P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, that sounds like something they just made up.
First Jehovah's witnesses to knock at my door
- Thread starter LaughingBoy1503
- Start date
- Status
LaughingBoy1503
Well-known member
You have been very busy here! lol. I hope you have not forgotten my last question (post #45) I was kind of hoping for your opinion on what I wrote. It there is a official JW teaching on Baptist successionism, I would love to know it. If not, just your opinion and what proof, if you know of any, exists to show that the groups you listed believed how The JWS of today believe, so that somehow you are connected to them. As I pointed out, one of the groups you listed were Trinitarian, so at least that one would not fit. If you still need more time, it is ok, I am in no hurry, just hoping you did not forget or just accidently overlooked my question. I did not expect this thread to blow up in posts like it didDear fellow posters.
Apologies if you have asked me a question and I haven’t had time to answer. I have been busy the last couple of days and only logged on an hour ago.
I have quickly replied to some just now.
Hopefully I will have a chance tomorrow night (by which time I will probably have a dozen more to reply to)
If you are really interested inn what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, may I suggest their official website: JW.org Or ask the next Witness who calls on you for a free Bible study.
I am just a “rank and file” member who enjoys discussing the Bible. But feel free to test my knowledge all the same.
All the best,
Logically.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
I had an interesting experience with a Witness yesterday about the above subject regarding Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 (they are offering a publication about death). The response from the Witness was hard to explain.The conversation went like this:
JW: Ecclesiastes 9:5 and 10 teaches us that death is a state of unconsciousness and that there is no activity in the Grave.
Me: You take those Scripture texts literally?
JW: What other way is there to accept them?
Me: (Using their Bible, pointing to the text of Ecclesiastes 9:5.) So you take this as literal where it says, “the dead know nothing at all”?
JW: Of course.
Me: So this whole text is a literal definition of death?
JW: Yes.
Me: Even the next part in verse 5 where it says about the dead, “nor do they have any more reward”?
JW: You mean “wages.” It means there is no activity in the Grave such as they can’t earn money because the dead are unconscious.
Me: No, your Bible says here “nor do they have any more reward.”
A moment of silence.
JW: Huh, will you look at that. This is a revision and I am not yet up to date with all the changes in it.
Me: But it says there in your Bible that the dead don’t have “any more reward.” Wouldn’t that mean, if you take these texts literally, that the dead have no hope of a future reward in God’s kingdom?
And notice the other part of verse 5 (pointing it out to the JW in his own NWT): It says “because all memory of them is forgotten.” If that is literal, wouldn’t that mean that there is no remembrance or memory of the dead, not even by God?
JW: Well the dead do exist in God’s memory.
Me: But the verse you said is literal states otherwise: “All memory of them is forgotten.” It’s right there in black and white.
More silence.
**JW: **Well, like I said this is a recently released revision, and some of the language is updated. I am not up to par with everything in it.
**Me: **But you just told me Jehovah’s Witnesses accept this verse as a literal definition of death. It states: 1. the dead no nothing at all, 2. they have no reward, and 3. the memory of them is forgotten.
JW: So you’re saying you don’t believe in the resurrection because of this scripture?
Me: I do believe in the resurrection–
JW: So do we–
Me: But I’m not talking about what I believe. I’m talking about your claim that this verse in Ecclesiastes is a literal definition of death.
Me: Let’s look back at Ecclesiastes 9:10 in your Bible. It reads: “There is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave.” If there is no “knowledge nor wisdom” in the Grave—if that is literal—then how can Jonah pray from the Grave at Jonah 2:2?
We read Jonah 2:2. More silence from the Witness.
JW: (After a pause, some nervous blinking.) I don’t see what you’re getting at. Are you saying that people can pray from Sheol? They can’t. They’re dead. The Bible says the dead are conscious of nothing. I just showed it to you.
Me: Yes, and I just showed you that if you take the text of Ecclesiastes as a literal definition of death, then it also means there is no hope or future for the dead. Let me show you…
(I have to use my NRSV-CE because the Witness appears not so happy with me touching his Bible anymore).
Notice Ecclesiastes 9:6 and what it says about the dead.
“Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun.”
If we are to take everything Ecclesiastes says about the dead literally, this means there is no reward for the dead, no memory of them, and no future resurrection because “never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun.”
JW: Well only parts of this verse are literal.
**Me: **Which parts and how can one know?
JW: (Silence. A pause. More blinking.) Well that’s very interesting. Would you like me to leave this publication that might answer your questions about death with you?
