DescentBB

Diverted from Evolution (@ inevitably the origin of life and the universe)

Moses understood them as literal days...

Exodus 20 wrote:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

It doesn't get more straightforward.

Thorne, your getting into a Scriptural debate you cannot possibly win.


Man's perception of time (IE Moses's) is NOT God perception of time.


EDIT: besides that its not relevant to the fact that he created the universe.

You can't possibly win everyone over in any argument. People have their own reasons for believing a lot of things that aren't true, and the enemy is not wasting any opportunities to make people believe things that undermine anything and everything. Arguments about man's perception of time vs God's perception of time mean absolutely nothing in this case. That is what Moses understood these things to mean. I don't care what cultural pressures are on us to see it differently, that's pretty clear-cut. I don't believe there is any reason, coming from within the scriptures, to see it as meaning anything else! I don't believe the word of God is open to our own interpretation. Where it needs to be interpreted it can only properly be interpreted by the author. Otherwise I believe we should take it as stated, fearfully.

There is certainly something in the New Testament about God's rest, but whether that's talking about a rest that God himself is participating in, or God's rest for us, I do not know. I know that Jesus said that \"the Father has been working until now, and I have been working\". How can God be working if this is still the 7th day and God is resting? Why does the scripture speak of our resting from our own works as God \"did\" (past-tense) from his?

I knew that thread would get out of control. :P

And pi is 3, after all, the bible says so.

For what it's worth, Moses was also the author of Psalm 90:1-4 which states \"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.\" KJV

It appears that God inspired Moses to speak of the seven-thousand-year-long creative period as \"days.\" What is quite long in time for mortal man is infinitesimally short to the immortal God. Since some theorists claim that time could've been a created commodity, God could not be subject to it. So, possibly stating here that God's creative \"days\" are not necessarily an exact thousand of our years but more of a symbolic picture of the time difference or perception.

2 Peter 3:8 (although not written by Moses) also backs this time conversion or symbolism: \"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.\" KJV

Just a different perspective

ccb056 wrote:And pi is 3, after all, the bible says so.

how childish

I'm with Sniper on this one. I'm certainly not a religous man, but I don't see why they have to be literal 'days'.

.

Ya, further translations are more indeed more intended to bring the ancient writings more in line with \"modern thinking\" or \"what's been observed\" (all of which means people trying to change what *may* be sacred writings to what they would like it to say .... but I digress.

Either way, the point is that the \"days\" stated in Genesis doesn't have to be \"24 hour days\" as we currently reckon them. The \"days\" referred to could be possibly be the \"days\" as reckoned by God which could possibly be according to the span of \"days\" according to the place where God lives... which doesn't have to be on this planet.

But then, that doesn't matter to you since you don't believe in God (even though you attend a church regularly).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Diverted from Evolution (@ inevitably the origin of life and the universe)

Moses understood them as literal days...

Exodus 20 wrote:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

It doesn't get more straightforward.

Thorne, this wasn't Moses's understanding. It was God's dictation and decree outlining the week. Part of the law with emphasis on the Sabbath.

As snoop said in another thread, this is about WHY not How or When. Scripture is also pretty clear that a 1000 years are like a day to God. This is stated in a couple of places. This is metaphorical of course.

and Bet, what does "... and any modern interpretations are meaningless and simply an effort to bring the bible in line with what's been observed." mean?

I think she means the Bible has been edited a few times over the years. I tend to agree.

with over 20k sources many very ancient,(some nearly original) and a better understanding now of the languages used than ever before?

naw. That doesn't hold water anymore. But thanks.

What the Bible? Don't try and tell me it hasn't been edited... just don't even try.

The meaning has certainly been allowed to change with the times, conveniently, and it has nothing to do with a better understanding of the languages.

Duper wrote:this is about WHY not How or When.

I would say that is based on nothing more than convenience. It can't mean what it says because... That's slippery ground.

Duper wrote:with over 20k sources many very ancient,(some nearly original) and a better understanding now of the languages used than ever before?

naw. That doesn't hold water anymore. But thanks.

Ok, so there is quite a few sources and some are nearly "original" ... why then are there so many versions that obviously understand the same passages differently?

For that reason, I'd say your implication that the modern 'translations' (actually, modern editing) is more accurate simply does not hold water.

nee-ner, nee-ner.

