JW Insider

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I find this a bit dificult to swallow.

Me too. But it's still a fact that Jesus didn't say what we think he must have meant. We should expect lots of commentaries to have been written by people who also found it difficult to swallow. And as you and others (including myself)  have shown, it's easy to find justification for interpolating this additional meaning of "took no note" if that's what we think we need to do.

Of course the more subtle point is that even if it was provable from other places that Noah preached a specific warning message to more than just his family, and even if we could prove that this preaching activity started after he was given divine warning -- even if this is all  true -- it still might be important to pay close attention to what Jesus meant by not including this point in his answer. My main point all along has been that we could be 'right as rain' about these assumptions, but we still don't want to inadvertently 'water down' Jesus' message by adding our own points to the one that Jesus was trying to emphasize here in Matthew 24.

We all have our favorite little additions to make to the Bible accounts; some are likely justified and some not. This is especially true of stories in Genesis. I think we could all list a dozen examples of where we would like to add just one or two assumptions to make a Bible account easier to explain or accept. There are multiple examples in the Watchtower where the words "undoubtedly" or "it's very likely that..." or some similar words are used precisely for the purpose of proposing these additions. And sometimes the Watchtower forgets to add the words:

*** w70 5/1 p. 268 par. 12 Keep Close in Mind “The Conclusion of the System of Things” ***
This Christian system includes the pure worship of Jehovah, . . .  and showing the fruits of God’s spirit. It means cooperating in the building up of this Christian system just as Noah’s sons helped in building the ark.

That was one of about 10 examples where the word "undoubtedly" or a near equivalent was left off. There are about 20 more examples where those words were included, such as places where @Bible Speaks already quoted.

On 7/24/2017 at 8:12 PM, Bible Speaks said:

They likely laughed at him, ridiculed him. . . . .https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008401?q=was+noah+laughed+at&p=par

Did Noah's sons help in building the ark? Probably. Does the Bible say they did? No. Neither his sons, or their wives, or even Noah's wife were included in the list of righteous people who survived the the Flood. They were never listed as persons who had faith, or preached, or were laughed at, or ridiculed, and they were not listed as people who helped build the Ark.

(Genesis 6:14-7:1) 14 Make for yourself an ark from resinous wood. You will make compartments in the ark and cover it with tar inside and outside. 15 This is how you will make it: The ark should be 300 cubits. . . .[etc]  17 “As for me, I am going to bring floodwaters upon the earth to destroy from under the heavens all flesh that has the breath of life.. . . [etc.]. . . 21 For your part, you are to collect and take with you every kind of food to eat, to serve as food for you and for the animals.” 22 And Noah did according to all that God had commanded him. He did just so. 7 After that Jehovah said to Noah: “Go into the ark, you and all your household, because you [singular, not plural] are the one I have found to be righteous before me among this generation.

Does this means that his sons didn't help, or didn't have faith? Of course not. So we can't say for sure either way.

10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Luke's description of  heart attitudes as a component

Your mention of Luke reminded me of something that I don't think anyone mentioned yet. It's the point that Noah's account is paralleled with Sodom where we also have no indication that there was a warning to those destroyed.

Luke's account shows that Jesus not only used the account of Noah to make his point, but, unlike Matthew, also included the account about Sodom in the very next sentence. 2 Peter (which can be considered a kind of commentary on Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17&21) also mentions Sodom in the very next sentence.

(Luke 17:23-30) . . .. 24 For just as lightning flashes from one part of heaven to another part of heaven, so the Son of man will be in his day. 25 First, however, he must undergo many sufferings and be rejected by this generation. 26 Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. 29 But on the day that Lot went out of Sodʹom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is revealed.

Luke gives us no opportunity to translate anything close to "they took no note." Luke just says they were eating and drinking, etc., and the Flood came and destroyed them. But we could potentially read a parallel into the idea that the generation who saw Jesus in 33 CE (and prior to 70 CE) "rejected" Jesus, who gave a warning, and surmise that Noah's generation similarly "rejected" Noah after a warning.

But instead of making that point, Luke also just goes straight into the account about Sodom and Lot and how they were doing the same types of everyday things, and then suddenly, one day, it rained fire and sulphur and destroyed them all. Again, we have no mention of a warning to those who would be destroyed, just as the actual account in Genesis gives us no indication that there was a warning to those people destroyed in Sodom.

2 Peter also mentions no warning.

(2 Peter 2:5-9) 5 And he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people. 6 And by reducing the cities of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come. 7 And he rescued righteous Lot, who was greatly distressed by the brazen conduct of the lawless people— 8 for day after day that righteous man was tormenting his righteous soul over the lawless deeds that he saw and heard while dwelling among them. 9 So, then, Jehovah knows how to rescue people of godly devotion out of trial, but to reserve unrighteous people to be destroyed on the day of judgment,

In one sense Noah is therefore preaching to us (upon whom the ends of the systems of things has arrived), but this would be a stretch to claim it's the meaning of 2 Peter 2:5.

