^^^^^^^  

hmmmmmmm....

THAT makes even me question my faith. I have always believed in a trinity. be that as it may, I still believe in God and Jesus and am a Christian. As for evolution, I think I can see creation and evolution happening together. After all, our life is but a wink of God's eye so who is to say that a day to God is a million years to us.

Some other scriptures that may be of interest to you are:

Philippians 2:5, 6 says: "5. Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6. who,

although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he

should be equal to God." King James reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ

Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the

same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter

portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no

consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon´], namely, that he should be equal to God.” (RS,

NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.)

Which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter

here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be

equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a

seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) (Compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation

also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28.

I believe God lests bad things happen to people because they bring the bad things upon themselves by sin ect; This is a side effect of man's freewill.

The question "Would a loving God allow this?" was relating to the belief that God has an

appointed time for someone to die, which is against the Bible. Ecclesiastes 9:11 says: "11. I

returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle,

nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do

those even knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurance befalls them all."

Sorry for the misunderstanding, if any.

again, having a relationship w/ God is spiritual and no human being will ever be able to put it into perfect words so don't expect a Bible, Pastor, or a Church to lead you directly to God's doorstep it's a journey your soul & heart lead you to. the other stuff is merely there to "assist" you if you get wrapped up into it you'll lose site of God, you either have faith God created the earth we're floating on in his space or you believe there is no God and nothing. we have that choice and each one of us will get our answer when our soul leaves our body one way "or" the other.

Actually, the Bible is the thing to give you that relationship with God. He's the author of it and

did not simply write it for nothing. James 4:8 (first part) says: "Draw close to God, and he will

draw close to you." To draw close to God, we have to get to know him, and what better way than

with the Bible, his word.

Worship a cross??? You've got you facts mixed, r3fr.

“MY MOTHER gave it to me.” “It’s manly.” “I wear it as an ornament.” “I’d feel uncomfortable

without it.” “It protects me from evil.” “It’s just something to hang on the chain.”

Thus replied several people who were asked why they wore a cross. Though obviously not all do

so out of religious devotion, wearing a cross is quite in vogue in some parts of the world. Even

Soviet youths have been seen wearing one. Many attach deep religious significance to the cross,

for, as one youth simply said, “It’s sacred.”

But is it really proper for a Christian to wear a cross? Does it accurately portray the way Christ

died? And are there valid objections even to wearing it as an ornament? To see, let us first take a

look at the origin of the cross.

A Christian Symbol?

You may assume that Christians were the first to use the cross. The Encyclopedia Americana,

however, speaks of “its ancient usage by both Hindus and Buddhists in India and China, and by

the Persians, Assyrians, and Babylonians.” Similarly, Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, (1969 edition)

says that the cross “was an emblem to which religious and mystical meanings were attached long

before the Christian era.”

Indeed, there is no evidence that early Christians used the cross in their worship. During the

early days of Christianity, it was the pagan Romans who used the cross! Says The Companion

Bible: “These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god . . . and are first seen on

a coin of Julius Caesar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Caesar’s heir (Augustus),

20 B.C.” The Roman nature-god Bacchus was at times represented with a headband containing a

number of crosses.

How, then, did the cross become the symbol of Christendom?

Constantine and the Cross

In 312 C.E., Constantine, ruling the area now known as France and Britain, headed out to war

against his brother-in-law, Maxentius, of Italy. En route he reportedly saw a vision—a cross on

which were the words “Hoc vince,” meaning, “By this conquer.” After his victory, Constantine

made the cross the standard of his armies. When Christianity later became the state religion of the

Roman Empire, the cross became the symbol of the church.

But did such a vision actually take place? Accounts of this legend are, at best, secondhand and

full of discrepancies. Frankly, it would be difficult to find a more unlikely candidate for a divine

revelation than Constantine. At the time of this supposed event, he was an avid sun-god

worshiper. Constantine even dedicated Sunday as the day for sun worship. His conduct after his

so-called conversion also gave little evidence of real dedication to right principles. Murder,

intrigue, and political ambition ruled his life. It seems that for Constantine, Christianity was little

more than a political device to unite a fragmented empire.

There is also little evidence that the type of cross Constantine “saw” really represented the

instrument used to put Christ to death. Stamped on many coins Constantine subsequently had

minted are X-shaped crosses with a “P” superimposed. An Expository Dictionary of New

Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, says: “As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had

seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word

‘Christ’ [in the Greek language] and had nothing to do with ‘the Cross,’” that is, as an instrument

of execution. In fact, this style of cross is nearly identical to the pagan symbol for the sun.

Why, then, was the cross so easily accepted by “Christians”? Vine’s Dictionary continues: “By the

middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain

doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical

system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were

permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent

form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”

The Evolution of the Cross

Was it love for Christ that caused the cross, at this late time, to become such an object of

veneration? The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics says: “With the 4th cent[ury] magical

belief began to take a firmer hold within the Church.” As with a magic charm, simply making the

sign of the cross was thought to be “the surest defence against demons, and the remedy for all

diseases.” Superstitious use of the cross continues to this day.

Over the years, some 400 different styles of crosses developed. At first, Christ himself was not

portrayed. Rather, a youth holding a jeweled cross would be depicted. Later, a lamb was

included. In 691 C.E., the council in Trullo made “official” a cross showing the bust of a young

man, instead of a lamb, over the cross. In time this developed into the crucifix—a cross with a

representation of the body of Christ.

Did Christ Die on a Cross?

‘But does not the Bible teach that Christ actually died on a cross?’ one may ask. To answer this,

we must look into the meanings of the two Greek words that the Bible writers used to describe the

instrument of Christ’s death: stau·ros´ and xy´lon.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1979) states under the heading “Cross”:

“Originally Gk. staurós designated a pointed, vertical wooden stake firmly fixed in the ground.

. . . They were positioned side by side in rows to form fencing or defensive palisades around

settlements, or singly they were set up as instruments of torture on which serious offenders of law

were publicly suspended to die (or, if already killed, to have their corpses thoroughly

dishonored).”

True, the Romans did use an instrument of execution known in Latin as the crux. And in

translating the Bible into Latin, this word crux was used as a rendering of stau·ros´. Because the

Latin word crux and the English word cross are similar, many mistakenly assume that a crux was

necessarily a stake with a crossbeam. However, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says: “Even

amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally

an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part.”

The book The Non-Christian Cross adds: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous

writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence

to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros [pole or

stake]; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed

together in the form of a cross.” Christ could well have been impaled on a form of crux (stau·ros´)

known as the crux simplex. That was how such a stake was illustrated by the Roman Catholic

scholar Justus Lipsius of the 16th century.

What of the other Greek word, xy´lon? It was used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the

Bible at Ezra 6:11. In the New World Translation this reads: “And by me an order has been put

through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and

he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account.”

Clearly, a single beam, or “timber,” was involved here.