TechPro wrote:Ok, so there is quite a few sources and some are nearly "original" ... why then are there so many versions that obviously understand the same passages differently?

examples????

Don't really need to do any examples, just pick a passage and then compare that same passage with other translation versions. You will see differences. In some cases, MANY differences.

Then do it.

The Creation story is all poetry and is not meant as a text book. It's also prophetic. .. but I doubt many here will accept that...

.

Bet51987 wrote:And no, I don't believe in the bible God at all but I do believe in Jesus which is why I continue to worship Him.

Bee

one in the same

John 10-30 I and the Father are one."

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews to him, you art not yet fifty years old, and hast you seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

I am is a direct reference to Exodus when Moses asked God what his name was. this is only used twice in scriptures. Exodus and John 8-58

Exodus 3:14 "And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt you say to the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me to you."

there are 2 examples of Christ saying that he is God

Bet51987 wrote:It just annoys me how some people pry the bible out of church, then change the meanings of genesis to "explain" what science finds. Genesis is either literal or it's false.

I thought the opposite was what annoyed you - trying to make science conform to what the Bible says! Sounds like Christians can't win in your book no matter what they do, huh?

The fact that you, along with many Christians, believe it's either literal or false simply goes to show that most people don't have a good idea of how to read ancient documents. The Bible is composed of several different types of literature (law, biography, history, poetry, prophecy/eschatology, and I'm inclined to place the first parts of Genesis in their own since they don't seem to fit in with any of the others, in terms of linguistics [as well as I understand it, anyway] and content.)

I really don't care what method God used to create the universe and life within - instant creation, evolution, or whatever. I don't think it's nearly as important as many Christians make it out to be and this is a huge mistake on their part because it causes people interested in the faith to discount it based on a non-essential doctrine.

Personally, I'm inclined to think that the creation account is metaphorical based simply on the text itself, not any outside scientific consideration, which I honestly don't care about. SO I'm not going to take it sitting down when someone assumes I take a particular interpretation based on what scientists say.

Bet, you're talking about the book of Genesis. The first book of the Torah. Not only are you dissing all Christians but also every Jewish Hebrew scholar; religious and nonreligious. You in effect are saying that they know nothing of the subject they have studied ... their whole lives. 3 to 4 times your age. There is a lot about translating you don't know. Especially ancient texts. there is a lot I don't know for that matter I'm still learning and it's rather amazing. The Hebrew language was very artist and lyrical. There are various forms and you need to understand which is which. .. context reveals that.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The meaning has certainly been allowed to change with the times, conveniently, and it has nothing to do with a better understanding of the languages.

Duper wrote:this is about WHY not How or When.

I would say that is based on nothing more than convenience. It can't mean what it says because... That's slippery ground.

*sigh*

how do I put this..

Scripture many times has a manifold purpose. Sure, the first couple of chapters of Genesis gives a rudimentary "How", but the over arching theme is Why we are the way we are in relation to God. It wasn't meant as God's textbook to man as Astrophysics 101. Every thing in scripture is GOd's relation to man and man's relation to God. How it got messed up, how we muttled along the way and How God Fixed it. And Why's on all those points.
"seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.." Don't worry about anything else. if others want to use arguments of "mistranslation" and evolution to dismiss God, let them. It is truly their loss and only God can change that. And I hope He does. He did for me.

You tend to be too rigidly literal. Like you are afraid that if things aren't "just so", it will all crumble and fall through your fingers. Maybe that would be a good thing. I occasionally need that in my life to center my focus.

.

CUDA wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:And no, I don't believe in the bible God at all but I do believe in Jesus which is why I continue to worship Him.

Bee

one in the same

John 10-30 I and the Father are one."

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews to him, you art not yet fifty years old, and hast you seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

I am is a direct reference to Exodus when Moses asked God what his name was. this is only used twice in scriptures. Exodus and John 8-58

Exodus 3:14 "And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt you say to the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me to you."

there are 2 examples of Christ saying that he is God

Psalms 83:18 - that people may know that you whose name is JEHOVAH, you ALONE are the most high over all the earth.

CUDA, look in the beginning or end of your bible. It should say something about the tetragrammatin (Hebrew - 'YHWH', english - Jehovah) being removed.



Be aware people, because i am going to shut down the six most common myths in religion today; Because im not liking where this thread is going anymore.