**Me: **Can’t you explain what you believe?
JW: I know what I believe. The Bible can’t contradict itself. The dead are unconscious in the Grave.
*He then dismissed himself quickly. Why couldn’t he see what was before him? Is it possible some can’t literally see the truth when it is in front of them? *
JW: Ecclesiastes 9:5 and 10 teaches us that death is a state of unconsciousness and that there is no activity in the Grave.
Me: You take those Scripture texts literally?
JW: What other way is there to accept them?
Me: (Using their Bible, pointing to the text of Ecclesiastes 9:5.) So you take this as literal where it says, “the dead know nothing at all”?
JW: Of course.
Me: So this whole text is a literal definition of death?
JW: Yes.
Me: Even the next part in verse 5 where it says about the dead, “nor do they have any more reward”?
JW: You mean “wages.” It means there is no activity in the Grave such as they can’t earn money because the dead are unconscious.
Me: No, your Bible says here “nor do they have any more reward.”
A moment of silence.
JW: Huh, will you look at that. This is a revision and I am not yet up to date with all the changes in it.
Me: But it says there in your Bible that the dead don’t have “any more reward.” Wouldn’t that mean, if you take these texts literally, that the dead have no hope of a future reward in God’s kingdom?
And notice the other part of verse 5 (pointing it out to the JW in his own NWT): It says “because all memory of them is forgotten.” If that is literal, wouldn’t that mean that there is no remembrance or memory of the dead, not even by God?
JW: Well the dead do exist in God’s memory.
Me: But the verse you said is literal states otherwise: “All memory of them is forgotten.” It’s right there in black and white.
More silence.
**JW: **Well, like I said this is a recently released revision, and some of the language is updated. I am not up to par with everything in it.
**Me: **But you just told me Jehovah’s Witnesses accept this verse as a literal definition of death. It states: 1. the dead no nothing at all, 2. they have no reward, and 3. the memory of them is forgotten.
JW: So you’re saying you don’t believe in the resurrection because of this scripture?
Me: I do believe in the resurrection–
JW: So do we–
Me: But I’m not talking about what I believe. I’m talking about your claim that this verse in Ecclesiastes is a literal definition of death.
Me: Let’s look back at Ecclesiastes 9:10 in your Bible. It reads: “There is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave.” If there is no “knowledge nor wisdom” in the Grave—if that is literal—then how can Jonah pray from the Grave at Jonah 2:2?
We read Jonah 2:2. More silence from the Witness.
JW: (After a pause, some nervous blinking.) I don’t see what you’re getting at. Are you saying that people can pray from Sheol? They can’t. They’re dead. The Bible says the dead are conscious of nothing. I just showed it to you.
Me: Yes, and I just showed you that if you take the text of Ecclesiastes as a literal definition of death, then it also means there is no hope or future for the dead. Let me show you…
(I have to use my NRSV-CE because the Witness appears not so happy with me touching his Bible anymore).
Notice Ecclesiastes 9:6 and what it says about the dead.
“Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun.”
If we are to take everything Ecclesiastes says about the dead literally, this means there is no reward for the dead, no memory of them, and no future resurrection because “never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun.”
JW: Well only parts of this verse are literal.
**Me: **Which parts and how can one know?
JW: (Silence. A pause. More blinking.) Well that’s very interesting. Would you like me to leave this publication that might answer your questions about death with you?
**Me: **Can’t you explain what you believe?
JW: I know what I believe. The Bible can’t contradict itself. The dead are unconscious in the Grave.
*He then dismissed himself quickly. Why couldn’t he see what was before him? Is it possible some can’t literally see the truth when it is in front of them? *
Y
yankeeredneck
Guest
I think you’re onto something there. I enjoy having the JW’s come to my door. I always invite them in on those hot summer days and offer them a nice glass of icewater. They appreciate the gesture and see Christian treatment. It really changes the atmosphere. I think we need to understand what they teach, because how else can you be prepared to refute it?
L
Logically
Guest
Ooh, excellent. Where do you live?
L
Logically
Guest
Hi there adf417.
Please insert my usual apologies for being a few days in getting back to you!
I have been thinking about your post.
What could they have written if they meant worship? Fair enough!
Ok. I won’t comment on “Sebo” (what is that please
) but “proskuneo”:Ok, quick summary first:
In Bible times in the eastern mediteranean people were highly aware of their rank. There was a huge hierarchy type system where you had lots of gestures of respect you paid to those higher up than you.