Numerous translators of the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) therefore translate

Peter’s words at Acts 5:30 to read: “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew,

hanging him upon a stake [or, “tree,” according to the King James Version, New International

Version, The Jerusalem Bible, and Revised Standard Version].” You might also wish to check how

your Bible translates xy´lon at: Acts 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; and 1 Peter 2:24.

Walking by Faith, Not by Sight

Even after considering such evidence that Christ really died on a stake, some may still see

nothing wrong with wearing a cross. ‘It’s just an ornament,’ they may say.

Bear in mind, though, how the cross has been used down through history—as an object of pagan

worship and of superstitious awe. Could wearing a cross, even as just an ornament, be

harmonized with the admonition of the apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 10:14: “Therefore, my

beloved ones, flee from idolatry”?

What about true Christians today? They, too, should be conscious of the need to ‘guard

themselves from idols,’ as the Bible counsels. (1 John 5:21) So they do not find the cross to be an

appropriate ornament. They recall Paul’s statement: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a

stake,” and therefore prefer to think of Christ as a glorious enthroned King!—Galatians 3:13;

Revelation 6:2.

Though such Christians do not wear crosses, they deeply appreciate the fact that Christ died for

them. They know that Christ’s sacrifice is a marvelous demonstration of “God’s power” and

eternal love. (1 Corinthians 1:18; John 3:16) But they need no material object like a cross to help

them worship this God of love. For, as Paul exhorted, they “are walking by faith, not by

sight.”—2 Corinthians 5:7.

People wear crosses around their necks, on hats, shirts, have them on their cars, churches have

them, on their steples, doors, behind the pastor, stain-glass windows, on their Bibles (not true for

all religions). List goes on. Can you say that the cross is not part of peoples worship?

Look at the history of some Popes and tell me if their actions are in harmony with the Bibles laws.

"one God... " ...three entities

God begin three entities make him (or them) unapproachable. How can you draw close to an unapproachable being(s)? The holy spirit isn't even a being, its referred to in the Bible various times as an 'it'. Luke 3:22 says: "and the holy spirit in bodily shape like a dove came down upon him, and a voice came out of heaven: 'You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.' " This is when Jesus was baptized. Notice God, Jesus, adn the holy spirit are in this scripture. The holy spirit is in the shape of a dove. God, is speaking from heaven, and Jesus is in the water. Does it make sense that they're all the same, and Gods approving of Jesus... why approve of himself? John 14:26 calls the holy spirit "that one." Not 'he' or 'she'. Acts 11:16 says of baptism of holy spirit. Can someone be baptized into someone?
To baptize means to immerse, to dip, to submerge. A person can baptize others with water, dipping them into it, as John did, and a person can baptize others with fire by immersing them in flames or causing their destruction; but how can one person baptize others with another person? Since neither water nor fire is personal, is it not reasonable to conclude that the holy spirit is also not a person? Besides, Peter stated that God poured out ‘some of his spirit’ upon all kinds of flesh. Can we imagine some of a person being poured out on thousands of other persons, as was the case at Pentecost after Peter had preached to the Jews?—Matt. 3:11; Acts 2:17, 38, 41, NW.

That the holy spirit is without personality is also indicated by the fact that it has no distinctive name. God, the Creator, has many distinctive appellations. His name is Jehovah, and he only is “The God,” or “The [true] God,” he only is the “Most High” and the “Almighty.” He is thus distinctly distinguished from other gods or mighty ones. Likewise with his Son, Jesus Christ. There is only one by that name, only one “only-begotten Son,” only one “First-born,” only one Logos or “Word.”

But not so with the holy spirit. Jehovah, Christ and the faithful angels are all holy spirits. Is the holy spirit “The holy spirit”? If so, in what way does he excel Jehovah and Christ either as respects being a spirit or being holy? And more than a hundred times the holy spirit is referred to as “the spirit of Jehovah,” “God’s spirit,” “my spirit” and “spirit of Jesus Christ.” All such possessive uses of the holy spirit further argue that it is an instrumentality rather than a separate and distinct person.—Judg. 3:10; Matt. 3:16; Acts 2:18; Phil. 1:19, NW.

And note still another point, that of location. The Bible tells us that God dwells in heaven, that he holds court there. Also that Jesus in his prehuman existence was rejoicing in his Father’s presence, that he came to earth to perform special missions, especially at the time he came as a man, and that he has now returned to heaven. Where was or where is the holy spirit now if it is a person? Did “he” come down upon Jesus at Jordan and then remain, or return and then come again at Pentecost? Is “he” now in heaven with God and Christ, or is “he” scattered throughout the earth wherever Christ’s followers are to be found?

The fact is that the truth about the holy spirit has been beclouded by the prejudices of Bible translators. Their use of capital letters cannot be used to prove the holy spirit is a person. Why not? Because at the time the Scriptures were written proper and common nouns were not thus distinguished from each other. The same is true regarding their adding the definite article the before holy spirit in some hundred instances where the Bible writers had not done so. To omit the definite article seemed disrespectful to such Bible translators but not to the Bible writers. Thus Paul wrote that God’s kingdom meant “peace and joy with holy spirit,” not “with the holy spirit.” And Peter wrote that God’s servants spoke, being “borne along by holy spirit,” not “by the holy spirit.”—Rom. 14:17; 2 Pet. 1:21, NW.

Colossians 1:15 says about Jesus: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Firstborn of all creation. Creation needs a creator. 1 Corithians 8:4 (last part) "there is no God but one." Not, 'there is no God, but three-in-one." Daniel, Stephen and John in visions saw representations of the Father and the Son, but never one of the holy spirit. Why not, if the holy spirit is equal to the Father and the Son in glory, power, etc.? The creed may state that unless we believe that the holy spirit is equal to God we shall perish, but Jesus, in giving us the rule for life, does not even mention the holy spirit: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”—John 17:3, NW.

Btw, I have no problem with God and Evolution co-existing. Grayhaze, I can sympathize with you when you say that many 'christians' will 'regurgitate' bible verses when you question their faith.

Even with the book of Genesis saying differently?

Not regurgitating. Merely showing you evidence. Backing up my claims.

I think if they have to interpret a translation from Hebrew to English to get the feeling of the text then there is room for error or someone else's interpretation to be more accurate.



I'm leaving the suffering children issue alone.


There have been decisions (sometimes heated) over the sentence "Thou Shall Not Kill".

Taken literally could mean any believer could not participate in any Wars, death sentences or even in the worst case scenario defend themselves with lethal force. (Or for that matter use a sufficient amount of force above the force being used by the other perpetrator that would lead to the perpetrators death)



Then someone said, "I think the real translation is 'Thou Shall Not Murder'".



This is why I strongly believe at this point in my life that belief and faith is something that is always in flux and in constant learning. There is no specific right answer, but it is a guide to getting closer to God.

I tend to and want to be open with my beliefs otherwise I will be doomed to stagnation of my spirituality.