MYTH 1 - THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL

Genesis 2:7 ...Jehovah god proceeded to form man out of dust from the ground and plow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul [Hebrew, ne'phesh].

ne'phesh - translated to soul, means a creature that breathes.

MYTH 2 - THE WICKED SUFFER IN HELL

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 ...for the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing...for their is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol to which you are going.

Sheol- Hebrew
Hell- English
Hades- Greek

All three of these meaning 'the grave'. Death.

MYTH 3 - ALL GOOD PEOPLE GO TO HEAVEN

Matthew 5:5 ...Happy are the mild tempered ones, for they will inherit the earth.

Notice in the lord's prayer, "let thy kingdom take place in heaven, ALSO UPON THE EARTH"

MYTH 4 - GOD IS A TRINITY

Acts 7:55, 56 ...Stephen, filled with holy spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God's right hand. 'Look, I see heaven thrown open,' he said, 'and the son of man standing at the right hand of Jehovah.'

Stephen was filled with God's active force, holy spirit. There was no mention of a third person next to god in this account.

The statement that there are three persons in one god cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament.

MYTH 5 - MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD

Luke 1:31-35 ...You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the son of the most high... and so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.

Never in the bible has mary made a claim that she is the mother of god.

MYTH 6 - GOD APPROVES OF THE USE OF ICONS IN WORSHIP

Exodus 20:4, 5 ... You must not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.

Short and sweet.



There you have it folks.
Thank you Duper. Some of your guys' arguments dont have a strong base and things are being looked at too literal.

EDIT: Yes, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. For those who aren't familiar, its a religion, not a cult.

Must....resist. Jehovah Witness is no different than any other dissection of Christianity (baptist, pentecostal..so forth). They all think they have a very complicated thing figured out and push it on their group. This is why I hate organized religion.

flip wrote:Must....resist. Jehovah Witness is no different than any other dissection of Christianity (baptist, pentecostal..so forth). They all think they have a very complicated thing figured out and push it on their group. This is why I hate organized religion.

Actually Flip, if you're familiar with JW theology and origins, you would know that isn't true. JW doctrine denys the sovereign deity of Christ; an essential element of Christianity.

But iirc, you're atheist so it won't matter anyways.

CUDA, look in the beginning or end of your bible. It should say something about the tetragrammatin (Hebrew - 'YHWH', english - Jehovah) being removed

You mean "Yahweh". "Jehovah" is a left over Latin annunciation. In most bible prefaces, there is an explanation to How and Why different names of God are represented as
"LORD", Lord", and "Almighty" and others. not removed. It is incumbent on the reader to make the most of the bible on hand.

Back on topic...

incidentally, everyday since Christ is the the day of the Lord's rest. Christ also said:

"16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

John 5:16-18

Duper wrote: You mean "Yahweh". "Jehovah" is a left over Latin annunciation. In most bible prefaces, there is an explanation to How and Why different names of God are represented as
"LORD", Lord", and "Almighty" and others. not removed. It is incumbent on the reader to make the most of the bible on hand.

IN 1902, The Presbyterian and Reformed Review reported on the release of the 1901 American Standard version of the Bible, a revision of the 17th-century King James Version. In its article the journal said regarding the propriety of consistently using God’s name, Jehovah, in the English Bible:
“We cannot understand how there can be any difference of opinion as to the rightness of this step. This is the lord's personal name, by which He has elected to be known by His people: the loss suffered by transmuting it into His descriptive title seems to us immense. To be sure there are disputes as to the true form of the name, and nobody supposes that ‘Jehovah’ is that true form. But it has the value of the true form to the English reader; and it would be mere pedantry to substitute for it Yahwé or any of the other forms now used with more or less inaccuracy by scholastic writers. We account it no small gain for the English reader of the Old Testament that he will for the first time in his popular version meet statedly with ‘Jehovah’ and learn all that ‘Jehovah’ has been to and done for His people.”
Many other English Bible translations use “Jehovah” or a form of God’s name. Similarly, God’s personal name is found in numerous non-English Bible translations, examples of which can be seen on this page. God told Moses regarding his name, Jehovah: “This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.”

Duper wrote:incidentally, everyday since Christ is the the day of the Lord's rest.

What?