In the presence of someone of higher rank, low bows or prostration on the ground was expected. “proskueno.”
Jump forward 1600 years and we have the King James translation turning the Greek of the OT into English. (or what they called English 400 years ago
)So the translators picked a word to translate the 58 “proskuneo’s”. The best word was “Worship” which at the time had a much wider range than today.
The acts of reverence to Kings other high officials could correctly be described by the 17th century word: “Worship”
But words change and evolve. (consider what “gay” meant 50 years ago)
the word “worship” has narrowed considerably, to now being a word you only use when referring to a god.
So when the word is found refering to Almighty God, “Worship” is fine. All translations (including the NWT JW’s use) say “Worship”.
But what do modern translations do at places like: Matthew 18:26? where Jesus tells a story of a servant falling down and “proskuneo” his King?
the KJT 400 years ago used “worship”, But to a modern reader the word does not fit. So modern translations use other phrases.
The notorious NWT of Jehovah’s witnesses say: “… he did obeisence…”
NASB “… he prostrated himself…”
NIV, NRSV, TEV and AB all say he: " … fell on his knees before…"
LB “…fell down before the king…”
All agree “worship” doesn’t fit anymore since the King wasn’t a god.
Ok, what about where it refers to Jesus?
Uh oh. Suddenly we are very tempted to use a word depending on whether we believe Jesus is God or not. Because only God gets “worshiped”.
Well in Matt 18:26 all the modern Bibles let the context decide. We don’t use “Worship.”
Now lets look at an example of Jesus.
At Mark 15:18,19. We have the Roman soldiers mocking Jesus. Mark uses the word “proskuneo” here as to what the soldiers do next.
The soldiers here salute Jesus with: “Good day King of the Jews”, and they mockingly…
KJT “…fell down and worshipped him…”
NWT “… bowed down to him…”
NAB and NRSV “… knelt before him in homage…”
NIV, TEV, AB, LB “…worshipped him…”
So what is the context. Did the Romans think Jesus was God? No, they said “king”.
Yet most translations ignore the context and say: “Worshipped” .
The Romans didn’t even think he claimed to be God!
So for the context to justify the word worship, they would have to mock him with “…good day Lord God!..” we know they did not.
Another example. Matthew 2:1,2,8,11.
The astrologers (or wise men) come fromm the East, to Herod and ask: “Where is the one born King of the Jews?” We want to proskuneo him.
Herod says he wants to proskuneo him too, and in verse 11 the astrologers doproskuneo Jesus.
KJT uses “…worshiped…”
NWt “…did obeisence…”
NRSV “…paid him homage…”
NASB, NIV, TEV, AB, LB “…worshiped…”
Notice, almost everyone uses Worship, but who did the astrologers think Jesus was? The context isn’t: “Where is God born a man?” The astrologers believed it was a King born.
But because it was Jesus most can’t resist using a word that in modern English makes Jesus appear to be God.
Similarly at
Also matthew 14:33, the apostles fall down before Jesus.
But in this account they say “…truly you are* the son of God*…” (Not “truly you are God” yet most say “Worshiped” anyway)
28:9, 16,17. Jesus is resurected and everyone falls at his feet but some doubted. “worshipped” in most, but how can you worship if you have doubts?
The context of all these shows the word “Worship” isn’t justified by the context. (unless you live speak the English of 400 years ago) The disciples were bowing before a powerful person they recognized outranked them (like the custom at the time dictated)
We must remember the world of the Bible was a very different place, or we will misunderstand what is the Bible is saying.
L
Logically
Guest
Phew. I just read your post 168 in its entirety. Well done.
It is a complicated argument that I’m not going to do the injustice of answering off the cuff.
Thanks for your work and reasoning. I will have to chew on that one!
L
Logically
Guest
I had an interesting experience with a Witness yesterday about the above subject regarding Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 …
JW:I know what I believe. The Bible can’t contradict itself. The dead are unconscious in the Grave.
And post 172.
That one is easier to follow the logic.
A
adrift
Guest
If it didn’t violate forum rules, I would tell you.Ooh, excellent. Where do you live?
