Jehovah`s Witness/The problem with DW and the Watchtower....
DW writes...."After reading Richards letter about Luke 16 I have decided to respond comments below....."
After reading DW's comments to Richard's letter about Luke 16, I have decided to respond to his comments below.
In fact, I will also respond to some of the statements DW made in his prior answer on the subject, as well. I was out of town when it first posted, and Richard beat me to it. I do not wish to try and add anything to Richard's very good reply, but will merely make some observations of my own, in regards to both posts from DW.
DW: “OK my friend let me clear up your confusion. You have to understand that this section of scripture is where they made the whole thing up from.” They read it and said "oh the bible teaches hellfire" they didn't think of hellfire and then find this verse after. So it will sound exactly like they teach it.
Well, this is an example of DW’s completely clueness comments, in regards to not only what we teach, but also our reason for teaching it. I don’t think he even realizes that he just admitted in this comment, that we actually DERIVE our belief from the Bible, rather than what they do in so many circumstances….Deciding on the belief, and then going to the Bible to find proof of it.
But at any rate, we do not have one stand-alone verse for our teaching on the existence of Hell. Luke 16 is but one of the many passages we support our belief from. I can show him some others, if he would like. Because apparently he has a mistaken idea on why we teach the doctrine of Hell, by claiming that it was "made up" from this one passage. Actually, we didn't make it up at all. As his questioner pointed out.....The passage DOES teach it. DW merely thinks it means something else, because he doesn't see it as "logical".
Then, after listing the passage in Luke 16:19-31, DW proceeds to inform us that we only have 2 options. He says….
“So we read it and at this point we have two choices
1) It's teaching hellfire
2)It means something else”
Translated, this means….“Either it means what it says, or it doesn’t. Either it means what Jesus clearly says here, or it means what WE want you to believe it means.”
Then, he proceeds to go on and attempt to tell his questioner, just why it means “something else”.
“So what we need to do to find out is analyze it in the light of other scriptures and of course logic, let's start with the logical side first.
So let's go through the account and see what we notice within it”
“Now kind of the first thing I notice is that he seems to be having a pretty reasonable conversation from someone that's in terrible anguish. He seems to be comprehending what he can see and what's happening,formulating his words well and all that sort of stuff. Now let me tell you I broke my foot a few years ago and was in total agony I couldn't have a reasonable conversation with anybody, that was just with a broken foot so for me a man in anguish in a flaming fire logically has got no chance to converse like this.”
I am sorry that DW apparently cannot tolerate pain very well, but that is certainly no reason to assume that everyone else is just as helpless when they’re hurting. Just over a year ago, I watched a close friend of mine who was eaten up with cancer, lay in a hospital bed in extreme pain (far more than DW’s broken foot caused), and literally beg for something to give him some relief in his leg, where one of the primary tumors was located. He was hurting far more than DW was, I am quite certain. And he could still talk. I remember him telling me that he wished his family had brought him his Bible to the hospital, as if he could even have read it. But the point is, he could still talk. And he took his pain like a man, and trusted in God up until the moment of his death, at the age of 37. I am sorry that DW is softer than that.
Goodness, there have been people with their legs trapped under an automobile or a huge boulder, who were able to say things like….“PLEASE GET ME SOME HELP”
“, “TELL MY WIFE THAT I LOVE HER”
, or something similar.
Now, while I am certain that this man in Hell was in even more excruciating pain than these examples, that still was no reason for DW to tell us his own inability to have a rational conversation with a broken foot, somehow negates what Jesus told us here, and therefore, we should look for some other meaning. One provided by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, no less.
And might I just add, that even without a broken foot, DW STILL seems unable to have a reasonable conversation with anybody.
But again, that was an ILLOGICAL comparison, since DW likes to use “logic” so much….To assume that nobody can converse when they are in pain, just because DW couldn’t.
He then went on to say….
“The second thing is threefold the rich man is in a blazing fire there's a giant chasm between him and Lazarus and he wants Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue. Now here's what I see with this.
Firstly what is a drop of water gonna do in hellfire it's gonna evaporate before it even reaches him. If it was me I'd firstly be begging to get taken out of there and failing that I'd be asking for at the very least a bucket of water.”
