth?

There was a Seed promised. He was going to come from a line of men who held on to God and were faithful to His commands. Abel was the first we saw who indicated understanding of the gravity of Adam's failure in the Garden. His sacrifice pleased the Lord and the Lord accepted his person. Upon his death at the hand of Cain (another incredibly significant thing in itself), Seth replaced him. Seth's lineage was the same as Abel's lineage in the eyes of the Lord. Everyone who was in the same understanding that Abel had about the Righteousness of the Lord and the gravity of Adam's failure was morally and legally, even if not biologically, of that lineage. They are those called sons of God as against sons of men.

From the beginning, there has been two lines: those who are the Lord's and those who are their own. Abel and all in his character are of the first, Cain and all in his character are of the second. And, from the very beginning, there was never supposed to be mixture of the lines or else there would be corruption and loss of purity in that which is the Lord's.

Those who, in those days, made acceptable sacrifices on altars recognized by the Lord are those that proceeded from Seth's line. Like I said, others not of this line biologically may have joined them. They were also accepted. But I'm sure it'll be recognized that they were the exception among their people. . .

MyJoe: @ihedinobi
If you have had problems with certain discussants and found the exercise unedifying, my sympathies. I will skip the bit about degrading your family heritage since I respect your strong Christian values. But I will like to say that while I do place considerable value on the Bible, I doubt that the “value of the scriptures” would mean exactly the same thing to you and me. That portion of the Bible is not of any particular importance to me – I highlighted your post because I had thought Christians generally accept that the “sons of God” were angels and you are the first person I recall to hold a contrary view. So if you only discuss these matters in a heavy atmosphere and with someone who shares similar interests, feel free to respond no further. Not that I sought a discussion per se. I just hope to understand why you hold your position. I have no intention to debate or that sort of thing.

Now to answer your question:
I have not paid any particular attention to that verse beyond recollections of what I learnt many years back – you know, Sunday school, children’s Bible and CRK stuff. Now that you have made me to think about the matter, I think those who taught me knew what they were talking about because:
1. The expression “sons of God” used here is used in other verses of the Bible to refer to angels. For example, Job 1:6 and 38:7 – or weren’t the guys in Job angels?
2. St Jude talks about angels abandoning their positions (Jude 6).
3. St Peter talks about “the spirits in prison” and links them with the days of Noah (1Pe 3:19, 20).

@Edit
No no. I didn’t mean that the devil was among them, although, funny enough, that seems to fit in somehow. I’m sure you are familiar with the phrase, “the devil is in the detail”. Just a harmless idiomatic expression stretched a bit.

Pastor AIO: @Enigma, it seems that there are some underlying issues that you and I need to discuss, and not just brush under the carpet with glib apologies. I'm open to having this discussion, I hope you are. It'll have to be publicly, here on NL though.

souldust: @truthislight, So for you, the books of the new testament were accepted by the early christians as scriptures only becos they were written by the apostles. But the book of luke, acts and hebrew were not written by the apostles (the twelve) but they are found in the bible. This goes to show that the cannon we have today is not a product of the endorsment by the thesalonian christians like you are trying to make us believe

Though the bible says they accepted it as the word of god, but the truth is they did not consider it on the par with the 'established' hebrew cannon (the OT) prior to the 4th century AD. So the only reason why you and i believe that the bible we have today is scripture is thatthe RCC called it so!

one more thing; since there were no printing press and the various chuches are miles away frrom each other, there is nothing to prove that all of the churches were in possesion of all the letters of the apostles. Or is there anything to prove that some of the churches were not having documents that are not found in the bible today.

MyJoe: Genesis 6:1-4(KJV)
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Gen 6:1-4 (NIV)
1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6 (MSG)
1-2 When the human race began to increase, with more and more daughters being born, the sons of God noticed that the daughters of men were beautiful. They looked them over and picked out wives for themselves.
3 Then God said, "I'm not going to breathe life into men and women endlessly. Eventually they're going to die; from now on they can expect a life span of 120 years."
4 This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones.

No, Mr Obi. I don't find your current position agreeable. But you already considered these verses before adopting it, so it will be interesting to hear your explanation.