L
Logically
Guest
Hey sorry Laughingboy!You have been very busy here! lol. I hope you have not forgotten my last question (post #45) I was kind of hoping for your opinion on what I wrote. It there is a official JW teaching on Baptist successionism, I would love to know it. If not, just your opinion and what proof, if you know of any, exists to show that the groups you listed believed how The JWS of today believe, so that somehow you are connected to them. As I pointed out, one of the groups you listed were Trinitarian, so at least that one would not fit. If you still need more time, it is ok, I am in no hurry, just hoping you did not forget or just accidently overlooked my question. I did not expect this thread to blow up in posts like it did
I did read it, (I swear) but got lost in all the other conversations. I promise I will give your posts priority from now (since you started the thread in the first place) I must keep on subject!
You know, if I put it that way I am going to have to withdraw my statement.
I intended my examples to show there were ones who disagreed with Orthodox teachings and used the Bible as evidence. (like the JW’s do)
Some saw errors in infant baptisim, relics, praying to Saints, others in the Trinity, the immortal soul or Hellfire.
But you are quite right, none of them taught exactly what the JW’s teach today.
The Walderness still believed in the Trinity even though they were against the “clergy-laity distinction" and other stuff the Roman church had stamped as final.
Infact (I’m sure I mentioned this) the “Bible Students” of 100 years ago didn’t believe exactly what Jehovah’s Witnesses today believe! (They still celebrated Christmas until 1917, and did not see a distinction between the heavenly and earthly hopes until the 1930’s for example)
One scripture that did come to mind is Daniel 12:4.
Here the prophet Daniel (Jesus called him a prophet so we know this guy is authentic:thumbsup
is told: “Seal up the book until the time of the end, … then the true knowledge will become abundant.” (or words to that affect depending on your translation.)Then verse 8 Daniel says: “I could not understand.” And he appeals to the angel to explain the visions he has received. (Which are pretty cool ones following human governments right down until our time no less! - but I will stay on track
)and the angel says: “Go. They are sealed until the time of the end.”
So this surely tells us something very important:
It is all part of God’s timetable when we get a correct understanding of these things!
The Catholic Church or Jehovah’s Witnesses or Martin Luther might stand up and say: “I understand this scripture to mean… X” but they could be wrong. Because if Jehovah hasn’t revealed it to them yet, it’s just a human opinion.
Look at the whole “Gentiles, law covenant and circumcision” developments in the New Testament. Jesus own apostles took decades to come to a correct understanding of it! Because they were stupid? Because they weren’t the true religion? No. Because the Holy Spirit was yet to reveal it to them. (Acts 15:28.)
Funnily enough, some criticize the JW’s for making changes. There are websites dedicated to listing all the adjustments back to 1879 for people to scoff at!
And then others stick to what their religion taught centuries ago even after the evidence has overwhelmingly shown that it is not correct.
We are funny mortals eh?
A
adf417
Guest
Of course dear sir, apologies accepted. I’m sure one day soon I too will be too busy to reply back in a timely manner as my schedule fluctuates quite a bit.Please insert my usual apologies for being a few days in getting back to you!
This could be the complete answer to my question. If you don’t know that “Sebo” is another word used for worship such as in Mt 15:9 or Mk 7:7, how can I think the remainder of this post is of any relevance or thoroughness?Ok. I won’t comment on “Sebo” (what is that please
With this bit of information (NWT also translated “sebo” to worship) would you like to revise the remainder of your post now that there is proof of multiple words for worship. IOW, since the NWT uses “worship” for both “sebo” and also “proskuneo”, what does that do to your understanding of the remainder of your post & the explanation of “the word “worship” has narrowed considerably”. It seems the NWT is actually widening it, right?
I’m now thinking that since the NWT translate both words as “worship” would this result in different levels of worship? Hmmmm.
Not at all a worry of mine dear sir . This IS the reason why Jesus left us His church and not the bible. It was the Traditions of the church which preserved the bible so you and I can read proof texts such as 1Tim 3:15.We must remember the world of the Bible was a very different place, or we will misunderstand what is the Bible is saying.
Peace be with you!!!
LaughingBoy1503
Well-known member
Thank you. I know there were always groups that disagreed with The Catholic Church. I use to attend several of themHey sorry Laughingboy!
I did read it, (I swear) but got lost in all the other conversations. I promise I will give your posts priority from now (since you started the thread in the first place) I must keep on subject!
We are funny mortals eh?