This is quite humorous. The guy who just told us that a man in excruciating pain is not capable of having a rational conversation, is now telling us that the guy in Hell is supposed to take the time to THINK rationally before asking for something. Wow...I'm literally amazed that DW doesn't see the glaring contradiction here.
Now, I would agree that a drop of water would not do much by way of relief from the pain of Hell. But that isn’t the point, because we have to look at it from the perspective of the man in Jesus’s story. Rather than deciding this is just cause to ignore what Jesus says here and find some other meaning that we are more comfortable with, it seems more LOGICAL to me that this is a good example of just HOW awful Hell really is. True, a mere drop of water wouldn’t really help anything, but I am certain that a man in Hell, would take whatever relief he could get, no matter how brief. The lesson here is not to make Jesus a liar, and decide to….”Go find another explanation, other than what Jesus SAYS”. The lesson here, is that Hell is a bad place, where those who go there, will cry for any relief they can get, no matter how short-lived.
Shame on that man for not taking the time to think about what he was saying, so as not to confuse JWs who can’t just let a passage mean what it says.
Then, he writes….“Secondly why does he just want his tongue cooled down what about the rest of him that part also make no sense and third, just how long are this fellas arms to reach all the way across that chasm to give him that drop of water? Nowhere in this account do I see that he asked inspector gadget to get the water so he could send his "go go gadget arm" all the way across that chasm. That makes no sense at all”
See explanation to prior point above. I agree with Richard, that this was a ridiculous, and quite childish answer. Nobody said anything about having long arms, or a gadget arm. Again, it simply shows how desperate people in Hell are, for any relief they can get.
The man also wanted someone sent back from the dead, to warn his brothers, which was clearly not going to happen, either. But it does illustrate the desperation this man felt, not only for a brief moment's relief for himself, but for his brothers to be spared his own fate.
And I BELIEVE its worth mentioning, that Abraham addressed this very point of the “gadget arm” just 2 verses later, when he explained that it was impossible to pass or reach, from one side to the other.
If only DW had kept reading.
Then he writes….
“So just looking at this account logically it has all the hall marks of symbolism rather than being literal.”
Here is what I would like to respectfully ask DW to do….Since he has told us that the events in this story are merely symbolic, then I would like to ask him to simply do the following:
Please write a post, explaining in detail, just what EACH of the aspects of this story, are symbolic of. Please explain to us the meaning of…
The rich man
What their respective deaths represent
Hell, and the torments that the rich man was suffering
The gulf that separated them
I noticed in all of DW’s telling us what it really doesn’t mean, he didn’t bother to tell us what it DOES mean. I would be most interested in seeing his explanation for the elements of this story, and then we can look at his answer, both Scripturally AND “logically”.
DW then writes….“Now here's another point to keep in mind, the rich man speaks to God from hellfire right? Yet some, maybe all (i'm not sure on that)members of Christendom don't believe you can talk or pray to God from hellfire. So they also need to explain that away. You'll have to ask that minister that first before you use it,though.”
I honestly have no idea where the man got the idea from this passage, that the rich man spoke to God from hellfire. I mean, did he just make that up out of the clear blue? I see nothing in this passage, where he conversed with anyone but Abraham. DW, could you please show us where you got this notion, so that I can respond to it?
Or, was this just another one of your straw man arguments and misrepresentations? You know, like the “zombie” blasphemous lie, that continue spouting on here, even though no one in “Christendom” believes such a thing?
And then, it gets worse….
“Now the next point is this. There is two other chapters in the scriptures that record this time of Jesus ministry and the conversation he had that day Matt 19 and Mark 10 and neither of them even mention this account.” So if this was such an important doctrine as hellfire is in Christendom it seems that the other two accounts or one at the very least anyway would mention it right??”
I would like for DW to clarify, if he is implying that this passage in Luke, is spurious?
Even if that is not what he is saying, for a man who prides himself on “logic”, this is one of the most ILLOGICAL statements imaginable. Richard was correct in asking how many times the Bible must say something, for it to be true (not to mention that there are many other verses supporting the teaching of Hell, in addition to this one). I mean, the NT only mentions ONCE that a man is to keep his hair cut short, in comparison to a woman’s, so I guess on that basis, we can just toss that aside, too. Funny, most homosexuals today try to use the argument that Jesus never said ANYTHING about homosexuality (I would disagree), so that means its okay. But now, DW implies to us that Jesus SHOULD have said it more than once, if He meant for us to take it seriously.