----------------

Creation Vs. Evolution??? Like saying Tomato or TomAto (toe-MOT-toe). One bigats the other in an endless chicken before/after egg cycle.

BTW, I have no problem with God and Evolution co-existing.Grayhaze, I can sympathize with you when you say that many 'Christians' will 'regurgitate' bible verses when you question their faith.Even with the book of Genesis saying differently? Not regurgitating. Merely showing you evidence. Backing up my claims.

Well, yes.

I can believe in one thing but I know I am limited in my understanding of these matters. I personally did not translate the Book, I myself read it and even then can see how it can be interpreted as evolution.

Eve coming from Adam... created or is it that Adam held both male and female attributes? Males are x/y and females are x/x (or y/y I forget)

could it be the creation can be considered and evolving?

Tell me if you got something that says Adam looked like humans of today. That cows in Genesis look like cows of today.

I can conceive of a possibility that as a group (Christianity et al) can have misinterpreted the readings. (Notice I didn't say the Bible was wrong but the readers interpretation of it)


It is quite possible that evolution is part of the plan. I could be wrong but I could be right.


I feel that the Universe is far more complex than what we can conceive at this moment in time. The Bible is not a simple book. Everything is stuffed in their and I do not think it is to be taken lightly or that even a simple phrase is 'simple'.


This is not childs play and I would reject (yes, without giving it the time of day) that anyone here has an simple answer.

*Methinks Grayhaze has opened a giant can 'o' worms.... which icidentally are what will eat us when we die.* Personally, I believe we evolved from space dust. The basic elements to everything in the universe are also within us.
I dont wanna be buried or burned when I go... just leave me to become what I was, and to return to the cosmos, blown on the wind.

call it (w)reckless thinking!

Yes, I recall someone saying that we are made of stars.

It would make sense to me, since we are in this universe, that we would have the basic elements in the universe within us.

So did we evolve to this state by design or by chance? Or by having evolved are new creations and therefor have been created?

This debate is driving me smurfing mad!

Or could it be the chance was by design?

Does anyone here know about the properties of atoms? Is it possible that those atoms could have a signiture that would eventually bring forth a life form by design? Like DNA controls what type of animal you are? How tall you grow to?

hmmmmm....

'You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.'

I seem to remember it as,"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"

Even you stated that when things are translated, you lose some of the original meaning. I think this is the problem here...When the Bible (or any book for that matter) is translated, then updated, (for more modern language) and then updated again, (and perhaps...yet again) things can get quite jumbled up and meanings can get twisted.

People do not 'worship' the cross. It is kept as a reminder of what and who it stands for. (Christ and the crucifixion) It is also a symbol that says ,"I am a christian"

As for Evolution and God, you can interpret the 6 day creation story literally (6 24hr days) or as a day might be to God. (thousands or even millions of years) I am inclined to think that Gods idea of time is not the same as our own.

Sorry if I dont answer all your points, but I do not have as much time to spend on this subject as you do.

I think if they have to interpret a translation from Hebrew to English to get the feeling of the text then there is room for error or someone else's interpretation to be more accurate.

But if there is a God, don't you think he'd make sure the translation was correct?

There have been decisions (sometimes heated) over the sentence "Thou Shall Not Kill". Taken literally could mean any believer could not participate in any Wars, death sentences or even in the worst case scenario defend themselves with lethal force. (Or for that matter use a sufficient amount of force above the force being used by the other perpetrator that would lead to the perpetrators death) Then someone said, "I think the real translation is 'Thou Shall Not Murder'".

Deliberate murder is what it is speaking of, but as for self-defense it's permitted. Ex 22:2, 3

Eve coming from Adam... created or is it that Adam held both male and female attributes? Males are x/y and females are x/x (or y/y I forget) could it be the creation can be considered and evolving? Tell me if you got something that says Adam looked like humans of today. That cows in Genesis look like cows of today. I can conceive of a possibility that as a group (Christianity et al) can have misinterpreted the readings. (Notice I didn't say the Bible was wrong but the readers interpretation of it) It is quite possible that evolution is part of the plan. I could be wrong but I could be right. I feel that the Universe is far more complex than what we can conceive at this moment in time. The Bible is not a simple book. Everything is stuffed in their and I do not think it is to be taken lightly or that even a simple phrase is 'simple'. This is not childs play and I would reject (yes, without giving it the time of day) that anyone here has an simple answer.

Its unlikely that Adam had both male and female attributes. The Bible always refers to Adam as a 'he.' Also, since there was Eve created after Adam, and God knowing before that Eve would be created, there would be no use for Adam to have both attributes.

Tell me if you got something that says Adam looked like humans of today. That cows in Genesis look like cows of today.

"The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth’s living things “according to their kinds.” (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative 'day' the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created “kinds,” which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33. The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur. In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”

Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created “kinds,” there is no support for theories maintaining that new “kinds” have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that “kinds” cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed. Besides, the crossing of created “kinds” would interfere with God’s purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created “kinds,” each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other “kinds.” "



"From dust you are and to dust you will return."

I seem to remember it as,"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" Even you stated that when things are translated, you lose some of the original meaning. I think this is the problem here...When the Bible (or any book for that matter) is translated, then updated, (for more modern language) and then updated again, (and perhaps...yet again) things can get quite jumbled up and meanings can get twisted.

It says the same, though. God is happy with what his Son has done.

Well, doing it that way might present a problem, but going to the original scriptures in their original language, you can do a direct translation. Also, God will make sure that his word survives.

People do not 'worship' the cross. It is kept as a reminder of what and who it stands for. (Christ and the crucifixion) It is also a symbol that says ,"I am a christian"

Maybe so, but Jesus is no longer on the 'cross,' suffering. He is now ruling as King in Heaven. Though him dieing for us is something to remember, is his pain and suffering something to remember too? Do you think he enjoyed that? And an image of him dieing, do you think he would like to be reminded of what he went through? Also, the cross being a phallic symbol, do you think Jesus would enjoy being on a phallic symbol, being what it is? One more thing, no one today knows what Jesus looked like, so why are there images of him? I see some images of him showing him as 'white' (peach), but he wasn't 'white' he lived in Jerusalem, the Middle East area, and they tend to be darker in complexion. So this point to the 'Jesus' as not Jesus, but most likely as someone else. Jesus was also a carpenter and probably would have been a bit bigger in build (muscles) than the person on the cross as seen today. Christains don't need symbolys to tell people what they are... their actions, attitude, works, and faith are what tell people who and what they are. God can read the heart and can tell if we're Christain or not, he doesn't look at symbols. Matthew 22:20 says an image is "Any representation or likeness of a person or thing.—Mt 22:20." So, it'd be correct to call the cross an image. Exodus 20:4 says: "You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth." Psalm 78:58, Isaiah 42:8. John 4:23, 24, JB: “True worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: that is the kind of worshipper the Father wants. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.” (Those who rely on images as aids to devotion are not worshiping God “in spirit” but they depend on what they can see with their physical eyes.)