Though I have not stated it outright, the point of all these question I want to ask you (and have asked) is I am trying to see why, if any reason at all, the JW religion should even be taken seriously. Because, as you have stated, there are a lot of groups throughout the ages that disagree with Catholic and Orthodox teachings. For me to take any of them seriously, they would have to prove that The Early Church believed in Sola Scriptura, were non Trinitarian (if in the case that the denomination in question is non-Trinitarian) and that their governing body has God given authority to ordain, bless and teach. You see, the 7th day Adventists use The book of Daniel as well a lot to come out with all kinds of out there prophesies. I have read another book that says the “Book that was sealed” is “The Bible code” have you ever heard of that book? I read the first and second one’s and it is very interesting but I am convinced all just a big coincidence. As we know, there were a lot of restoration movements that popped up around the time the JW religion, as we know it, was also founded. I think we might be close to a impass though Hope my post makes sense. Can you help me out at all with what I just wrote? Also, I certainly do not want to misinterpret what you wrote. I have heard that a lot of things were changed from the early days (from my point of view, that is the 1800s, I understand you believe the early Christians were JW in a way) of the JW religion. So, are you saying that your governing body does make mistakes in what it teaches sometimes, or is it just a further development of teachings or perhaps a little of both? Also, I have heard a lot of rumors that The watchtower has made prophesies in the past that never came true. Including naming a date for the second coming of Christ and then saying that he came back invisibly when that date came and went. I have not researched any of those things, so I don’t want to assume that they are true. So, I ask you, is there any truth to these things? I thank you. You have been more than generous with your time and energy to give answers. I would have said to myself “This is getting old, think I will just tell everyone to just go to ewtn.com or Catholic.com if they want answers” a long time ago if I was in your shoes on a JW forum
Take care and God bless.p.s. I clipped the middle of post when I quoted it because I got a message saying that there were too many images in my post or something, so it would not let me post a reply. First time that ever happened.
H
housefone
Guest
the j/ws have their own bible , written to favor they own beliefs. John 1;1-2 In the beginning was the word and the word was with GOD. and the word was GOD,
theirs : and the word was a God…so now we how two GODS , GOD and this other god called the word.
Jesus Christ the word made flesh, they down play Jesus, though they will tell you no.
JOHN 8:58 before Abraham was, I AM>>theirs I have been…
After hearing Jesus say I AM the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphame, because he said he was GOD (I AM)
exd 3:13-15 Moses asks GOD his name and GOD answers I AM…
your bible says they worshipped Jesus, theirs says did obeisance to.
GOD never said my name is Jehovah (a man made name), Jesus never prayed to Jehovah, nor does the Lord’s prayer say Jehovah God, who art in heaven
Get a sign that reads: private property no trespassing.
theirs : and the word was a God…so now we how two GODS , GOD and this other god called the word.
Jesus Christ the word made flesh, they down play Jesus, though they will tell you no.
JOHN 8:58 before Abraham was, I AM>>theirs I have been…
After hearing Jesus say I AM the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphame, because he said he was GOD (I AM)
exd 3:13-15 Moses asks GOD his name and GOD answers I AM…
your bible says they worshipped Jesus, theirs says did obeisance to.
GOD never said my name is Jehovah (a man made name), Jesus never prayed to Jehovah, nor does the Lord’s prayer say Jehovah God, who art in heaven
Get a sign that reads: private property no trespassing.
L
Logically
Guest
I said I would give your post priority. I have one post to make that I have already written and then I will think about what your excellent questions.
I will reply soon. (as in- within a day or so)
L
Logically
Guest
I woke up this morning thinking about your reasoning.
I had a clever friend at school who was very good at Algebra. He could take a simple statement like “2+2=4”, apply a complex algebra equation to it and “prove” 2+2=5.
He had a new one almost every Maths lesson, and he would invariably conclude with the challenge: “Prove that I’m wrong.”
Often we couldn’t. But of course 2+2=5 is false. We just failed to spot the false reasoning he had slipped into his complex equation. And if we did waste 20 minutes unravelling his complicated equation, he would just add a bit more and we would have to start again.
I have been thinking about your reasoning on Eccl 9 and I think it is similar. You have seemingly proved “black is white”.
You have taken a scripture that says: “The dead are un-conscious, are not remembered and have no further reward; and you have applied an argument that concludes with: “therefore the dead are conscious, are remembered and do have a reward.”
Which is of course the exact opposite of what the scripture said!
So too with Jonah 2:2. Jesus used Jonah in the fish for three days to illustrate his three days dead.