DW’s fatal error here, is when he wrote the 2 words “It seems”
. In other words, here is what I (DW) THINK should’ve been said, and unless its said that way, then I will look for an alternate meaning. Fine…do so at your own peril. I am personally not in the business of telling Jesus how He had better word something, or how many times He needs to say it. I expect my boys to do as I tell them the first time. I believe God expects the same from His children.
But DW wrote….“So if this was such an important doctrine as hellfire is in Christendom it seems that the other two accounts or one at the very least anyway would mention it right??”
You know, there are so many ways to refute this claim. But let’s just do so, by pointing out the things that DW and JWs themselves, also believe….with NO Scriptural support at all….
1. The notion that coming to an Organization has ANY part at all in a person’s salvation, or is necessary to be saved.
2. That Jesus is Michael the Archangel.
3. That Jesus’ fleshly body was “dissolved”, and not resurrected.
4. That birthday celebrations are evil.
5. That only 144,000 go to Heaven, and members of the “great crowd” are to reject the emblems representing the broken body and shed blood of Jesus Christ.
6. That a person receiving a blood transfusion is “eating” blood, and endangering their chance of a resurrection.
And there are so many more….But the point is, DW tells us that if it were such an important Bible doctrine, then surely there would be more examples of this story (and as pointed out, there ARE more Scriptures teaching Hell), yet he himself believes doctrines that are distinctive of the WT, that have absolutely NO Scriptural support whatsoever.
And truthfully, a man who doesn’t know that sometimes certain stories are recorded in one Gospel, but not the others, really is showing his own elementary knowledge of the Scriptures anyway.
This was another typical diversion. His answer did NOTHING to provide the questioner with a greater understanding of what the passage does mean…It only tried to discredit a literal reading of the passage, as “illogical”. But he provided absolutely nothing by way of a logical or Scriptural interpretation of the account.
In other words, he wrote a lot, but said nothing.
Another illogical statement….“So it looks like Christendom should be putting more emphasis on the subject of divorce and forget hellfire altogether.”
How is this statement “logical”, in any way, shape, or form? Implying that, since there is another completely unrelated subject altogether (divorce) that we should be emphasizing, then we should also “forget Hellfire altogether”.
HUH???? We should forget one Bible teaching, just because we should be spending time addressing another one, as well? There are simply no words…..
Well, let me assure DW that I try to be very balanced in my preaching/teaching. Here lately, I have been hitting quite hard, the subjects of divorce, separation without Biblical grounds, and adultery. I can send him the CD’s, if he would like, or if he disputes this. But I also teach on Hell, also…Because it’s a Bible teaching. It is bizarre to me, that a man could write with a straight face, that we should “forget” one Bible teaching, because there is another one that needs addressing, too. I thought the idea was that we preach ALL of the Word of God?
DW writes….“God is love,we don't even need the scriptures for that look at creation why do we see in colour,why is nature so beautiful, why doesn't all food taste the same all these things are unnecessary for life, all these things are unnecessary to provide people unless you're a God of love."
Yet we're expected to believe that he tortures his children or even people for that matter forever in a blazing fire and then to add to it he gets the devil, his enemy and the one responsible for leading them astray in the first place to punish them for him!! Would you do that to your kids? Torture them for being disobedient? and/or the child that lead them astray would you use to punish them? If not why not?”
Here again, we see DW betraying his own understanding of the Scriptures. He once again, FALSELY mentions about God “torturing His children”, even though that has already been refuted, he still clings to it. God does not torture His children, DW. He sends to Hell, those who refuse to BECOME His children, by rejecting the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Get it straight, please.
Furthermore, DW's comment about us somehow believing that "He gets the devil, the one responsible for leading them astray in the first place, to punish them for Him"
, is further proof this man lives in utter fantasy-land, and has no interest in telling the truth about anything. Where on earth does this guy come up with this nonsense? The truth of the matter is, we believe that Satan himself will be tormented, as supported by Revelation 20:10.