2 Cor. 5:7, NAB: “We walk by faith, not by sight.”

Isa. 40:18, JB: “To whom could you liken God? What image could you contrive of him?”

Acts 17:29, JB: “Since we are the children of God, we have no excuse for thinking that the deity looks like anything in gold, silver or stone that has been carved and designed by a man.”

Isa. 42:8, JB: “My name is Yahweh, I will not yield my glory to another, nor my honour to idols [“graven things,” Dy]

Jer. 10:14, 15, JB: “Every goldsmith blushes for the idol he has made, since his images are nothing but delusion, with no breath in them. They are a Nothing, a laughable production.”

Isa. 44:13-19, JB: “The wood carver takes his measurements, outlines the image with chalk, carves it with chisels, following the outline with dividers. He shapes it to human proportions, and gives it a human face, for it to live in a temple. He cut down a cedar, or else took a cypress or an oak which he selected from the trees in the forest, or maybe he planted a cedar and the rain made it grow. For the common man it is so much fuel; he uses it to warm himself, he also burns it to bake his bread. But this fellow makes a god of it and worships it; he makes an idol of it and bows down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire, on the live embers he roasts meat, eats it and is replete. He warms himself too. ‘Ah!’ says he ‘I am warm; I have a fire here!’ With the rest he makes his god, his idol; he bows down before it and worships it and prays to it. ‘Save me,’ he says ‘because you are my god.’ They know nothing, understand nothing. Their eyes are shut to all seeing, their heart to all reason. They never think, they lack the knowledge and wit to say, ‘I burned half of it on the fire, I baked bread on the live embers, I roasted meat and ate it, and am I to make some abomination of what remains? Am I to bow down before a block of wood?’”

Ezek. 14:6, JB: “The Lord Yahweh says this: Come back, renounce your idols [“dungy idols,” NW] and give up all your filthy practices.”

Ezek. 7:20, JB: “They used to pride themselves on the beauty of their jewellery, out of which they made their loathsome images and idols. That is why I mean to make it an object of horror [“uncleanness,” Dy; “refuse,” NAB] to them.”

True, a 'day' to God can be a thousands of years or millions. "Length of Creative Days. The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.

That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself." "Sometimes the word “day” is used to indicate a measure of distance, as in the expressions “a day’s journey” and “a sabbath day’s journey.”—Nu 11:31; Ac 1:12; see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

In prophecy a day is at times used to stand for one year. This can be noted at Ezekiel 4:6: “You must lie upon your right side in the second case, and you must carry the error of the house of Judah forty days. A day for a year, a day for a year, is what I have given you.”—See also Nu 14:34.

Certain specific numbers of days given in connection with prophecies are: three and a half days (Re 11:9); 10 days (Re 2:10); 40 days (Eze 4:6); 390 days (Eze 4:5); 1,260 days (Re 11:3; 12:6); 1,290 days (Da 12:11); 1,335 days (Da 12:12); and 2,300 days (Da 8:14).

The term “day(s)” is also used with reference to a time period contemporaneous with a particular person, as for example, “the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot.”—Lu 17:26-30; Isa 1:1.

Other cases where the word “day” is used in a flexible or figurative sense are: “the day of God’s creating Adam” (Ge 5:1), “the day of Jehovah” (Zep 1:7), the “day of fury” (Zep 1:15), “the day of salvation” (2Co 6:2), “the day of judgment” (2Pe 3:7), “the great day of God the Almighty” (Re 16:14), and others.

This flexible use of the word “day” to express units of time of varying length is clearly evident in the Genesis account of creation. Therein is set forth a week of six creative days followed by a seventh day of rest. The week assigned for observance by the Jews under the Law covenant given them by God was a miniature copy of that creative week. (Ex 20:8-11) In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning” a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894."

Its quite understandable, but I do ask that you and others ponder the points.

HA and you all thought I was long winded in the typing arena !

r3fr, interesting reading and points to look up

Though him dieing for us is something to remember, is his pain and suffering something to remember too?

Of course, because why did he die? Why did he suffer? It was an immeasurable act of self-sacrifice that should be remembered.

HA and you all thought I was long winded in the typing arena !

Uhg, there should be a limit on how long a post can be...

'You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.'

It says the same, though. God is happy with what his Son has done.

The 'approved you' part could be translated to mean that God was 'adopting' Jesus as a Son...

We refer to God as a 'He' but clearly god is more than male or female

But if there is a God, don't you think he'd make sure the translation was correct?

That is no better than saying, "If there was a God then why did he allow that man to hurt me?"

If I am not mistaken God allow for human intervention. So while the original Bible might be 'the hand of God' the translations do not have to be.

There is room for a possibility that what we read as the English version is not everything. I think if your really seeking God or trying to get closer to enlightenment then in some ways it would not matter if 'everything' is in the English version because your spirit would help you to see. (Also remember that God words are in everything so technically you should be able to look at a rock and see all the words that are in the Bible)

Nevertheless, that does not mean the word for word text is correct, therefore following the Bible literally was never the intent. It is a guide book not a rule book. I think many take it as a rule book and that inlies the mistake.

By the way, r3fr that was a pretty good post. I don't know what to say with the 'kinds' family tree. If species is a confusion on what Kinds are then could it be that evolution is too?

After the creation of these kinds, they evolve into what ever according to there kind's nature designed during the initial creation; A possibility?

It all depends on how far you want to take Evolution. You can't deny that Evolution happens. Every time you buy a dog you are enjoying the fruits of selective breeding. Any bird watcher can give you a hundred examples of the same things happening in nature. Species diverge over time based upon their specific needs and activities. It isn't much of a leap to see how members of a species can diverge so completely that they are new species.

The issue is at what point the whole process started. The more conservative the opinion, the more modern species are when they start to change. You'll rarely have a problem from anyone over the term 'caveman', but when you start with 'protohuman' or 'hominid', then people start dropping off a little at a time.

Established science can't even agree on how far back to go, so there is no shame in laymen also having problems with it, it is a theory. Whether you want to go back to Carl Sagan's 'primordial goo', to a few original species that evolved parallel to one another, or points thereafter is up to you.

No one, though, can say the processes of Evolution is totally ficticios, though, since we benefit so much by it on a day to day basis. MMmmm... Livestock, it's what's for dinner.

P.S.

As far as the concept of 'kinds', it is an understandable. As I cited previously, Newtons first law of motion flies in the face of common sense until gravity is taken into consideration. People won't totally accept Evolution based on the fossil record, we need to understand the processes behind it. I hold Creationists to the same standard I hold Atheists, though. You can't disprove the possibility of something unless you know everything.

I'm not gonna address biblical literalism, both because it is out of the scope of the Topic, and I would doubtlessly offend some people. You can't, though, portray the KJV Bible as a complete description of all that exists, since so much *isn't* described or explained in it. It doesn't include much modern science, so you can't say that Evolution isn't also outside its scope.