But as you state, Jonah could still think and pray while there, - so therefore so could Jesus! (the “Spirits in prison” is another subject I won’t touch with this post)
Like the reasoning someone used a few posts back when I pointed out Jesus told us to pray to the “Father” in the Lords Prayer. They countered with: “He also said ‘go into your private room and shut the door when you pray.’ Obviously he wasn’t being exclusive there, so we can use that as an excuse for praying to other people than the Father.”
The opposite of what Jesus said!
We are using clever reasoning to get out of what the Bible actually says. Like a “get out of jail free card” in Monopoly. – The square says “Go to Jail” and we whip out a card that lets us do the opposite!
Think what else we could do with that reasoning;
Jesus said his death was like Jonah. Jonah was conscious and praying, - well he was also still breathing and his heart beating.
Therefore Jesus was still breathing with his heart beating while in the tomb. Therefore he didn’t really die at all. Therefore the Ransom was not paid, John 3:16 isn’t really true because God didn’t really give his son, Jesus wasn’t really resurrected because he didn’t really die…
…we could unravel the whole deal with it! And then challenge: “prove me wrong.”
We have to go back to where the false reasoning started and ask again: “What did Jesus mean when he compared his death to Jonah?” What is the answer that doesn’t contradict everything else the Bible says?
The same with Eccl. 9:5.
No more reward (or wages). But if they go to heaven or get a resurrection (depending on your belief) that is wrong, so let’s use that to unravel the entire verse: black is white.
Perhaps Romans 6:23 clears up the deceptive reasoning. It says “the wages of sin is death, but the gift God gives is eternal life through Jesus Christ.”
The gift.
Not a reward or wages, as if that is something we are owed.
We can not earn eternal life like we would wages or a reward. It is a gift.
The dead no longer have any wages or reward, (it says in Eccl 9) they have been paid already for sin with death.
Any further life is an un-earned gift from God.
L
Logically
Guest
Those two scriptures are quotes from Isaiah where Jehovah is talking about people worshiping him. The context shows it is directed to Almighty God. “Worship” is used in every translation I checked in a brief search.
it doesn’t contradict my post on Context.
i haven’t researched the difference between Sebo and Poeskneo yet. Maybe it is a tense or gramer thing. But I must not let myself get distracted from answering “Laughingboy”
Thanks for your post. I will research the difference. But not today.
A
adf417
Guest
Absolutely! Laughingboy deserves answers and I don’t mind waiting. Please remember to look up all 10 usages of “sebo” and their tenses especially Acts 18:13 and Acts 19:27. And then in 19:27 you will also need to consider who the reference is to in its context. I’m sure you will see how this will all get back to “context” or “intent” and then who gets to decide what the original “context” or “intent” was.Those two scriptures are quotes from Isaiah where Jehovah is talking about people worshiping him. The context shows it is directed to Almighty God. “Worship” is used in every translation I checked in a brief search.
it doesn’t contradict my post on Context.
i haven’t researched the difference between Sebo and Poeskneo yet. Maybe it is a tense or gramer thing. But I must not let myself get distracted from answering “Laughingboy”
Thanks for your post. I will research the difference. But not today.
Peace!!!
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
I was saying that you can’t say the opposite of what the Scriptures are saying, not making an attempt at the conclusion you have come to here. For the record, I totally disagree with any belief system that teaches us to go in the opposite direction of Scripture. I am trying to demonstrate that a literal reading of these texts is contrary to what the Bible is really teaching us about death.I woke up this morning thinking about your reasoning.
I had a clever friend at school who was very good at Algebra. He could take a simple statement like “2+2=4”, apply a complex algebra equation to it and “prove” 2+2=5.
He had a new one almost every Maths lesson, and he would invariably conclude with the challenge: “Prove that I’m wrong.”
Often we couldn’t. But of course 2+2=5 is false. We just failed to spot the false reasoning he had slipped into his complex equation. And if we did waste 20 minutes unravelling his complicated equation, he would just add a bit more and we would have to start again.
I have been thinking about your reasoning on Eccl 9 and I think it is similar. You have seemingly proved “black is white”.
You have taken a scripture that says: “The dead are un-conscious, are not remembered and have no further reward; and you have applied an argument that concludes with: “therefore the dead are conscious, are remembered and do have a reward.”
Which is of course the exact opposite of what the scripture said!
To demonstrate, and make sure we are on the same page, let us slow down and take one piece of what I am saying at a time. I will be using the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, released in 1991 since the new NWT 2013 edition reads similarly.
