Post Reply
Page 6 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Strange Old Testament Scriptures About The Earth
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 4:44PM #51
Oeste
Posts: 3,404

Jul 2, 2012 -- 4:21PM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jul 2, 2012 -- 3:05PM, woodzz wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:23PM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:51AM, Kemmer wrote:


...See the article for details - the whole issue - also concerning various doomsday predictions we do not believe...



Anymore.  Which is kinda sad because the whole JW shtick is centered on immanent doomsday when God kills everyone but the JWs, who get their very own eternal, self contained prison farm where they can joyously hoe tomatoes and pick apples for all eternity.  Probably even without any internet service.




In 1874 Russell said Christ would return in 1914, but He didn't.  That was changed to 1915.  In 1918 Judge Rutherford said David and the other Old Testament worthies would be resurrected in 1925, and that didn't happen.  In 1938 at the annual Convention of JW in Cincinnati, Rutherford said that no one should marry, pursue a career, or seek higher education because the end of so near.  He repeated that in the 1941 book "Children," and that wasn't so.  In 1968 they said something marvelous was coming in 1875 and that wasn't so.  In 1989 they predicted the end of the world before the end of the 20th century and that wasn't so. 


So, this begs the question, if they have never successfully predicted a cataclysmic prophetic event, how can anyone be sure that anything the Governing Body teaches is right about anything?





Hi Five, Smile


In 1876 Russell was convinced by Nelson Barbour that Jesus had returned invisibly in 1874.  Russell taught that to his dying day in 1916, and Rutherford continued to teach it until his death in 1941. It wasn't officially changed to 1914 until 1943. 


He taught that it was Armageddon that would END in 1914, "the battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev.16:14).  They weren't expecting a war to start in 1914, but to end in 1914.  When it obviously didn't, there was an attempt to move it to 1915.


I think you probably meant to say "In 1968 they said something marvelous was coming in 1975 and that wasn't so."


It can get confusing.


Woodzz




  Jehovah's Witness prophecy, confusing?  What in the world ever gave you that idea? Surprised  My understanding is that in Russell's "Studies in the Scriptures" (2:76-77) published in 1889 it said, "Armageddon will occur in 1914."  On page 98 he wrote, "In the coming 26 years, all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved."  In Watchtower for 3/1/1903 they wrote, "When Uranus and Juipter meet in the humane sign of Aquarius in 1914, the long-promised era will have made a fair start in the work of setting man free to work out his own salvation, and will insure the ultimate realization of dreams and ideals of all poets and sages in history." 


   However, when 1914 passed, they then said, "In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the kingdom of God, will be accomplished near the end of A.D. 1915 (The Time Is At Hand, 1915 edition p99). 




Later they blamed all this quackery on "Christendom", claiming they were "Coming out of darkness" (except 1975 - they blamed that on the flock).


Only thing is, I can't seem to find a single main line Christian church that taught any of this. Perhaps someone can finally tell us where in "Christendom" they picked up there teachings?


Never argue with stupid people. They will drag
you down to their level and then beat you with
experience ~ Mark Twain

If you are neutral on situations of injustice
you have chosen the side of the oppressor ~
Desmond Tutu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 4:50PM #52
woodzz
Posts: 2,065

Jul 2, 2012 -- 4:44PM, Oeste wrote:


Later they blamed all this quackery on "Christendom", claiming they were "Coming out of darkness" (except 1975 - they blamed that on the flock).


Only thing is, I can't seem to find a single main line Christian church that taught any of this. Perhaps someone can finally tell us where in "Christendom" they picked up there teachings?






That would be interesting, Oeste.  They also blamed their membership for trying to calculate what the lifetime of a generation was.  This was in 1995 when they were changing it from the "anointed" to a generation of evil people.


Holly

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 5:08PM #53
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

Jul 2, 2012 -- 11:17AM, AnnOMaly wrote:


Newt,


Thank you for bringing up the Hebrew words.


Here is some more information about the Hebrew word translated 'firmament.'


www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lex...


Gesenius' Lexicon gives the thought of "the firmament of heaven, spread out like a hemisphere above the earth (...), like a splendid and pelucid sapphire (...), to which the stars where supposed to be fixed, and over which the Hebrews believed there was a heavenly ocean."


And from Strong:


1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament


a) expanse (flat as base, support)


b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)


1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above


 



 

You are in error, Ann - e.g. that is not how Strong's defines H7549

 

Here is Strong's:

 

H7549 רקיע râqı̂ya‛ raw-kee'-ah From H7554; properly an expanse, that is, the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky: - firmament.

 

NW "expanse" is accurate for raqia.

 

You like Barnes - note what Barnes notes on raqia in Genesis 1:6

 

"Gen 1:6-8   - IV. The Second Day 6. רקיע  rāqı̂ya‛, “expanse;” στερέωμα  stereōma, רקע  rāqa‛, “spread out by beating, as leaf gold.” This expanse was not understood to be solid, as the fowl is said to fly on the face of it Gen_1:21. It is also described as luminous Dan_12:3, and as a monument of divine power Psa_150:1."