I'd rather not start a theology discussion, though. I don't wanna give bullets to the house nihilists,

Baker....'fictitious'....

Something in my genes says I was there...but the human part of me forgot the particulars...dang it!!

Actually, the Bible is the thing to give you that relationship with God. He's the author of it and did not simply write it for nothing. James 4:8 (first part) says: "Draw close to God, and he will
draw close to you." To draw close to God, we have to get to know him, and what better way than with the Bible, his word.
#803 by Citizen r3fr - 10/27/2003 2:36:03 AM

see r3fr how you might have misintpreted what I was saying up there about not getting wrapped up into the Bible? I have nothing against the Bible I happen to think of it as a readme.txt or help.txt file hehe
The only thing that is strange is how ppl get so wrapped up in their Bibles and Churches and Religions is they lose site of God and begin idolizing their Bible, Church and Religion fighting amongst each other over it and forget the purpose of these "tools" even Jesus becomes an idol for some when his purpose was to point ppl to his Father God and "set an example only" he was not placed here on earth to become an idol but everyone focuses their eyes on the physical things...

HA and you all thought I was long winded in the typing arena ! r3fr, interesting reading and points to look up.

Thanks. Yeah, i'm sorry, but I tend to have long posts.

Of course, because why did he die? Why did he suffer? It was an immeasurable act of self-sacrifice that should be remembered.

"In the fall of 29 C.E., Jesus went to his relative John to be baptized and thereby present himself to carry out God’s will. On that occasion Jehovah anointed Jesus with holy spirit. Jesus thus became the Messiah, or Christ, the one anointed by God. (Matthew 3:16, 17) Then Jesus embarked on his three-and-a-half-year ministry. He traveled throughout his homeland, preaching about God’s Kingdom and gathering faithful followers. However, as foretold, opposition to him soon mounted.—Psalm 118:22; Acts 4:8-11.

Jesus courageously exposed the hypocrisy of the religious leaders, and they sought his death. They eventually hatched an ugly plot that involved betrayal, improper arrest, an illegal trial, and a false charge of sedition. Jesus was struck, spat upon, ridiculed, and beaten with a whip designed to tear his flesh. The Roman governor Pontius Pilate then sentenced him to death on a torture stake. He was nailed to a wooden pole and hung there upright. Each breath was excruciating, and it took hours for him to die. Throughout that ordeal, Jesus maintained perfect integrity to God.

Thus, it was on Nisan 14, 33 C.E., that Jesus gave his life as “a ransom in exchange for many.” (Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6) From heaven, Jehovah could see his dear Son suffer and die. Why did God allow such a terrible thing to happen? He did so because he loved humankind. Jesus said: “God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) The death of Jesus also teaches us that Jehovah is a God of perfect justice. (Deuteronomy 32:4) Some might wonder why God did not waive his principles of justice that require soul for soul and ignore the price of Adam’s sinful course. The reason is that Jehovah always abides by his laws and upholds them, even at great cost to himself.

Jehovah’s justice also required that Jesus’ death have a happy outcome. After all, would there be justice in allowing faithful Jesus to sleep forever in death? Of course not! The Hebrew Scriptures had prophesied that God’s loyal one would not remain in the grave. (Psalm 16:10; Acts 13:35) He slept in death for parts of three days, and then Jehovah God resurrected him to life as a mighty spirit being.—1 Peter 3:18.

At his death, Jesus surrendered his human life for all time. Upon being raised to life in heaven, he became a life-giving spirit. Moreover, when Jesus ascended to the holiest place in the universe, he was reunited with his dear Father and formally presented to Him the value of his perfect human life. (Hebrews 9:23-28) The value of that precious life could then be applied in behalf of obedient mankind. What does that mean for you?"

“The Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.”—MATTHEW 20:28.

THE ransom is God’s greatest gift to mankind. By means of “the release by ransom,” we can have “the forgiveness of our trespasses.” (Ephesians 1:7) It is the foundation of a hope of everlasting life, whether in heaven (only 144,000) or on a paradise earth. (Luke 23:43; John 3:16) And because of it, Christians may enjoy a clean standing before God even now.—Revelation 7:14, 15.

The ransom is therefore not something vague or abstract. Having a legal foundation in divine principles, the ransom can bring real, tangible benefits. Certain aspects of this doctrine may be “hard to understand.” (2 Peter 3:16) But you will find it well worth the effort to examine the ransom closely, for it reflects God’s surpassing love for mankind. To grasp the meaning of the ransom is to understand a key feature of God’s unfathomable “riches and wisdom and knowledge.”—Romans 5:8; 11:33.

The ransom became necessary due to the sin of the first human, Adam, who bequeathed his offspring a futile legacy of sickness, disease, sorrow, and pain. (Romans 8:20) By virtue of their inherited imperfection, all of Adam’s descendants are “children of wrath,” deserving of death. (Ephesians 2:3; Deuteronomy 32:5) God could not yield to unprincipled sentiment and simply forgive mankind out of hand. His own Word shows that “the wages sin pays is death.” (Romans 6:23) To excuse mankind’s sinfulness, God would have had to ignore his own righteous standards, to invalidate his own legal justice! (Job 40:8) Yet, “righteousness and judgment are the established place of [God’s] throne.” (Psalm 89:14) Any deflection from righteousness on his part would only encourage lawlessness and undermine his position as Universal Sovereign.—Compare Ecclesiastes 8:11.

The 'approved you' part could be translated to mean that God was 'adopting' Jesus as a Son...

True, it could, but Jesus was already Gods son before he was baptized. So its very unlikely that God would adopt his son when he was already his son. 2 Peter 1:17 says: "For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when words such as these were borne to him by the magnificent glory: 'This is my son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved.' " Also, since Jesus was "the firstborn of all creation" it'd only make sense that he would be Gods son, since God created him.

We refer to God as a 'He' but clearly god is more than male or female

True, God and angels are neither male nor female. Jesus’ statement concerning resurrected men and women not marrying or being given in marriage but being like the “angels in heaven” shows that marriages between such heavenly creatures do not exist, no male and female distinction being indicated among them. (Mt 22:30) Same for God, he is a spirit creature and has no distinction. I'll do some more research on why, in the Bible, God is called a 'he.'

That is no better than saying, "If there was a God then why did he allow that man to hurt me?"

I don't see how. God wants mankind to live forever. That was his original intent for Adam and Eve. To fill the earth (reproduce) living in paradise, we sinned, and God wrote the Bible to help us gain everlasting life. Gods intents haven't changed. So its logical to say that God would make sure his word survived the ages so that we may gain accurate knowledge of him and his will for us. Though, there are some translations that aren't correct, many today aren't in fact. Many leave out Gods name (Psalm 83:18) (Notice* God or LORD aren't names, just titles.) for example. And some actually put scriptures in their Bibles that weren't in the original so that the read may believe in a theory that the church believes in.

If I am not mistaken God allow for human intervention. So while the original Bible might be 'the hand of God' the translations do not have to be.