I promise you that in the end you will see the mistake you’ve made in applying the above scenario and how this makes your conclusion inapplicable, and that even if you don’t agree with the conclusion I am making, you will still not be able to argue against it either.
First off I agree with you that the scriptures at Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6 and 10 say the following:
The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun.
Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.
These texts have the author stating that:
- The dead no nothing
- The have no more reward
- The memory of them is lost
- Never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun
- There is no work, thought, knowledge, or wisdom in Sheol (the NWT 2013 uses “Grave”)
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
Just thought I would add: It is just a brief “yes” or “no” we need to establish for now.
You can go into detail as we go along further. But you made a big error when you tried to fit what you thought I was saying into a scenario that led you to the conclusions you made.
It’s known in debate circles as “confusion of correlation and causation.” You took the “correct me if I am wrong” statement I made, correlated it to the scenario where someone did the same thing to promote falsehood and applied it to what I had said.
The two are unrelated.
So if we go step-by-step, you will see how you can’t apply that to what I’ve stated PLUS see that my view is not one of going against Scripture or attempting to fool you like this person you mention.
Remember, I mentioned how people often “demonize” the person they cannot logically answer. You’ve just done that. You made an invalid correlation between me and this other person.
You can go into detail as we go along further. But you made a big error when you tried to fit what you thought I was saying into a scenario that led you to the conclusions you made.
It’s known in debate circles as “confusion of correlation and causation.” You took the “correct me if I am wrong” statement I made, correlated it to the scenario where someone did the same thing to promote falsehood and applied it to what I had said.
The two are unrelated.
So if we go step-by-step, you will see how you can’t apply that to what I’ve stated PLUS see that my view is not one of going against Scripture or attempting to fool you like this person you mention.
Remember, I mentioned how people often “demonize” the person they cannot logically answer. You’ve just done that. You made an invalid correlation between me and this other person.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
I have had an emergency situation develop that requires my attention. Since I won’t be around for the next few days to follow through with what I hoped to with Logically, I writing this as I travel.
Your Father who sees in secret will reward you.–Matthew 6:18.
God expects us to hope in our reward.
Without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.–Hebrews 11:6.
From the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward—Colossians 3:24.
See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work.–Revelation 22:4.
Ecclesiastes says the dead “have no reward.” Since the underlying message of Scripture does not contradict itself, obviously the text cannot be read as a literal statement about reward for the dead.
But the dead do have a hope of a future reward. Catholics believe in the resurrection of the dead and life eternal when the world is made new again. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1042-1050) If the Bible is being literal when it says “never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun,” how can it be said that the dead will be raised in Paradise?
The living can be in Sheol. Jonah 2:2 proves that.
Numbers 16:33 does too when it says:
So they with all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol.
And Psalm 139:7, 8 says God can be present there:
Where can I go from your spirit?
Or where can I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there;
if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.
I am not saying that Ecclesiastes 10 is not true when it says that there is “no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol.” I am saying that it isn’t literal.
Jonah prayed while there. Those who sided with Korah knew they were being punished as they went to their death in Sheol. And God, who is all-knowing and all-wise, can be present there as well.
So it isn’t that the Bible is contradicting itself, it’s that you have a mistaken view of Ecclesiastes. The author was waxing philosophically and writing in cynical metaphors. He calls everything in and about life vanity, saying “all things are wearisome.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2, 8) But then he later admits that some works are not done in vain. (12:1, 13) His statements are spoken from the view of someone suffering disillusionment with life.–See 5:12.
The author also wrote at a time when the Jewish understanding regarding life after death was still incomplete. Eventually things changed to the point that many in Judaism by the Second Temple period believed in life after death.
Being of Jewish heritage myself I can attest that Jews also understand Ecclesiastes this way, that the author’s words offer not a literal but cynical view of desperation, much like some psalms have the author lamenting or complaining to God. The author’s words on death are not meant to be a literal description but a lamentation on how useless life seemed to him during this time of disillusion for the author. He eventually comes to the conclusion at the end that one needs to rely on God’s wisdom and not their own view of matters, but before this the writing is about what the author has come to believe about existence–that it is all in vain, which we know and he claims by the end of the book that it is not.
You have to admit that though our conclusions are different, the one I embrace as a Catholic and a Jew doesn’t make a contradiction of Scripture. It fits in nicely from our understanding. That’s why we don’t define death by what is written in Ecclesiastes 9:5. It is part of a lament of desperation, not a theological definition.