 

John Gills Exposition of the Bible, in part, notes:

 

"Gen 1:6  And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,.... On which the Spirit of God was sitting and moving, Gen_1:2 part of which were formed into clouds, and drawn up into heaven by the force of the body of fire and light already produced; and the other part left on the earth, not yet gathered into one place, as afterwards: between these God ordered a "firmament to be", or an "expanse" (v); something stretched out and spread like a curtain, tent, or canopy: and to this all those passages of Scripture refer, which speak of the stretching out of the heavens, as this firmament or expanse is afterwards called; seePsa_104:2 and by it is meant the air, as it is rendered by the Targum on Psa_19:1 we call it the "firmament" from the (w) word which the Greek interpreter uses, because it is firm, lasting, and durable: and it has the name of an expanse from its wide extent, it reaching from the earth to the third heaven; the lower and thicker parts of it form the atmosphere in which we breathe; the higher and thinner parts of it, the air in which fowls fly,..."

 

Notice Barnes and Gill cite Scriptural evidence the expanse is the air/atmosphere in which birds fly.   Scholars may disagree - but the Bible itself is infallible!  Of course, Gill goes on to give a questionable interpretation of Genesis 1:17 - the stars are not literally in this heaven, the expanse - they appeared in the sky/atmosphere once the waters above the expanse became translucent and then transparent.

 

In my next post I will link you to our Bible dictionary which cites even more Scriptural evidence under "expanse."

 

 

 
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 5:11PM #54
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

woodzz and five point - You are off thread theme.


I invited five point to start a separate thread on the subject you are posting on - I will give you (and now Oeste) a chance to comply.


I will only respond on thread theme.

Moderated by nanalulu222 on Jul 02, 2012 - 05:19PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 5:19PM #55
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

Ed and Ann - As Mr. Jordan noted the recent thread on war, we now have additional research tools online to share with you.


I will link you to more on raqia and the other words in question as I find the references.


First, from our Bible dictionary under "Expanse."


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001461?q...


I will let you read the entry rather than my usual cut and paste excerpts.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 5:22PM #56
nanalulu222
Posts: 9,049

Lets ALL stay on thread them please.



Thank you,


Nanalulu222


DJW co-host

Conservative Christian.  Remember: you're unique, just like everyone else.
DJW community host.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 6:04PM #57
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

Jul 2, 2012 -- 5:22PM, nanalulu222 wrote:


Lets ALL stay on thread them please.



Thank you,


Nanalulu222


DJW co-host




Wow - Nanalulu - You are really alert!   Thank you!


On the lighter side, note that Ann's evidence is more solid than mine!Surprised

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 6:10PM #58
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

You all - Since in Genesis 1:6-8 the expanse (Hebrew raqia) is called "heaven" - we would also need to research "heaven" in Biblical usage.


Here is a link to our Bible dictionary under Heaven which refers to Genesis 1:6-8 and the Hebrew raqia:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001949?q...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 6:27PM #59
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

Ed - Under heaven:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001949?q...


We also discuss the Hebrew word shachaq found in Job 37:18


Here is an excerpt:


The cloudy skies. Another term, the Hebrew sha′chaq, is also used to refer to the “skies” or their clouds. (De 33:26; Pr 3:20; Isa 45:8) This word has the root meaning of something beaten fine or pulverized, as the “film of dust” (sha′chaq) at Isaiah 40:15. There is a definite appropriateness in this meaning, inasmuch as clouds form when warm air, rising from the earth, becomes cooled to what is known as the dewpoint, and the water vapor in it condenses into minute particles sometimes called water dust. (Compare Job 36:27, 28; see CLOUD.) Adding to the appropriateness, the visual effect of the blue dome of the sky is caused by the diffusion of the rays of the sun by gas molecules and other particles (including dust) composing the atmosphere. By God’s formation of such atmosphere, he has, in effect, ‘beaten out the skies hard like a molten mirror,’ giving a definite limit, or clear demarcation, to the atmospheric blue vault above man.—Job 37:18.


See also this link:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004157?q...


That also discusses shachaq, and Biblical usage of "sky."


See the entry, but here is an excerpt on your specific question about Job 37:18 -


The Hebrew word sha′chaq (sky) is also translated “film of dust,” “cloud,” “cloudy sky”; it is apparently from a root meaning “pound fine.” (2Sa 22:43) Jehovah speaks of himself as the one who “beat out the skies hard like a molten mirror.” (Job 37:18) The particles forming the atmosphere are indeed compressed under the pull of gravity, and their outer limits are within set boundaries, gravity preventing their escape from the earth. (Ge 1:6-8) They do reflect the sunlight in a manner comparable to a mirror. Because of this the sky looks bright, whereas without an atmosphere an observer on the earth would see only blackness in the sky, with the heavenly bodies glowing brilliantly on a black background, as is the case with the atmosphereless moon. Astronauts can observe the earth’s atmosphere from outer space as an illuminated, glowing halo.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 6:36PM #60
Kemmer
Posts: 16,634

If you start a separate thread on the subject you are posting on, I will respond there.


  


This is typical of Newt; if he doesn't wish to discuss something, he tells you to start another thread--which I have done before and which he has ignored.


However, please note that Jehovah's Witnesses accept the Bible as the highest written authority, so if you do not post Scriptures (or at least cite Scriptures) I may not respond.



Will you respond to bizarre quotations from past WTs?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook