BTK59

Your statement is still incorrect, as I have accurately illustrated its intended meaning. You may not want it in order to create a misleading perception on your behalf. But, that's the nature of the beast here, isn't it? You are the one projecting. I provided an accurate interpretation, whether it meets your approval or not. It's of no consequence to me. Tunic and Linen can be used inside the garden, and animal skin outside the garden after the expulsion. So, the only one creating confusion is you. Before being expelled, Adam and Eve had already clothed themselves, but this fact was perhaps not fully grasped by everyone here. This passage serves as a compelling and reflective commentary on the events that occurred after their departure. However, everyone is free to accept their own interpretation of scripture. LOL! In some cases, that goat would be correct, especially when we have other references to consider. I guess that goat would say, more food for thought. Your consistent dishonesty and lack of sincerity are evident once again, along with your usual inaccuracy. Your attempt to pass as a Jehovah's Witness is quite a stretch, given your track record.

If there are any doubts regarding my use of "AI" with your use of illustrations to present AI mistakes, let me clarify. There are moments when thoughts are written spontaneously, and as one idea develops, another thought may arise. To simplify, I will write in the manner that feels most natural to me, and you are free to make decisions based on what you think is best for you. If you need to wait to respond in order to seem intelligent, you are only fooling yourselves, thanks.

What's wrong is your comprehension, lol! What were they wearing when they were talking to God? No, I don't struggle with reading the words in red. I simply enjoy contemplating. It is when people rely on a literal translation without grasping the context and significance that they end up going in endless circles. Consider the contrast between tunic and linen versus animal skins within the garden from a literal perspective. Delve into the concept of purity in this context. Once outside the garden, feel free to let loose and be uninhibited. I suggest delving into additional sources to gain a deeper understanding of your argument. The rest of the scripture comes into play after the garden, but some aspects are not applicable until after Noah received instructions. It's important to avoid generalizing and instead consider each aspect individually.

Now on your other post Srecko, after reflecting on the consequences of disobedience being immediate for man, what is the more probable course to consider, once Adam and Eve had managed to clothe themselves? Should we believe God would clothe them again inside the garden, overlapping their outerwear? Some older illustrations depict Adam and Eve clothed in linen, while very few, show them with fig leaves. One should consider this as a matter of common decency.

Srecko, I consider myself fortunate to be able to comprehend the teachings of the Bible without imposing my own viewpoints upon them. This is where discernment, reasoning, and wisdom play a crucial role. Without it, there's no point in even trying. Indeed, the leaves were carefully arranged to ensure they felt adequately concealed and protected. It's not hard to believe that's how they left the garden. After the expulsion, feel free to unleash your wildest imagination with an abundance of animal skins. That being said, do not indulge in wild fantasies about Adam and Eve feasting on meat, particularly "carrion" as previously suggested in this thread or another one by the same person who now denies it. I cannot comprehend the distinction between "spoiled meat" and "carrion," both referring to the putrefied state of meat. Nevertheless, it is a perplexing matter. Perhaps it would be wise to reconsider this particular choice, haha! Adam and Eve frequently journeyed back to the entrance of the majestic garden. Assuming that they were in the garden with a Cherub wielding a fiery sword in the background would be unwise. Should the observer believe they are being escorted out by the angel in the distance or are they just being denied entry from afar? I believe fear would be a factor. Once again, outside the garden, go crazy with animals skins. Use accessories, bling, whatever makes you happy.

Are you retracting your previous position on "carrion"? It seems like playing games is a necessity for you. I refuse to entertain any more foolishness from you. I am blocking your comments because it seems that you lack sincerity in your intentions.

I see why you would perceive it that way, especially considering the numerous misconceptions you have. So, I won't accept your assessment. It's highly unlikely that you believe you know better than the lexicons. However, what does it matter if you think about @BillyTheKid-55, as if it should mean something to me. Wrong! I mean specifically inside the garden, not outside. The mistake you perceive in me is actually your own mistake in assuming a literal translation. Adam and Eve were the ones who proactively decided to cover themselves with fig leaves, even before God intervened. The abstract on Genesis 3:21 would have been written after Adam and Eve were expelled. Make sure to read the Bible accurately and with care. There are numerous non-conventional books that challenge the validity of your perspective. After the expulsion, I don't have any concerns about wearing animal skins, as Adam and Eve were the first to do so, and according to other sources, they were "sheep" skins obtained from animals killed by lions. Once again, it refers to a deceased animal, not for food but to use its skin as clothing. Therefore, it would be incorrect to consider those passages as suitable for consumption, as there is no mention of animals being included in the sources for consumption. How can we successfully implement this within an ideal setting? God was still in control, not man. Therefore, any thoughts we have about imperfection within the garden hold no significance. Visitors should refrain from endorsing your perspective. They need to use their own judgment and critical thinking to correctly interpret a lexicon. For the same reason, they should not rely on your use of Strongs Concordance or JPS, Greene, without understanding those lexicons. As I mentioned, they have a hindsight view, as you are demonstrating with all your posted examples that would not be applicable "inside" the garden or before the flood, until Noah's instruction. The Strongs concordance can only be applied after certain conditions are met. You just need to learn where to put it into practice.

Lets, not. To start, it's crucial to understand that God provided clothing for Adam and Eve as they left the garden, marking their expulsion. You're suggesting that Adam and Eve remained in the garden with clothing, but you'd need to provide evidence from Genesis 3 to support this. Then you need to clarify the word "skin" to specifically refer to "animal skin." The commonly employed term in the lexicon is "tunic." This corresponds with another term, "linen." Do you understand the definition of either word? A tunic is a garment for the body, usually simple in style, reaching from the shoulders to a length somewhere between the hips and the knees. a: cloth made of flax and noted for its strength, coolness, and luster b: thread or yarn spun from flax 2: clothing or household articles made of linen cloth or similar fabric 3: paper made from linen fibers or with a linen finish Therefore, God would NOT have resorted to a savage deed to cover an otherwise flawless couple in the garden with your presumed animal skin. Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon [Fri] χιτών, ῶνος, ὁ tunic, an undergarment worn next to the skin by both men and women, a sleeveless shirt reaching below the knees; more generally clothing, garment; plural clothes כֻּתֳּנֹת & כָּתְנֹת Ex 3927, cs. כָּתְנוֹת, sf. כֻּתֳּנֹתָם: long shirt-like (under-)garment Gn 373 (« passîm); not nec. of linen; of skin Gn 321; for women 2S 1318f; for priests Ex 284. (pg 167) Another concept to contemplate is "being covered in righteousness." This idea is reinforced when considering the notion of a paradise, a perfect garden. Did God clothe the pair within the garden or outside as they were exiting the garden? No one here has presented a convincing argument for "animal skin" inside the garden. Genesis 3 simply suggests that there was a covering over their "skin," but it really doesn't imply animal skin if we use the original language in present tense. People should learn to understand the bible. God had the option to create a covering from vegetation, tree bark, and other materials. They might have resorted to using animal skins after being expelled. With that understanding in mind, it becomes straightforward to interpret the message conveyed in Genesis 3:7. NAS Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. (Gen. 3:7 NAS) That's why the interpretations of biblical definitions by "Strongs" can be misleading at times. The Strong's concordance relies on terminology that comes after the events, instead of using terminology from before. I have witnessed individuals running in the nude in modern society. I fail to perceive the essence of your message. What if humans had never learned the art of cultivating the land? Would we really be engaged in this argument? What if humanity had never learned to pollute or harm the earth without the influence of Satan? Where would humanity be now?