I'm not sure what is meant here. You're saying that God allows human intervention? I must disagree with you. While humans are permitted to rule and whatnot, God will NOT allow them to completely destroy his word, or disrupt his promises.

There is room for a possibility that what we read as the English version is not everything. I think if your really seeking God or trying to get closer to enlightenment then in some ways it would not matter if 'everything' is in the English version because your spirit would help you to see. (Also remember that God words are in everything so technically you should be able to look at a rock and see all the words that are in the Bible)

A well knowledgable translator (or group of..) of the Hebrew (or Greek) and English languages will most likely get the most accurate translation possible, though, like i've said before, not every word has a direct translation, but, the thought or feeling can be captured. Like, for example, "happy". If there is no direct translation, we can substitute "happy" for "excited" or "joyful." It still captures the feeling, but with different words. This is why some translations differ in words than others, such as

'You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.' I seem to remember it as,"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"

It doesn't have the exact same words, but it is saying the same thing, that God is happy with what his son has done.

Spirit - Soul -

The original-language terms (Heb., ne´phesh [???]; Gr., psy·khe´ [????]) as used in the Scriptures show “soul” to be a person, an animal, or the life that a person or an animal enjoys.

The connotations that the English “soul” commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words as used by the inspired Bible writers. This fact has steadily gained wider acknowledgment. Back in 1897, in the Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30), Professor C. A. Briggs, as a result of detailed analysis of the use of ne´phesh, observed: “Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from ??? [ne´phesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret.”

More recently, when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah, or first five books of the Bible, the editor-in-chief, H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, stated that the word “soul” had been virtually eliminated from this translation because, “the Hebrew word in question here is ‘Nefesh.’” He added: “Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”—The New York Times, October 12, 1962.

Gen. 2:7: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” (Notice that this does not say that man was given a soul but that he became a soul, a living person.) (The part of the Hebrew word here rendered “soul” is ne´phesh. KJ, AS, and Dy agree with that rendering. RS, JB, NAB read “being.” NE says “creature.” Kx reads “person.”)

1 Cor. 15:45: “It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (So the Christian Greek Scriptures agree with the Hebrew Scriptures as to what the soul is.) (The Greek word here translated “soul” is the accusative case of psy·khe´. KJ, AS, Dy, JB, NAB, and Kx also read “soul.” RS, NE, and TEV say “being.”)

1 Pet. 3:20: “In Noah’s days . . . a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.” (The Greek word here translated “souls” is psy·khai´, the plural form of psy·khe´. KJ, AS, Dy, and Kx also read “souls.” JB and TEV say “people”; RS, NE, and NAB use “persons.”)

Gen. 9:5: “Besides that, your blood of your souls [or, “lives”; Hebrew, from ne´phesh] shall I ask back.” (Here the soul is said to have blood.)

Josh. 11:11: “They went striking every soul [Hebrew, ne´phesh] that was in it with the edge of the sword.” (The soul is here shown to be something that can be touched by the sword, so these souls could not have been spirits.)

Spirit -
THERE should be no question in the mind of any sincere investigator that what the Bible speaks of as “soul” is not some immortal part of man that continues conscious existence after death. Yet when shown the overwhelming evidence about the true nature of the soul, some persons present other arguments in an effort to support their belief that something within man has continued existence after death.

One Biblical text that is often used is Ecclesiastes 12:7, which reads: “The dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the true God who gave it.” In his Commentary, Wesleyan Methodist theologian Adam Clarke writes concerning this verse: “Here the wise man makes a most evident distinction between the body and the soul: they are not the same; they are not both matter. The body, which is matter, returns to dust, its original; but the spirit, which is immaterial, returns to God.” Similarly, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture says: “The soul goes back to God.” Thus both commentaries imply that the soul and the spirit are the same.

Interestingly, though, other Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars present an entirely different view. In the “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” appearing in the Catholic New American Bible (published by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970), we read: “When ‘spirit’ is used in contrast with ‘flesh,’ . . . the aim is not to distinguish a material from an immaterial part of man . . . ‘Spirit’ does not mean soul.” At Ecclesiastes 12:7 this translation uses, not the word “spirit,” but the expression “life breath.” The Protestant Interpreter’s Bible observes regarding the writer of Ecclesiastes: “Koheleth does not mean that man’s personality continues to exist.” In view of such different conclusions, can we be sure just what the spirit is and in what sense it returns to God?

At Ecclesiastes 12:1-7 the effects of old age and death are portrayed in poetic language. After death, the body eventually decomposes and again becomes a part of the dust of the earth. The “spirit,” on the other hand, “returns to the true God.” So man’s death is linked with the spirit’s returning to God, this indicating that man’s life in some way depends upon that spirit.

In the original-language text of Ecclesiastes 12:7, the Hebrew word translated “spirit” or “life breath” is ru´ahh. The corresponding Greek term is pneu´ma. While our life does depend on the breathing process, the English word “breath” (as numerous translators often render the words ru´ahh and pneu´ma) is not always a suitable alternate translation for “spirit.” Furthermore, other Hebrew and Greek words, namely, ne·sha·mah´ (Hebrew) and pno·e´ (Greek), are also translated as “breath.” (See Genesis 2:7 and Acts 17:25.) It is nevertheless noteworthy that, in using “breath” as an alternate rendering for “spirit,” translators are showing that the original-language terms apply to something that has no personality but is essential for the continuance of life.

THE SPIRIT IDENTIFIED

That man’s life depends on the spirit (ru´ahh or pneu´ma) is definitely stated in the Bible. We read: “If you [Jehovah] take away their spirit [ru´ahh], they expire, and back to their dust they go.” (Psalm 104:29) “The body without spirit [pneu´ma] is dead.” (James 2:26) Hence, the spirit is that which animates the body.

But this animating force is not simply breath. Why not? Because life remains in the body cells for a brief period after breathing stops. For this reason efforts at resuscitation can succeed, also body organs can be transplanted from one person to another. But these things have to be done quickly. Once the life-force is gone from the cells of the body, efforts to prolong life are futile. All the breath in the world could not revive even as much as one cell. Viewed in this light, the “spirit” evidently is an invisible life-force, active in every living cell of man’s body.

Is this life-force active only in man? What is stated in the Bible can help us to reach a sound conclusion on this. Regarding the destruction of human and animal life in a global flood, the Bible reports: “Everything in which the breath [ne´·sha·mah´] of the force [ru´ahh, spirit] of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died.” (Genesis 7:22) At Ecclesiastes 3:19 the same basic point is made in connection with death: “There is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit [ru´ahh], so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast.” Accordingly, man is not superior to animals when it comes to the spirit animating his body. The same invisible spirit or life-force is common to both.