Ihedinobi: Of course, I don't. That's how I know that that passage you just threw out was the one you were banking on to hold up that teaching. What in there says that angels slept with women? I don't care to derail this thread nor am I interested in fighting over Scripture with you, truthislight. As far as I am concerned, you and I do not belong in the same home so why would I bother to open the treasures of my heritage to you?

Enigma: People should stop spreading the falsehood (born of ignorance or poor learning) that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible -- yada yada. That is the real bottom line for this thread.

Enigma: People should stop spreading the falsehood (born of ignorance or poor learning) that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible -- yada yada. That is the real bottom line for this thread.

MyJoe: I had resolved to stop responding to you since you find it very hard to comprehend statements and so end up turning them upside down when responding to them and trying to clear things up will only lead you to find more things to read awry. But I would like to ask: do you know the difference between these two statements:

I think her point is that op opened the thread for people to ask questions about his BELIEFS and not to discuss the infractions or waywardness of the church.

and

I think her point is that op opened the thread for people to ask questions about his BELIEFS and not to discuss the infractions or perceived waywardness of the church.

MyJoe: ^^^ For the benefit of anyone reading, I merely responded to what I thought was someone's sincere enquiry about the presence of the matter of JW child abuse in the news. I did not imply that it has anything to do with teaching the Bible or being perfect of disfellowshiping or not disfellowhiping or any of the other stuff that the post above chose to read into it. And I did not imply that the CNN or the BBC are infallible. His co-JW defender, Maximus85, did.

MyJoe: Thank you. I knew it, but chose to be cautious as I could be getting things mixed up.


Honesty is a rare commodity, Mr Adegbu.


I think her point is that op opened the thread for people to ask questions about his BELIEFS and not to discuss the infractions or perceived waywardness of the church. But I guess you are right. These things must come up.

OLAADEGBU: Are you also saying that the BBC and CNN are apostates tarnishing the image of your Society? I posted a question that your fellows are shying away from, do you want to answer it? Here is the question in case you missed it:

How sure was your Society that the date 1914 would not be "changed" and that it was "not the date for the beginning, but for the end"?

MyJoe: Years back, I think the BBC reported it, but I'm not sure of it at the moment. But the CNN, ABC and some other US networks certainly did. The recent case in which $28 has been awarded against the church by a California court was reported by several media houses, including the Huffington Post, the Oakland Tribune and MSNBC.

By the way, your assertion that if an incident is not reported by the BBC or CNN it should be forgotten is preposterous. You may wish to reconsider and amend the post.

MyJoe: I thought I read that in the Bible someplace?

chukwudi44: To answer your other questions.All apostolic churches had existed since the first century CE but were all then under one umbrella prior to the council of chalcedon.There is nothing like small or capital letter catholic church.most times the term catholic church is used to describe the RCC but in actual sense it actually comprises of all churches of apostolic origin

OLAADEGBU: Yes. Zipporah, his wife saved Moses from death because he failed to obey the Abrahamic covenant God made with the Israelites:

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.... And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:10,14).

Thank God that his wife quickly did the right thing otherwise Moses would have met his waterloo.

Cleverley: According to Good news Bible;- At a camping place on the way to egypt, the lord met Moses and tried to kill. Then zipporah, his wife, took a sharp stone, cut off the foreskin of her son, and touched moses' feet with it. Because of the rite of circumcision she said to Moses, "you are a husband of blood to me." And so the Lord spared Moses life.
Now my question is why would God want to kill Moses? Why why why. I need ur views/comment. [b][/b]

thehomer: Really davidylan? Are you sure about that? Don't blame me for your ignorance and hubris.

davidylan: the sun appeared by random chance and those seeds just appeared out of nowhere? So sand exists because that is what it always does? Somehow this chance has ONLY found expression on this tiny portion of the universe?