And as we will see, DW actually says WE "make stuff up" as we go, yet he can post nonsense such as this? One who follows DW's writings for very long, will notice a trend....He himself will do something continually, and then post claims that everyone else is doing it.
DW writes….“That would make us sick in the head. It's inbuilt in us that, that sort of behaviour is disgusting, that's how we are created to think like that. Yet we're expected to believe that God created us with that wrong thinking and really the torturers and sadists of the world are the ones closer to God's way of thinking!! I'm sorry to go off on a tangent but that filthy accusation on my Father boils my blood!!”
I’m pretty sure that what SHOULD “boil his blood”, is when a religion tells people that they can safely discard the direct words of Jesus Christ, and instead, decide it “means something else”, for no other reason but that it offends their sensitivites.
And by the way, DW’s above argument would be easily torn apart, by simply looking at some examples in the Old Testament, when Jehovah Himself did and commanded to be done, acts that we would normally find offensive. But that is where God being higher and wiser than us, comes in. We know that the Creator does not answer to us, and has reasons for His actions, because He sees details and knows aspects that we simply do not.
But the bottom line….DW thinks Hell is unjust, because DW has no concept of 2 things….
1. The holiness of God
2. The wickedness of sin
Even today, we live in a society permeated with the notion that sin is “no big deal”. You have professing Christians who say they love God, but willfully commit acts that go against His Word, and think its not a big issue. Not saying that DW personally lives in this manner, but unfortunately, he seems to not have a very good grasp of just how wicked and terrible our sin is. In fact, it was so wicked in His sight, that it took Jesus Christ coming to earth in a human body, being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, being beaten beyond recognition, nailed to a cross, and shedding His blood, just to pay for our rotten sin against our Creator. In other words, our sin had completely separated us from Him, and the only way to ever be reconciled to Him, was for Jesus to do what He did on our behalf.
Seems to me that since the price for sin was so high, then the punishment for rejecting the only provision for our sin, would also be great. It is perfectly “logical” to me, if not to DW. Perhaps he just doesn’t realize that, to reject Jesus’ blood on behalf of our sin, is an affront to our Creator, and a slap in His face. Maybe that is why the punishment is so harsh.
He concludes by writing….
“Now if you want to know what the parable means follow up, as that is a different subject entirely.”
Well, I don’t know if the original questioner followed up, but yes DW, I would personally like for you to post in detail, what each aspect of this “parable” means. And then, we can look at it “logically”, and see if it holds water.
Now, this concludes my address to DW’s first post on Luke 16. What follows, is my response to his latest comments, in his “answer” to Richard.
DW: “The main thing I noticed is what I've been advocating since my time here and that really is that one really major difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and Christendom is that we read the Bible as we were created to understand it and Christendom don't! The Bible is a gift from God it's foolishness to believe that it's a book where we have to pick and choose where to understand it logically and where not too.”
Now, there are several comments here, that are simply and absolutely untrue. No nice way to say it…they are simply false statements.
First off, it is our position that the Bible IS to be read and understood. In fact, we are not the ones who believe that additional literature printed in New York, is necessary for getting an accurate understanding of the Scriptures. Nor are we the ones who believe that every teaching by the “Slave” is to be regarded as correct, until such time they tell us otherwise. Nor are we the ones who have a founder, who thought his own writings were superior to reading the Bible itself. So, I don’t think DW has much room to talk there.
Also, its interesting that DW NOW advocates that we are to just read and understand the Bible, after his previous post just went through all that trouble explaining to us, why a clear passage of Scripture spoken by Jesus, actually “means something else”. Funny how he can argue one thing in one writing, and then turn right around and argue the exact opposite, in the next.
However, DW falsely outlines what he perceives to be the “difference between Christendom and Jehovah’s Witnesses”. Unfortunately, DW has illustrated on a regular basis, that he has a very inadequate and elementary understanding of what Christendom teaches, and therefore, is not really qualified to be talking about the “differences”.
And that is one of the ironies of this board….The non-JW experts here, ALL have a FAR greater understanding of JW doctrine, than the practicing JWs here, have of ours. And that is a fact that can easily be proven, if anyone wishes to challenge it.