Duper wrote:making himself equal with God."

Jesus Christ was the Son of God. This very fact in itself argues that Jesus as a Son was dependent upon God and was not equal to God. A son is not greater than his father, but must honor his father, according to God’s command. As God’s Son, Jesus said: “I honor my Father.” (John 8:49) How, then, can anyone say he was making himself God or the equal of God when he said: “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him”? (John 5:22, 23, AV) In those words Jesus was not telling us to honor him as being the Father or as being God. He did not say we were to honor the Son as much as the Father.

Actually Flip, if you're familiar with JW theology and origins, you would know that isn't true. JW doctrine denys the sovereign deity of Christ; an essential element of Christianity.

My point is that their doctrine is pulled from the very same place. Not that they beleive the same things, hence my use of the word dissection.

As far as me being an atheist. Duper cmon man. I've been posting here for around 2 years now. Anybody that doesn't know I'm a firm believer in the deity of Jesus Christ the Only begotten Son of God definitely hasn't been paying attention. My point has always been to just not blindly follow the doctrines of men, but to work it out for yourself. LOL man, knowing me being called an atheist is first laughable to me and hilarious to those that really know me. You do realize that Jesus's biggest contention on earth was organized religion? In fact his anger and disgust was towards the same religion that spoke of him and how they had distorted his words. LOL Atheist your killing me

S13driftAZ wrote:

Duper wrote: You mean "Yahweh". "Jehovah" is a left over Latin annunciation. In most bible prefaces, there is an explanation to How and Why different names of God are represented as
"LORD", Lord", and "Almighty" and others. not removed. It is incumbent on the reader to make the most of the bible on hand.

IN 1902, The Presbyterian and Reformed Review reported on the release of the 1901 American Standard version of the Bible, a revision of the 17th-century King James Version. In its article the journal said regarding the propriety of consistently using God’s name, Jehovah, in the English Bible:
“We cannot understand how there can be any difference of opinion as to the rightness of this step. This is the lord's personal name, by which He has elected to be known by His people: the loss suffered by transmuting it into His descriptive title seems to us immense. To be sure there are disputes as to the true form of the name, and nobody supposes that ‘Jehovah’ is that true form. But it has the value of the true form to the English reader; and it would be mere pedantry to substitute for it Yahwé or any of the other forms now used with more or less inaccuracy by scholastic writers. We account it no small gain for the English reader of the Old Testament that he will for the first time in his popular version meet statedly with ‘Jehovah’ and learn all that ‘Jehovah’ has been to and done for His people.”
Many other English Bible translations use “Jehovah” or a form of God’s name. Similarly, God’s personal name is found in numerous non-English Bible translations, examples of which can be seen on this page. God told Moses regarding his name, Jehovah: “This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.”

Duper wrote:incidentally, everyday since Christ is the the day of the Lord's rest.

What?

Duper wrote:making himself equal with God."

Jesus Christ was the Son of God. This very fact in itself argues that Jesus as a Son was dependent upon God and was not equal to God. A son is not greater than his father, but must honor his father, according to God’s command. As God’s Son, Jesus said: “I honor my Father.” (John 8:49) How, then, can anyone say he was making himself God or the equal of God when he said: “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him”? (John 5:22, 23, AV) In those words Jesus was not telling us to honor him as being the Father or as being God. He did not say we were to honor the Son as much as the Father.

...
Jehovah is a from the vulgate (latin) from the a transliteration of Yahweh - The unspeakable name of God. "J" is the y in latin. It is of course pronounced any number of ways.

Like I said, JW does not believe in the Diety of Christ; a critical element in Christian doctrine. Have you heard of the Arian heresy that was attended to in first councel of Nicea in 325 AD. one of the first council of Nicea That is your roots.

Also, JW doctrine does not believe in the blood atonement of Christ; another necessary element.

My apologies Flip. I've lost track of who's what here these days. no offense. that and I've been really tired of late. so "iirc" wrongly. Actually, Flip JW have their own translation of the bible. There's actively removes/alters any vestige that might allude to Christ being God; claiming that all other translations are incorrect. (S13driftAZ this is Not an attack on you.)

And yea Flip, on the last part, you are quite correct. It was and is Still a motivating idea (bad word, can't think of another right off) in my life and faith.
oof, bed time.....