Clean meat is equally suitable, unless you can provide evidence of the consumption of spoiled meat before the flood. I'm still waiting. Before we engage in the customary mind games of JWI and "Pudgy," let's talk about meat, or have we now shifted the conversion like Srecko? Are you suggesting that what you said about Dominion is not what you actually stated? Which is it? However, it would be inaccurate to believe that God permitted killing within the Garden. In the unlikely event that an animal did pass away, it would undoubtedly have been respectfully buried, as was customary in later times. Let's refrain from attributing negative intentions to God's words within the Garden. Satan was the sole negative presence within the Garden. After they sinned. They were also expelled from the Garden because of it. What skins did God provide when they were still perfect? This evidence does not demonstrate anything about how to handle perfect beings inside the garden. Try again. Please provide more clarity in your explanation by distinguishing between the optics inside and outside the garden. To be rational inside the garden, you must provide evidence to support your thoughts. You are simply complicating the matter. I hope that those reading your comments aren't persuaded by what you are promoting. You are distorting the meaning of both excerpts to fit your own agenda, and nothing more. We are currently tending to the garden that is exempt from the restrictions found in Genesis 6:21 and are continuing to follow the guidelines set in Genesis 1:29, which also applied to Noah and the Ark. I'm not implying that evil disappeared after the garden, as we have proof of that with Caine. I believe there was likely even cannibalism among the inhabitants, especially when the Nephilim were around. How many people do you think made it inside the Ark? That is the important point to consider. By God's command, Noah would have accepted whatever nourishment that was still applicable with Genesis 1:29 for his family and the animals. If you fail to provide evidence to support your unfounded assertions, they will remain as mere baseless claims. I do not engage in irrational thinking that contradicts all the good that comes from creation, unless you also believe that Satan is good. My response is clear and supported by reasoning to avoid misinterpretation and confusion.

I completely agree. Many people here distort scripture to suit their own desires and interpretations. It's comforting to know that God will judge those who feign and uphold incorrect theology, especially when they can't prove otherwise.

Could you provide evidence to support this within the context of the garden? The ecosystem of nature was certainly different beyond the garden, but I am specifically speaking about the ecosystem within the garden. However, your argument fails to demonstrate how the creative act of consuming animal flesh took place within the garden. Even before the flood, the principle set forth in Genesis 1:29 remained applicable to both humans and animals. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, those provisions within the ark were undoubtedly present. I am not referring to the language that was received "following" the flood. How does Genesis 6:21 apply to the provisions inside the ark, considering that Genesis 1:29 would still be relevant for inside the ark due to the pre-flood conditions and the lack of additional accommodations for food after Genesis 9 for Noah?

I think you might not fully comprehend your own post. After Noah and Moses, they were consumers of meat, but not rotten meat - they consumed clean meat. Unless there is concrete evidence confirming that Adam and Eve consumed meat within the garden, which is the focal point of my current discussion, this argument remains unproven. The same can be said about the clothing within the garden, where Adam and Eve only became aware of their nudity after tasting the forbidden fruit. God did not give them skins, unless you and your deceitful friend "pudgy" can prove otherwise while in the garden.

As imperfect humans, the idea of 9 billion broiler chickens may seem plausible, but considering the perfection of the garden's inhabitants, it may not be appropriate to apply the same calculation.

I disagree with your understanding of the passage you cited. "Subduing" the creators of the land should not be seen as a justified course of action for exploitation. As you indicated, it is about having dominion over them as caretakers who have no intention of using them for consumption. As you can see, the passage you mentioned uses the same language of food for the animal kingdom. Therefore, God's intention for the garden was to have humans and animals live a harmonious life. For that to occur, no evil intent would have been allowed to enter the garden and corrupt the desires of humans and animals, leading to wicked actions such as consuming flesh. Does this passage discuss the inside or the outside of the garden? What is the reason for considering them as distinct subjects?

It's interesting to consider that if we follow that line of reasoning, God must have explicitly informed Adam and Eve about what was forbidden within the Garden, aside from the tree of knowledge. I guess, modern individuals could greatly benefit from having a comprehensive guide outlining the actions and behaviors that align with God's commands, or do they? It's quite amusing how God instructed the first couple to freely enjoy the edible fruits and vegetation. In my opinion, that instruction was actually quite explicit, as it made no mention of consuming meat, nor did God suggest it to them. People often try to rationalize their irrational thoughts regarding the time of Noah and Moses. In Leviticus 17:14, it is stated that the life of the flesh resides in the blood, which would be considered precious to God. During those times, the Israelites had a specific ritual of purity that they had to follow for God's acceptance. The concept of defilement would have played a significant role in the minds of Noah, Moses, and Preist as emphasized in Deuteronomy 12:23. All those facts were essential for a priest to comprehensively grasp their duties under God. True Christians should also embrace the same understanding, distinguishing themselves from those who forsake the true purpose and mistakenly consider themselves Christian. This principle is underscored in Ezekiel 3:18 and Hebrews 9:22. What is the true significance of Matthew 5:21, regarding the act of causing bloodshed, whether by oneself or another? True Christians do not want to defile the precious bloodshed made by Christ for us. Who among true Christians does not understand Deuteronomy 28? They should pay attention to it.