Actually DW, the biggest difference between us and you, is that we are simply content to trust God in the things we don’t fully understand or comprehend, and you want everything explained to you first. We will talk more about your notions of “logic”, in a moment.
DW says….“So my comments are to the readers who are able to think logically about the scriptures. The reason being is how can you use logical reasoning with people who deny logic? If they deny logic then explaining something logically will always be met with "logic is irrelevant" (or similar)”
This is another classic example of DW not telling the truth, and willfully misrepresenting our position. He always HAS to do that, because if he doesn’t, he has no argument. Its typical.
However, nobody here has ever once argued AGAINST using logic. To the contrary, we have argued FOR it. Without being logical, a man simply won’t make it very far in life. And yes, some things in the Scriptures are logically understood. However, some are not. And that is where faith and trust come in. Again, we will deal with that more in a moment. But again, it illustrates that DW cannot make a valid point, without distorting the other guy’s view. Now, if DW wants to get into a discussion on “logic”, I will be happy to engage him, because I find his arguments quite illogical.
But again, his statement was completely pointless…and false. Nobody has argued against using logic. What we HAVE stated, is that our OWN HUMAN “logic”, should never be used to supersede a Biblical teaching that might be beyond our realm of comprehension. That is quite different than what DW is portraying. There are some things in the Scriptures that can be understood by human logic. There are some things that cannot, and require faith and trust in a God, Who’s thoughts are higher than ours. If we could understand every single thing “logically”, then there would be no need for faith, and trust that we serve a God Who knows best.
DW attempted to give us a few Scriptures, showing that “logic” is involved in explaining the Scriptures. However, what he failed to mention, was that his examples of using “logic”, involved using the Scriptures THEMSELVES to logically prove such things as: Jesus being the Christ, the Kingdom of God, etc. Not using “logic” to decide that the Scriptures mean “something else”. So, his listed Scriptures didn’t help him at all, because those were examples of using logic found IN THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES, not trying to “logically” explain Scriptures away, and give them alternate meanings other than what they say.
In regards to “logic”, DW sets up a typical straw man here….“He did exactly as Jehovah commanded him what's hard to understand about what Jehovah told him? There was no picking and choosing between what he was told as a human and ignoring the rest the rest. He didn't say "well Jehovah said 300 cubits longs but his ways are higher than mine so I'll just make up the dimensions" There was none of that.”
Yes DW, if Jehovah were giving specific instructions to a HUMAN on how he wanted that HUMAN to build something, it would certainly make sense that He would give those instructions in a manner that the human would grasp how it was to be built.
Furthermore, “making up” the dimensions would not be submitting to the fact that Jehovah’s ways are higher than ours….Doing it the way Jehovah SAYS to do it, even if we would “logically” think it should only be 200 cubits, would be submitting to the fact that His ways are higher than ours.
You really weren’t thinking on that one, were you?
But I want the readers to notice what DW did here, with his "sleight-of-hand".....In his original post, he informed us that Jesus' clear words about Hell, make no sense, and logically must mean something else. But NOW, he contradicts himself, by pointing out how Jehovah speaks exactly what He wants us to understand, and how a person who was told to make something 300 cubits long, would not turn around and make up the dimensions themselves, because they think Jehovah's ways are higher, and that He didn't really mean to make it 300 cubits. I don't think the man even grasps the lunacy of his comment here. He basically is doing the very thing he is telling us NOT to do....He, on one hand, tells us Jesus' words must mean something besides what they say, and then he tells us that we should assume that God speaks to us in terms we can understand.
But his example is faulty, when he implies that a person would change the dimensions, based on the assumption that Jehovah must've been speaking on a "higher" level, when He said "300 cubits". But the truth is, a person who REALLY believes that God's words are to be taken literally, just as they are spoken, would make the object 300 cubits....Just like they were commanded. Even if they "LOGICALLY" thought it should be 200 cubits, they would show their belief that His ways are higher, by doing and believing what HE said, even if it contradicted their own logic.
I really have to wonder if this man every proof-reads what he typed, before he sends it. It sure doesn't look like it.
But again, God giving specific instructions on how big he wanted something to be, has no bearing on your assertions that He NEVER said anything to a human that we cannot grasp logically.