In a sense, the spirit or life-force active in both animals and man might be compared to a flow of electrons or electricity through a machine or an appliance. The invisible electricity may be used to perform various functions, depending upon the type of machine or appliance being energized. Stoves can be made to produce heat, fans to produce wind, computers to solve problems, and television sets to reproduce figures, voices and other sounds. The same invisible force that produces sound in one appliance can produce heat in another, mathematical computations in another. But does the electric current ever take on the often complex characteristics of the machines or appliances in which it functions or is active? No, it remains simply electricity—a mere force or form of energy.

Similarly, both humans and animals “have but one spirit,” one activating force. The spirit or life-force that enables man to carry out functions of life in no way differs from the spirit that makes it possible for animals to do so. That spirit does not retain the characteristics of the dead body’s cells. For example, in the case of brain cells, the spirit does not retain the information stored there and continue thought processes apart from these cells. The Bible tells us: “His spirit [ru´ahh] goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.”—Psalm 146:4.

This being the case, the return of the ru´ahh or spirit to God simply could not mean the continuance of conscious existence. The spirit does not continue human thought processes. It is only a life-force that has no conscious existence apart from a body.

HOW THE SPIRIT RETURNS TO GOD

How, then, does this invisible, impersonal force or spirit return to God? Does it return to his literal presence in heaven?

The way in which the Bible uses the word “return” does not require that we, in each case, think of an actual movement from one place to another. For instance, unfaithful Israelites were told: “‘Return to me, and I will return to you,’ Jehovah of armies has said.” (Malachi 3:7) Obviously this did not mean that the Israelites were to leave the earth and come into the very presence of God. Nor did it mean that God would leave his position in the heavens and begin dwelling on earth with the Israelites. Rather, Israel’s “returning” to Jehovah meant a turning around from a wrong course and again conforming to God’s righteous way. And Jehovah’s “returning” to Israel meant his turning favorable attention to his people once again. In both cases the return involved an attitude, not a literal movement from one geographical location to another.

That the return of something does not require actual movement might be illustrated by what happens in a transferal of a business or a property from the control of one party to another. For example, in a certain country the control of the railroads might be shifted from the hands of private enterprise to those of the government. When such a transferal takes place, the railroad equipment and even all the records may remain where they are. It is the authority over them that changes hands.

So it is in the case of the spirit or life-force. At death no actual movement from the earth to the heavenly realm need occur for it to ‘return to God.’ But the gift or grant of existence as an intelligent creature, as enjoyed once by the dead person, now reverts to God. That which is needed to animate the person, namely, the spirit or life-force, is in God’s hands.—Psalm 31:5; Luke 23:46.

The situation might be compared to that of an accused man who says to a judge, ‘My life is in your hands.’ He means that what will become of his life rests with the judge. The accused has no choice in the matter. It is out of his hands.

Similarly, in the case of a dead man, he does not have control over his spirit or life-force. It has returned to God in the sense that he controls the future life prospects of the individual. It is up to God to decide as to whether he will restore the spirit or life-force to the deceased.

Hebrews 4:12 (NW) reads: “For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and their marrow, and is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” God’s Word is alive to alter our ways of thinking and living, and to have its truths in our heads and hearts is to have a powerful influence at work within us. It is no dead Word that has lost its interest or truthfulness, its practicalness or right interpretation of present events, and its protective power against the degradation of these immoral times. It has vitality and carries conviction and can show what is in us with a penetration and discernment far sharper than that of any worldly psychologist. It is no dead letter, its principles will stand, its judgments will be executed.

God’s Word does not stop at just a surface view of human actions but it penetrates beneath the surface to discern motives and attitudes, to divide between fleshly desires and mental dispositions. That these two forces exist within an individual Paul shows: “With my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law.” (Rom. 7:25, NW) With his mind Paul served God’s law, but with his flesh he served the law of sin. So the life one lives as a human soul of flesh and blood may be different from what is one’s mental attitude or spirit. Hebrews 4:12 is differentiating between the life of an individual, or his soul, and his mental and heart attitude and inclination of mind. In the text “soul” means the life of the fleshly organism and “spirit” means the mental disposition or heart attitude of the individual. Christians should always examine their conduct in the light of their inward motives and be sure that any falling short is due to weak flesh and not deliberately done out of wrong heart condition. God’s Word will help us be discerning in examining ourselves and penetrate to the attitudes and heart intentions behind our conduct, to be sure that they are pure even when our lives may fall short of perfection. Jehovah takes all these things into consideration and sees us inside and out, for “all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting.”—Heb. 4:13, NW.

The resurrection also helps my arguement. Dictionary.com defines resurrection - res·ur·rec·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rz-rkshn)
n.
The act of rising from the dead or returning to life.
The state of one who has returned to life.
The act of bringing back to practice, notice, or use; revival.
Resurrection Christianity.
The rising again of Jesus on the third day after the Crucifixion.
The rising again of the dead at the Last Judgment.
It also defines 'dead' as - dead ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dd)
adj. dead·er, dead·est
Having lost life; no longer alive.
Marked for certain death; doomed: was marked as a dead man by the assassin.

Having the physical appearance of death: a dead pallor.
Lacking feeling or sensitivity; numb or unresponsive: Passersby were dead to our pleas for help.
Weary and worn-out; exhausted.

Not having the capacity to live; inanimate or inert.
Not having the capacity to produce or sustain life; barren: dead soil.

No longer in existence, use, or operation.
No longer having significance or relevance.
Physically inactive; dormant: a dead volcano.

Not commercially productive; idle: dead capital.
Not circulating or running; stagnant: dead water; dead air.

Devoid of human or vehicular activity; quiet: a dead town.
Lacking all animation, excitement, or activity; dull: The party being dead, we left early.

If, when we die we go to heaven, there would be no use of a resurrection and the scriptures that say Jesus was resurrected are wrong and so is the scripture at 2 Timothy 3:16 which says: "All scrpiture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,..." But there is hope for the dead in the near future. Millions will be resurrected to a paradise earth with unexplainable beauty and with no pain nor death nor sickness. (Revelation 21:4, Psalm 37:29, Ecclesiastes 1:4, Isaiah 45:18, Matthew 5:5, Luke 23:43)

Gods word is in everything, not in the literal sense that if you look closely enough you'll see scriptures because the Bible wasn't written when Adam and Eve were on the Earth, but showing his qualities. Like, flowers for example, they show that God loves beautiful things and is loving. Rocks show his intelligence because we need solid ground to walk on. Humans also show God intelligence, by our makeup, our brain, the nervous system and so on.

Some more on the trinity.. Look at Deuteronomy 32:39. It says: "SEE now that I--I am he and there are no other gods together with me. I put to death, and I make alive. I have severely wounded, and I--I will heal, and there is no one snatching out of my hand."

Nevertheless, that does not mean the word for word text is correct, therefore following the Bible literally was never the intent. It is a guide book not a rule book. I think many take it as a rule book and that inlies the mistake.

True, it is a guide book, as for literally follwing the Bible, i'm not sure what you mean.

By the way, r3fr that was a pretty good post. I don't know what to say with the 'kinds' family tree. If species is a confusion on what Kinds are then could it be that evolution is too? After the creation of these kinds, they evolve into what ever according to there kind's nature designed during the initial creation; A possibility?