You also have to admit that much of what you charged me with, especially in your last comment was uncalled for and highly incorrect. Can you imagine me, a Jew, denying the valid and truth of Scripture? The Scriptures of Ecclesiastes were believed in before you Gentiles ever knew of them. If I denied them, I might as well deny my existence!
I’m sorry you don’t believe it is right to consider God’s gift of eternal life as a reward.
And I find it hurtful that as a Jehovah’s Witness you attribute motives similar to your clever friend who would use “false reasoning.” It is insulting to hear you call my above beliefs “the exact opposite of Scripture.”
God’s gift of eternal life is a reward and we have this reward to look forward to.I woke up this morning thinking about your reasoning.
I had a clever friend at school who was very good at Algebra. He could take a simple statement like “2+2=4”, apply a complex algebra equation to it and “prove” 2+2=5.
He had a new one almost every Maths lesson, and he would invariably conclude with the challenge: “Prove that I’m wrong.”
Often we couldn’t. But of course 2+2=5 is false. We just failed to spot the false reasoning…
Perhaps Romans 6:23 clears up the deceptive reasoning. It says “the wages of sin is death, but the gift God gives is eternal life through Jesus Christ.”
The gift.
Not a reward or wages, as if that is something we are owed.
We can not earn eternal life like we would wages or a reward. It is a gift.
The dead no longer have any wages or reward, (it says in Eccl 9) they have been paid already for sin with death.
Any further life is an un-earned gift from God.
Your Father who sees in secret will reward you.–Matthew 6:18.
God expects us to hope in our reward.
Without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.–Hebrews 11:6.
From the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward—Colossians 3:24.
See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work.–Revelation 22:4.
Ecclesiastes says the dead “have no reward.” Since the underlying message of Scripture does not contradict itself, obviously the text cannot be read as a literal statement about reward for the dead.
But the dead do have a hope of a future reward. Catholics believe in the resurrection of the dead and life eternal when the world is made new again. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1042-1050) If the Bible is being literal when it says “never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun,” how can it be said that the dead will be raised in Paradise?
The living can be in Sheol. Jonah 2:2 proves that.
Numbers 16:33 does too when it says:
So they with all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol.
And Psalm 139:7, 8 says God can be present there:
Where can I go from your spirit?
Or where can I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there;
if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.
I am not saying that Ecclesiastes 10 is not true when it says that there is “no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol.” I am saying that it isn’t literal.
Jonah prayed while there. Those who sided with Korah knew they were being punished as they went to their death in Sheol. And God, who is all-knowing and all-wise, can be present there as well.
So it isn’t that the Bible is contradicting itself, it’s that you have a mistaken view of Ecclesiastes. The author was waxing philosophically and writing in cynical metaphors. He calls everything in and about life vanity, saying “all things are wearisome.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2, 8) But then he later admits that some works are not done in vain. (12:1, 13) His statements are spoken from the view of someone suffering disillusionment with life.–See 5:12.
The author also wrote at a time when the Jewish understanding regarding life after death was still incomplete. Eventually things changed to the point that many in Judaism by the Second Temple period believed in life after death.
Being of Jewish heritage myself I can attest that Jews also understand Ecclesiastes this way, that the author’s words offer not a literal but cynical view of desperation, much like some psalms have the author lamenting or complaining to God. The author’s words on death are not meant to be a literal description but a lamentation on how useless life seemed to him during this time of disillusion for the author. He eventually comes to the conclusion at the end that one needs to rely on God’s wisdom and not their own view of matters, but before this the writing is about what the author has come to believe about existence–that it is all in vain, which we know and he claims by the end of the book that it is not.
You have to admit that though our conclusions are different, the one I embrace as a Catholic and a Jew doesn’t make a contradiction of Scripture. It fits in nicely from our understanding. That’s why we don’t define death by what is written in Ecclesiastes 9:5. It is part of a lament of desperation, not a theological definition.
You also have to admit that much of what you charged me with, especially in your last comment was uncalled for and highly incorrect. Can you imagine me, a Jew, denying the valid and truth of Scripture? The Scriptures of Ecclesiastes were believed in before you Gentiles ever knew of them. If I denied them, I might as well deny my existence!
I’m sorry you don’t believe it is right to consider God’s gift of eternal life as a reward.
And I find it hurtful that as a Jehovah’s Witness you attribute motives similar to your clever friend who would use “false reasoning.” It is insulting to hear you call my above beliefs “the exact opposite of Scripture.”
- Status