Now, awhile back, DW made the following statement….““Now here's the truth every Bible teaching by the faithful slave is the correct one until the time they tell you otherwise"
I honestly thought that he would never top that statement in terms of ridiculous, but I believe that he now has….with the following comments made a couple times in his latest post, that I will list together.
DW writes the following:
“Never has Jehovah said anything to man that he couldn't understand within the realms of human understanding, it's just never happened.”
“So as I just said Jehovah has never told anybody anything that they couldn't understand from a human standpoint. Even if he has used symbolic and prophetic language, it can always be worked out by thinking about it logically.
We can always work it out logically.”
Oh really???? Did I just read what I think I read? I honestly had to read these statements several times, because I thought there was no way I could really be reading what I thought I was reading. But then, I remembered it was DW. And sure enough, I was reading them correctly.
So as not to misrepresent what he is saying, let me make sure I understand….I believe he is saying that EVERYTHING Jehovah has ever spoken to man, can be understood within the confines of “human logic”, and there are NO EXCEPTIONS to this. Furthermore, Jehovah has never told anyone anything, that was beyond human understanding, and we can ALWAYS figure it out, if we just think “logically”. Wow, simply amazing.
DW says it has NEVER HAPPENED. Yet, I can think of several times it did happen….Where Jehovah told a human something that was HUMANLY illogical, but the human was simply to believe, trust, and obey, and see God work His ultimate plan out.
First off, and no insult intended to DW personally, but a man who could write the above statements and actually believe them, has absolutely no working knowledge of the Bible he claims to read and believe. His understanding is elementary, to put it nicely.
Some examples of Jehovah telling humans something that is not “logical”, from a HUMAN standpoint….
1). Genesis 22:1-2- “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.”
“And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.”
Now, if we read the prior chapters before this account, we see that God had promised Abraham a son (Isaac), by which He would raise up descendants to Abraham, and make a great nation from his seed. Then, as promised, Isaac was born.
But then God asks Abraham to do something that I am quite certain, did not make “logical” sense to Abraham. One evening, God speaks to Abraham, and essentially tells him….“The son, the one I promised you that would give you many descendants….I want to you go up into the mountain tomorrow, and kill him”.
Why, of course!! From a human standpoint, what could be more logical than that? Killing the son who is supposed to bring you descendants, before he even has any children! Makes perfect sense!
Actually, I see nowhere in this passage that Jehovah explained “logically” ANYTHING to Abraham. I believe the intent was to see if Abraham would just obey Him, WITHOUT a logical understanding of why he was being commanded to do this. And I believe that Abraham showed his intentions to obey, and Jehovah stepped in and provided a lamb in the place of Isaac, which of course was a foreshadowing of the Lamb of God which would be offered on our behalf.
But I see nothing in this passage where Abraham was to “work it out logically”, or do anything, besides obey what he was told to do. Nor do I see where he had a “logical” answer to give Isaac, when Isaac asked about what was to be used for the sacrifice. Instead, he said that “God will provide”….He had faith in God, without a “logical” understanding of God’s plan.
But DW assures us this has never happened. Amazing.
2). 2 Kings 5:1-15- This account was the very topic of my Sunday School lesson, just 2 weeks ago, so I’m glad DW brought up this topic of “logic”, while it is still fresh on my mind.
In this story, Naaman was a leper, who was told by Elisha to go down and wash 7 times in the Jordan River, 7 times. Now, this made no “logical” sense to Naaman, but it was what God wanted His prophet to tell him to do. Naaman though that Elisha would come out and perform a mightly miracle right there, but Elisha didn’t even personally come out. He sent a message for Naaman to go down and wash in Jordan, 7 times.
Well, Naaman didn’t “work it out logically”. Instead, he applied his own HUMAN logic….The Jordan was a nasty river, which was inferior to the rivers in his own land. Why not just wash in them? Wouldn’t that be a better idea? And why 7 times? Why not 6, or 8, or 15?
BTW, it was only after Naaman’s servants convinced him he had nothing to lose by just LISTENING AND OBEYING, that he finally did it. And he was cleansed.
I’ll bet Naaman wished DW had been there to help him “work it out logically”.