Thanks Joe, but I do have a bit of help with informational software (Watchtower library) which I find very useful which is the purpose of it, but as for the looking up of the majority of scriptures and a lot of the comments, only me. Humans, according to the Bible (and fossile records, DNA..), have existed on earth for around 6,000 years. The fossile record shows that man and animals have remained the same throughout that time. What may be thought of as a 'missing-link' is most likely a deformation or human or ape. There is also the possibility of extinct species not know to modern humans. Also with records other than the Bible (ancient drawings, pictures, statues, and so on..) show that animals back then look the same today as with humans. Don't you think that some should be 'evolving' today? We see no evidence of evolving in humans or animals today. Most humans grow no taller than 6 feet and we have two arms, two legs, 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 eyes, 1 head, 1 body, and so on and what we call people with less or more of any of those, is, not 'evolved', but deformed. Not being rude or anything, thats just the term.
(dictionary.com - deformed - de·form ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fôrm)
v. de·formed, de·form·ing, de·forms
v. tr.
To spoil the natural form of; misshape: a body that had been deformed by disease.)
According to their kinds means that they've been created to how they're supposed to be. How God wanted them to be. Genesis 1:31 says: "After that God saw everything he made and, look! [it was] very good..." God was pleased with what he created and the things he created were according to how he wanted them to be. For man, God took, not a living cell from a previous creature, but some dust of the ground and proceeded to make may and to breathe into him the breath of life and the man came to be a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)

Also, if there is a question or questions that you would like a better answer or to be answer in private, please write to your local branch office (for fastest reply) https://watch002.securesites.net/how_to_contact_us.htm.

yikes! I cannot read all that! hehe
but I spotted the "he" thing, what is so hard about this? God is called a "he" cause of his "strength & power" = "masculine qualities" prob not cause of his sex, sheesh such stuff read into words when it all means nothing really... hehe

[Message Edited]

now me goes to look up more non important lyrics to my tunes I heard today... hehe!

It all depends on how far you want to take Evolution. You can't deny that Evolution happens. Every time you buy a dog you are enjoying the fruits of selective breeding. Any bird watcher can give you a hundred examples of the same things happening in nature. Species diverge over time based upon their specific needs and activities. It isn't much of a leap to see how members of a species can diverge so completely that they are new species......No one, though, can say the processes of Evolution is totally ficticios, though, since we benefit so much by it on a day to day basis. MMmmm... Livestock, it's what's for dinner.

The combining, of say, a blue jay and a carninal, wouldn't make a new species of bird, but a

sub-species of the two. (It might look kinda good too.) The 'blueinal' would still have the

characteristics of the blue jay and the cardnial. Though i'm not sure if its even possible for those

birds to succesfully reproduce. It was only an example. A human doesn't evolve to living in

extreme cold or hot places, but adapts. They wear heavy coats in cold, and sometimes very

skimmy clothing (except in the desert where it seems wearing the clothing they do, is better than

skimmy clothing) A cat cannot 'evolve' to living in the water, nor can it adapt. Turtles, they live a

lot of their life in or around water, yet cannot live underwater like fish. And fish cannot live their

complete life out of water.

Genetical engineering of animals isn't evolution. Its just scientists taking certain characteristics of

one bull and put into an egg to make a 'better' bull. Also, notice of how long the bull lives, or

how 'well' it is. How healthy it is and whatnot.

see r3fr how you might have misintpreted what I was saying up there about not getting wrapped up into the Bible? I have nothing against the Bible I happen to think of it as a readme.txt or help.txt file hehe The only thing that is strange is how ppl get so wrapped up in their Bibles and Churches and Religions is they lose site of God and begin idolizing their Bible, Church and Religion fighting amongst each other over it and forget the purpose of these "tools" even Jesus becomes an idol for some when his purpose was to point ppl to his Father God and "set an example only" he was not placed here on earth to become an idol but everyone focuses their eyes on the physical things...

I agree, some people lose the whole point and some worship Jesus as 'Almighty God' and worship

the Bible, when worship should be to God and him only. But what their problem is, is that they

don't even read the Bible. They don't apply it in their lifes. They're told by their preachers,

pastors, pope, all the others to do what they want. What the 'teachers' want, not what the Bible or

what God wants. Today and in ancient times we see that religion has a lot of involvement in wars

and a lot of involvement in politics of this world. It seems that the line between church and state is no more. The Bible is meant to be a guide-book like Joe pointed out. Its there for us to learn about God and his will for mankind. Daily reading of it will help us to draw closer to God. And also it is very true that people tend to focus on the physical and not the spiritual.

yikes! I cannot read all that! hehe but I spotted the "he" thing, what is so hard about this? God is called a "he" cause of his "strength & power" = "masculine qualities" prob not cause of his sex, sheesh such stuff read into words when it all means nothing really... hehe

This too, is true (a rhyme). Yes, strength and power are associated with masculinity and weak with females. God is called 'he' because of his limitless power and authority, not because he has male attributes or the like.

IPlural:

Your God is all powerful correct?Then where was he when the child was abused and raped or murdered?You God can see and knows all, correct?Did your God not know this was taking place?If your God knew this.Knowing it was taking place why did your God not stop it?

I see this brought up so much that I really have to jump in and say somethng here. These things are not of God but of the devil. The greatest achievement the devil ever did was to make people believe he does not exist.

Why doesn't God do something? Because humankind won't let him. A long time ago and ever since we said 'No! I don't believe in you and I don't need you! In fact I don't even believe in you!'

God did not want a load of robots that were programmed to love Him but gave everyone free will to choose.

The main problem is that we complicate matters too much. People believe that they have to live good and righteous lives, giving to the poor and never doing wrong things again. That is just so much rubbish it's untrue. Doing good things does not get us to heaven. The only thing that can is Jesus. The doing good deeds should come from loving a God who is pure love (not sexual but like you may have for your parents or they for you, but an infinite amount greater and wanting to serve him).

When Adam and Eve (yes I do believe in the creation story) sinned and basically chose the devil over God they handed the earth over to the devil to do with as he wished. God does intervene when asked. He even sent his Son into the world to intervene on a personal level. It says in John's gospel: 'Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.'

But there is hope. Hope in Jesus who died willingly to take the blame for every single wrong thing you or anyone else ever has or ever will do. In so doing he was completely cut off from his own Father. He's just standing there saying do you want me to take all the evil things you do and make you pure again, as if you had never done them? All we have to do is say 'Yes please!'.

When Jesus does come back to reclaim the earth from the devil my belief is that every single person alive or dead will know that he is the Son of God. He's not going to come in the night as a baby, he's going to come in all his glory and with all his heavenly host. I look forward to that day.

At the end of the day I'm not going to ram it down anybody's throat but if I am asked I will tell people what I believe and why I believe it. You can choose to believe or reject what I've written as just another fairy story.

/me steps off soapbox.