souldust: when paul wrote that thesalonians you quoted, the book of rev was not written at that time. So if the books paul said the christians accepted are the only ones that are scriptures then the book of rev shouldnt be in the bible! Rev was written about 98AD

chukwudi44: You just confirmed yourself as an olodo.Multiple christian sects existed with their separate scriptures eventually the RCC came up with their own sect of scriptures which they called bible.You do not believe the RCC yet you cling tenaciously to the set of scriptures they compiled. You are here quoting Nathan for me because it was canonized.Why don't you quote other books like Enoch which was not canonized

mkmyers45: Huh? care to explain? Chukwudi's definition was right

mkmyers45: Huh? care to explain? Chukwudi's definition was right

chukwudi44: Which christians are you talking about? Are referring to the montanists,docetists,nicolaitans,marcionists e.t.c
You obviously have no knowlege about the history of christianity.FYI multiple christian sects arose each with their own unique beleifs and scriptures.There was nothing like a common canon.All sorts of writings were flying about including about 18 gospels each purpoetedly written by the apostles.

MyJoe: Right. During my inquiries years back, one of the most valuable materials I ever had access to was put together by a serving JW.

OLAADEGBU: This is what brainwashing does to people who have been blinfolded into believing a lie. I provided the evidence that your organisation published and instead of you proving me wrong you go on to blackmail me accusing me of telling lies.

MyJoe: 8. Yeah. I guess I missed it somehow. Or maybe I didn’t pay sufficient attention to it and so don’t have it in my long memory.

I have done a bit of reading of the matter and I am quite surprised. That in spite of the fact that the UN alliance matter exposed how hypocritical they can be. You see, I was quite prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on the UN issue. I thought, “oh, well, perhaps Peloyan (then Awake editor, now late) advised the GB that the affiliation was necessary to enable magazine researchers get information about the UN and the GB believed it.” But this one is on another level. Well, it appears to be.

You may be aware that in Nigeria, respected JW men, including circuit overseers, were involved in the pyramid schemes of 2001. In fact, they were known as “Watchtower lottery” in some places. Now, I just read someone speculating that Watchtower may have invested in Bernard Madoff’s scheme. Whether that speculation is true or not, I will keep an open mind on since it is just a speculation, but the mention of pyramid reminds me of the 2001 debacle.

I have heard some express moral reservations about investment in the stock market and I share their sentiments and would be surprised that a group like the Watchtower would go anywhere near stocks. Still, I understand that most people see nothing wrong investing in the stock market. But military and tobacco? The reports about Watchtower’s investments in military and tobacco companies definitely have some trueness to them. What is not clear to me yet is who knew what and when. There are what look like authentic documents of the US Securities and Exchange Commission with Watchtower listed as shareholders in some of the “questionable” companies. I mean, there are facts that appear to suggest strongly that the Watchtower Society has military and tobacco stocks. It doesn’t look good.

The Rand Cam case appears convincing at first, but I have read a letter purportedly written by the Watchtower Society in which they admit some link to the company but deny having received any contribution from the company and that their name which was listed in error has been removed in correction. Since I have not had sufficient time to go through things with a fine comb, I will put off making up my mind on that matter. However, I find the Riley Trust/Phillip Morris case hard to dismiss. I think thinking JWs will find it disturbing that their church would receive money from a trust that invests in the world’s most renown tobacco company (later changed name to Altrious, I think). And while you can say that it is not Watchtower investing in the cigarette company but receiving the proceeds, would that be a good defence, since the trust exists solely to make money for the Society? Another angle to the investment in Phillip Morris could be that the guys managing the trust bought those shares without Watchtower’s knowledge. Would that also be a good defence since Watchtower magazines counsel Witnesses to know whatever it is they invest their money into? The evidence appears to weigh against the Society, but I have not looked through all the information available and will do more findings before making up my mind on whether Watchtower is guilty of knowingly or negligently investing in smart bombs and cigarettes.

I can't find any JW Lockheed Martin links.

Of course, I am aware that if it was reported that the Catholic Church had investments in a company making weapons – like it was found during the Vietnam War, I think – or one making stuff used for aborting foetuses, the Watchtower and Awake magazines will write about it without trying to mitigate or weigh up anything. But what sickens me in all this – just as much as investing in military industry or tobacco would be – is the fact that the Watchtower Society would carry on big business in this manner while condemning the “greedy merchants” of the world as well as “Christendom’s churches” for doing business with those “greedy merchants”.