3). Judges 7:1-7- In this account, we see Gideon preparing to go to battle against the Midianites, who already had him outnumbered. However, God told him that his 32,000 men were “too many”, so Gideon told all of them who were afraid, to go home. 22,000 of them did just that, while 10,000 remained.
Now, at this point, Gideon is already severely outnumbered, and from a “logical” standpoint, he is in deep trouble. However, Jehovah tells him that he STILL has “too many”, and to make the men to drink water, and observe how they drink it. After all is said and done, Gideon is reduced to 300 men, with which to fight the army of the Midianites.
But keep in mind…God NEVER, according to DW, says anything that cannot be “worked out” in logical terms. I wonder how “logical” it seemed for Gideon, to have his army reduced to 300 men, and expect them to overcome thousands of the enemy’s army?
Its about like asking your quarterback and wide receiver, to go out onto the field ALONE, and score touchdown after touchdown, with no offensive line to protect the QB, and no blockers, and no way of counteracting the 11 guys on the other side of the ball. Again, from a HUMAN standpoint, nothing could be more ILLOGICAL than that. However, Gideon simply did as he was told, and won the battle.
But there was certainly nothing “humanly logical” about what Jehovah commanded here. It was so that He, and He alone, would get the glory for the victory. Gideon merely had to trust and obey, in spite of the fact it wasn’t “logical”.
4). Matthew 14:14-21- Here, we have yet another example of God/Jesus, commanding something that humans could not “logically” figure out. We see that a crowd of 5,000 men, in addition to the women and children, needed to eat. The disciples asked Jesus to send them away, so they could buy food, but Jesus had a different idea….“give ye them to eat”
. In other words….“Don’t send them away…YOU feed them”
The disciples replied with…“We only have 5 loaves and 2 fish….No way that will work”(paraphrasing)
. I think they were having a hard time “working it out logically”, how this small amount of food, was going to feed everyone.
Jesus didn’t explain a thing to them. He simply told them to make everyone sit down, and after giving thanks, He began to have the disciples distribute the food. Can’t you just see the disciple’s faces, wondering what was going to happen when all the food was dispensed, and about 4,995 of the people still hadn’t had a bite?
5). John 6:53-57- “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.”
Now, let’s just see if they were “logically” able to understand what Jesus was saying….
v. 60- “Many therefore of His disciples, when they heard this, said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it?”
v. 61- “When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples murmured at it, He said unto them, Doth this offend you?”
v. 66- “From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him.”
In verses 67-68, Jesus asked the remainder of His disciples if they too would turn back. Peter replied that there was nowhere to turn back to, since Jesus alone had the words of eternal life. Not that Peter understood “logically” what Jesus was saying about eating His flesh and drinking His blood….But Peter knew to simply trust, and there would come a time that he would understand. But at that point, He simple believed what He was taught.
However, the Scripture DOES deal with this notion of DW’s, that we are somehow to trust in our human logic to the point of questioning the ways of God. In fact, the Scripture is quite clear on this topic. Maybe we should look at the passage that deals with this very thing. In fact, we already HAVE dealt with several, most notably, Isaiah 55:9.…
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Now, while DW mocks Richard’s use of this verse, he never really explained WHY Richard’s understanding of it was in error. In fact, the meaning is quite clear….God’s ways and His thinking are higher than ours. Real simple….That means He is the boss, and we are the servants. If He tells us something, its true whether we think its “logical”, or not. Yes, some things He tells us, we can see the logic in. Some things we can’t…But those things are just as true. He is not required to explain things to us, nor to work it out so that things which are true, don’t offend us or seem “illogical” to us.
Simply put….DW’s assertions are completely false.
However, I wanted to look at yet another Scripture, which I believe speaks to this subject. Again, it is fine to use logic in understanding the Scriptures. It is NOT fine, to use our human logic, to contradict what they say. The Bible is the final authority….not us. The problem with DW’s way of thinking, is that even humans differ on what is “logical”. So, who’s logic do we trust? Mine? His? Some church leader’s? No, we trust the One Whose thoughts and ways are higher and superior to ours.
But let’s look at another Scripture, which deals with putting human logic at opposition to what God’s Word says….
Romans 9:13-23- “ As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,”
Well, there we have it. This is how God views those who would place their human understanding against His ways and His thoughts….In short, He informs us that we are the vessel, and He is the Potter, and we are to mind our own business and not tell Him His. How much plainer can it be?