I'm not very versed in JW's for sure. It didn't take me long to figure it was a complete waste of time. I also see your contention. Grouping JW\"S and conventional Christianity is off base if I'm comparing doctrine but I was addressing the source. The JW's have sure taken alot for granted in my opinion and that maybe even makes them somewhat dangerous because their unyielding. I'm just saying that even \"their\" view comes from within the same pages.

Page 562 bottom right corner through 563 & top of Second Column pg 74

I was looking for a \"neutral\" source. There are a lot of sources on the net if you google it, but they could be considered \"hostile\" sources.

Well we could all just believe as you do.

I think it should be noted that Jesus' name is also unknown as to its original pronunciation yet many people don't have any problems using Jesus to identity their savior by name. The same holds true for many modern-day names among different languages (i.e. The name John may be interpreted or spoken differently in Spanish than in English, and etc)

Note too: Jehovah's Witnesses most definitely believe in the atonement of sin by way of Christ's blood. It is an integral part of their faith. Within the realms of this discussion, the only thing that I see that they do not believe in, with regards to Christ, is that Christ = God. They believe Christ is God's firstborn of creation, his Son.

Titus 3-4

4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,

this is a CLEAR reference to the Trinity

Eph 1 4
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love

the Father chose them

7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

the Son redeemed them

13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

the Holy spirit seals them


then Christ's own words

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

JW's dont believe in the Trinity because they cannot openly study the bible, they are commanded to do as the watch tower says or risk disfellowship.

Wiki wrote:The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses claims to be the sole visible channel of Jehovah and asserts that the Bible cannot be understood without associating with the Watch Tower organization

CUDA wrote:JW's dont believe in the Trinity because they cannot openly study the bible, they are commanded to do as the watch tower says or risk disfellowship.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

whew! Thanks for the laugh.

First of all, we are openly encouraged, no, *urged* to read the bible every day.

Second of all, the watchtower and awake magazines don't force us to do anything! Those magazines are filled with guidelines and counsel designed to help mold our attitudes to 'love what Jehovah loves and hate what he hates'. Its our choice if we want to go against this counsel, if we commit serious sin and are not genuinely repentant, then we are disfellowshipped.

Wiki wrote:The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses claims to be the sole visible channel of Jehovah and asserts that the Bible cannot be understood without associating with the Watch Tower organization

[/quote]

This is true, in a way.

The Watchtower and Bible Tract Society is just Jehovah's , well this is hard to explain but, the mouthpiece of Him. We understand the bible in its entirety. We need them to understand the bible but then we don't. What we need them for is there are still a few bible prophesy's left unfulfilled. An example is when in the bible it says that all of religion will be done away with by the nations. We need to know what we are supposed to do when that situation comes.

CUDA wrote:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,

heheh first of all where is your argument here? I dont see anything here that says the holy spirit IS him... and if the trinity is true how would the holy spirit be poured out through one being to another being onto us, when there is, in fact only one being?

S13driftAZ wrote:

CUDA wrote:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,

heheh first of all where is your argument here? I dont see anything here that says the holy spirit IS him... and if the trinity is true how would the holy spirit be poured out through one being to another being onto us, when there is, in fact only one being?

when there is, in fact only one being

heh see that, we agree. there is ONLY one being. in 3 parts

I dont need to make an argument. I'll will let the scripture speak for itself.

and yet I see you convienently ignored the Scriptures from Ephesians.

EDIT: let me break it down for you

Eph 1-4 In Him, meaning God the Father
Eph 1-7 In Him, Jesus Christ
Eph 1-13 In Him, Holy Spirit

NOT TO MENTION you ignore Christ's own words, how fortuitous of you.

S13driftAZ wrote:

CUDA wrote:JW's dont believe in the Trinity because they cannot openly study the bible, they are commanded to do as the watch tower says or risk disfellowship.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

whew! Thanks for the laugh.

First of all, we are openly encouraged, no, *urged* to read the bible every day.

oh and FYI READ and STUDY are not the same thing. do you use ANY other refernce materials besides the Watchtower and other JW publications?????

I think we've strayed from the topic. Instead of trying to fling scriptures back and forth on five different things, can we maybe stick to one thing? I know it's hard when it comes to religion and scripture, as multiple scriptures and doctrine need to be explained, but I don't see the point of the discussion anymore.