Could you please provide a Bible verse that confirms this belief? It is often understood that any form of sexual immorality encompasses premarital sex as well as adultery within marriage. Based on your interpretation of scripture, do witnesses think that they should disregard Paul's teachings in Galatians 5:19, along with numerous other passages that highlight the importance of avoiding sexual immorality? Are you using the word "fornication" as a way to unfairly misrepresent sexual acts? 1 Corinthians 5:1 Now the passage you just submitted that you highlighted in bold, can you also see where it states "Romans 2:12-15) . . .For all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law." Should Jehovah's Witnesses undermine this understanding, implying that it is acceptable to deny any of God's laws when we don't like them? It appears to contradict Christ's teachings, but I look forward to your evidence on how young people can engage in sex without facing consequences under God's law. "(James 2:8) . . .If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. " What are the expectations for us, if we adhere to this text in a morally upright manner? Should we show love to our brother who has committed murder without facing the consequences of God's law? The same can be said about a neighbor. How can you show love to a neighbor who, for example, took away the most important person in your life? What if we focus just on James and set aside all other scriptural passages that condemn the act of murder? What would the answer be for Jehovah's Witnesses? Do keep in mind that this passage in James is specifically addressing the issue of showing favoritism.

I'm having a little trouble understanding this. Are there no rules against engaging in sexual relations (fornication)? In what sense are you referring to? What could possibly justify consuming rotten meat and even going so far as to ingest the blood of living or deceased animals by humans under either observation of the OT or NT? The referenced article illustrates a particular line of thinking, showing how some might consider it, while unequivocally establishing its fallacy. As far as I can tell by the conversation, it appears it's ok to give anyone rotten fruit. Does anyone believe that it will be accepted by everyone? This also raises the question of belief, pitting believers against non-believers. In ancient times, those who rejected the laws of the Israelites freely indulged in consuming even the meat that had been offered to their gods and still had blood in it. Did Paul claim that non-believers were free from sinning against God because they were not under any rules?

I also don't have any issues. The thing is, James (Pudgy) thinks, he is the only one that can insult here. I don't object to the church being informed of the terrible crimes committed by an individual. As stated in Matthew 18, if someone refuses to acknowledge and repent privately, it is appropriate for the church to be made aware. If that individual continues to refuse to repent, they should be treated as a tax collector. In the time of the Jews, tax collectors were greatly disliked (hated). It is important for children to have a visual understanding of who is being identified as a pedophile, as it will help them to avoid such individuals. Therefore, I support this advocacy. If these people are scared for life due to their foolish position, I see no reason to stand in their way, haha! In the United States, there is a growing concern as some individuals manage to evade the requirement of registering as sex offenders, leaving others permanently affected. However, we can remain hopeful that, over time, these issues will be properly addressed.

I guess that would mean Wally McNasty is linked to James Thomas Rook Jr, or is it Pudgy now? lol!

Only those lacking integrity would hold such beliefs. True witnesses place their faith in God, as they rightfully should. It is only those of feeble conviction who entertain such thoughts. Therefore, there is no reason to address the matter of leaders whom the closed club finds objectionable.

Could you clarify why you are suggesting two unrelated topics? One concerns God's judgment, while the other pertains to human judgment or condition. If some Jews didn't want to leave Babylon due to material wealth, this may be seen as a failure, as Christ indicated to the rich man. Could you remind me what Christ told the apostles about this? You can find it in Matthew 19:21-24. Are you implying that witnesses would be better off rejecting the Lord and God's commands? Why would anyone support such thinking?

I wonder if the image submitted by pudgy is irrelevant. I hadn't noticed until I took a closer look. lol! I also found where another sister took a photo of Bro. Jackson at an assembly in the Netherlands. Certainly, the Governing Body members are becoming more relaxed. Who knows, perhaps long hair will be the next trend. In Brother Jackson's case, maybe a toupee.