What would the point of this passage even be, if DW’s statement is correct, that Jehovah NEVER tells us ANYTHING that cannot be “worked out with logic”? It would have no meaning at all.
“So with regard this subject the problem with Christendom is this. They totally ignore or deny the precedent the bible has set. There is not one scripture they can show that tells them they can pick and choose logically and even when they attempt it they end up having to attempt to explain certain things away.”
Now, if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle “black”. DW, I believe it was you, who just wrote a post, explaining why some very explicit and clear Scriptures about Hell, really mean something else. I believe it is you, who is constantly trying to explain away clear passages on Christ’s bodily resurrection. Its always been interesting how you can do something time and time again, and then claim it is everyone else who is doing it.
DW: “As an example they will try to use this to explain that logic is not involved in scriptural interpretation”
Again, a complete lie….Nobody has argued that logic is not involved in Scriptural interpretation….to a POINT. We have argued that logic does not trump what the Bible says, and does not give us permission to reinterpret it to our liking, or our “logical” thinking.
DW: “You see what Christendom do is start from an assumption then try and fit their beliefs around that assumption. They refuse to let go of that assumption. So they will say "you can see from Luke 16 there's a hellfire" When you say to them "well how can a man in anguish have a reasonable conversation" they say "well we don't have to answer that logically". Yet they've just asked you to use logic to see the hellfire teaching.”
Unfortunately for DW, this is another of his “straw men”….Nobody said that we didn’t have to answer that logically. In fact, I did answer it early in this reply. Just because you can’t carry on a conversation when you are in pain, doesn’t mean a thing, in light of Biblical interpretation.
DW chooses to believe that Jesus couldn’t really have meant what He said, because of his own broken foot. We simply choose to believe that Jesus told this story for a reason, and that reason is because He was giving us a description of a man who died without God, and went to Hell.
Like DW said….It either teaches Hell, or it means something else. We believe it means what it says. DW does not….because he broke his foot. I broke my arm twice, DW. I have had cancer. I have had shingles, which I will guarantee you, was every bit as painful as your foot was. But I was still able to talk. I may not have felt like it…but I could do it.
DW: “We had example after example of this in Richards letter. When I mention how it would be impossible for a man in anguish to have a reasonable conversation Richard say's "Human logic trying to make the parable implausible"
Richard was exactly right in his statement….You tried to use your own experience, and make a blanket statement that applies to everyone for time and eternity. And that, my English friend, is simply not ‘logical”.
DW: “Logic tells us if he's literally in anguish then he can't be literally having a reasonable conversation it must be symbolic anguish and and a symbolic conversation.”
No DW, YOU told us that….logic didn’t. Your analogy was completely false, and ridiculous, I might add.
DW: “Another question would have to be how do you know when to pick and choose which bit is logical and which isn't?”
Ah, excellent question! You tell us, DW….Since you are the guys who pick and choose what is literal, what is symbolic, and what really means something other than what it says….Shouldn’t you be the ones answering that question? I mean, its you guys who are having the problem letting the Scriptures speak for themselves.
DW: “They make things up as they go along and us such end up in a state of confusion Jesus had this to say about them”
Again, this sounds quite funny coming from a JW, who belongs to a religion whose entire HISTORY has been one of making things up as they go along.
Tell us, DW….What is the official understanding of the identity of the Faithful and Discreet Slave? What was the understanding 3 years ago?
What is the understanding of 1914, and who constitutes the last generation that will not pass away? And what was the understanding prior to 1995?
So, what was that you were saying, about making things up as we go along?
You closed with a very fitting Scripture….Matt 15:
9 "It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines"
Doctrines of men will always leave you changing the goalposts to suit your original assumption and as such leave a trial of confusion
That one hardly needs comment….DW, a Jehovah’s Witness, talking about “changing the goalposts”. Yet, this is the same guy that has told us that the Slave itself, can give us an interpretation that is “truth”, UNTIL they decide otherwise, and tell you that something else is truth.
Thanks for the enlightenment, DW.
Now, would you please be so kind as to post the entire explanation of Luke 16:19-31, so that we can see how Scriptural and “logical” your view is?