Knowing that you are allergic to the truth, I anticipated receiving an irrational response. If the website itself has published a satire addressing the distinction between fact and fiction, such as the case of Bro. Jackson's goatee that has only been claimed here by apostates and disgruntled witnesses, then that satire remains valid and relevant. If you are unable to understand the humor in your own post, it speaks volumes. Your current objective holds no significance to me. You are behaving in a manner similar to MM. Maybe this theology from the past will enlighten you, lol! E. Bersier, D. D. The disciples in the storm Let one page be quoted to me in which a trace is recognized of the moral impression which the life of Christ produces today on every sincere conscience. We believe that they never contemplated Him; that their look was never stayed on Him in an hour of justice. They had the Gospels, they had the living testimony of the Church, and the history of Jesus was not yet disfigured by the iniquities of its defenders. It does not matter, they saw Him only through the thick cloud of prejudice and hatred. It was a phantom they fought against. The Christ of Celsus and of Julian, the Christ whom anti-Christian satire mocks, is a silly Jew, whose greatness no one suspects for a moment. Our century has seen the same facts reproduced in an entirely different form. To what did that vigorous and learned attack against Christianity tend, so cleverly led by Strauss, if not to make a myth of Christ and His work; that is to say, a mere conception of the human consciousness? Now a mythical personage is a phantom and nothing more. Robert Tuck, B.A. Satan's proverb II. WHAT A SATIRE THE PROVERB IS WHEN APPLIED TO MAN'S CARE OF HIS SOUL-LIFE! Yet that soul-life is the man's real and abiding life. His body-life is but a passing, transient thing. The soul-life is Divine and immortal. The body-life is akin to the life of the creatures; the soul-life is kin with God. I live. That is not the same as saying, My heart pulsates, my lungs breathe, my blood courses, my nerves thrill, my senses bring me into relation with outward things. It is equal to saying, An "I" dwells within me. That "I" is a spark struck off from the eternal fire of God. I am a spiritual being, an immortal being. Let the word life mean spiritual life, then how much will men lose rather than lose their souls? How do men reckon sacrifices when their souls are imperilled? What strange delusion can possess men that they can be careless of their priceless treasure? Why do men, who are souls, barter their heavenly birthright for a pottage of worldly pleasure? God Himself seems to wonder over so painful and so surprising a fact.

You've missed out on a lifetime of learning and instead chosen to make a foolish rebuttal. Perhaps it's time to find a more worthwhile use of your valuable time.

Since we are posting irrelevant subjects, I guess it means it should be essential for individuals in this community to endorse the teachings of "Pearl Doxsey" and fully embrace the truths that "witness" has long been imparting. People should understand the meaning of the word satire coming from a humor site. lol! Satire: 1.the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issuest·ire Let's revisit the question: Is Bro. Jackson's goatee real or fictional, as depicted in the Babylon Bee illustration? https://babylonbee.com/ What is The Babylon Bee? The Babylon Bee is the world’s best satire site, totally inerrant in all its truth claims. We write satire about Christian stuff, political stuff, and everyday life. The Babylon Bee was created ex nihilo on the eighth day of the creation week, exactly 6,000 years ago. We have been the premier news source through every major world event, from the Tower of Babel and the Exodus to the Reformation and the War of 1812. We focus on just the facts, leaving spin and bias to other news sites like CNN and Fox News. If you would like to complain about something on our site, take it up with God. Unlike other satire sites, everything we post is 100% verified by Snopes.com. babylonbee.com Babylon Bee | Fake News You Can Trust Babylon Bee is a website that publishes humorous and absurd articles about current events, politics, culture, and religion. The articles are often based on real or fictional sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Babylon_Bee Therefore, it is up to individual Jehovah's Witnesses to decide how they interpret and think about their beliefs. While some may believe in the literal truth of the Bible, others may view it as a symbolic or moral guide. Satire and humor can be used to critique and question religious beliefs, but it is ultimately up to each person to determine their own beliefs and principles. The question then becomes, will it be acceptable to God when humor is misplaced?