What I find even more interesting is that Luke considers it appropriate to use the words "It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is revealed" as the probable equivalent of Matthew's  "so the presence [parousia] of the Son of man will be." This could be one more  indication that the "parousia" is a judgment event, not a "generation" filled with warning signs, which might help us understand why Jesus answered as he did.

Paul's letters and 1 Peter also use terms like manifestation and revelation in expressions that are used interchangeably with expressions that mention the parousia. 

5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

We know that false religion has been served with a comprehensive exposure, and notification of God's judgement, even at this stage of the "last days". On the whole, this message has been ignored and suppressed and it 's bearers hounded. And yet, you will find even in the pages of religious publications, quite accurate descriptions of who Jehovah's Witnesses are and what they believe. Copies of their publications on this subject are even distributed by their opposers and are also available on ebay!

The analogy to the attitude of Babylon the Great is good. It brings up the often-discussed subject of "How much preaching is enough preaching?" Naturally, that's not up to us to speculate about. We are saddened at misinformation, which seems worse, in some ways, than NO information. It seems likely that the majority of the world's population since, oh . . . let's say 1914, has either had no information or misinformation about true Christianity. Does this mean that the final Judgement Event on this system needed to wait until a certain threshold was reached? We can't say, because if we could, we would be speculating about reasons that it might still have to wait for a certain threshold of "comprehensive exposure, and notification." After all, at least half the world has evidently never been contacted by Jehovah's Witnesses, and most of what people do "know" even if they have been contacted, is wrong.  So if this were the criteria, we could claim that the "end" cannot come yet, but we know that the end can come at any time, and it will come as a surprise and sudden event.

5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 It seems highly unlikely that the "took no note" attitude of the people described by Jesus at the the time of Noah as having a  similarity to those held in the "last days" (Jewish system or current global), would be due to a lack of notification on the part of Noah, who was indeed described as a "preacher of righteousness".

While I agree with this statement and most of the statements surrounding it, we should still keep in mind that Jesus never said that the people in Noah's day "took no note." For some reason, Jesus didn't even imply it in the context of this particular reference to Noah. So this is still just an interpolation. It seems very likely as you say, but it's still possible to miss the point Jesus was making if we think it's necessary to put this extra idea into Jesus' mouth in this context. That's why I think Gnosis Pithos was so 'spot on' when he twice summarized it with the idea:

12 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

And as in Noah’s time, Jesus judgment will appear as a sudden event in Judgement.

(KJV) Matthew 24:37-39

³⁷ But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

³⁸ For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

³⁹ And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so, shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Read more  

Based on the comments above about the percentage of the world that has heard the specific types of warnings from Jehovah's Witnesses, I think the idea conveyed in the next quote might be problematic.

5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The suddeness and unexpected nature of destruction at the flood of Noah's day, at the end of the Jewish system, when Babylon the Great is destroyed, and when Armageddon strikes, for those who are adversely effected will not be due to any lack of notification and warning on the part of Jehovah or His witnesses, both heavenly and on earth.

I find it worded carefully enough to take it as a true statement, of course, but it implies that everyone who might be adversely affected by future judgement events will have to have a full notification by either heavenly beings or Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. I don't think there is any Biblical support of that idea, specifically, even if it might be true. I say that because it gets back to the point that if someone recognizes the fact that Witnesses have not yet exposed to their message to BILLIONS of the world's population, they might think of this as a reason to believe the end must be delayed. If we consider that BILLIONS more have a false or misinformed view of that message, this just takes away further from the point you made about "not due to any lack of notification."

10 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

Since Noah was a preacher of righteousness and in good standing with God? It would be conceivable he spoke about the dynamics of the purpose for building the Ark.

[I'll be adding some emphasis to points in your original post in these requotes.]

Through an abundance of words, I might have given the impression that I had disagreed with the points that you are making here. 

(Proverbs 10:19) When words are many, transgression cannot be avoided,. . .

So I wanted to reiterate that I agree 100% with everything you said in your post. As I indicated in previous posts, I agree that it is not only "conceivable" that Noah spoke about the Ark, but seems so likely that it is nearly impossible to conceive that he did not speak to others about it.

11 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

Whether it was 120 years it took for the completion of this Judgement, or 20, 40, or 100, in-between, it SHOULDN’T be dismissed as pretending to assume there was NO discussion about God’s word to repent, or people would not have known about the purpose of the Ark.

Again, I agree that we should not assume that he did not discuss God's word to repent. We do not know what Noah's specific message was, nor when he preached it, therefore we cannot assume that this message was not about repentance. It appears very likely that the preaching was related to the Flood and, of course, the purpose of the Ark.

11 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

NO different than the message given by Jesus that has continued to be ignored by those who chose NOT to believe, as in Noah’s time, but is well known for us today.

(NIV) 2 Peter 2:5

5if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight

Yes. This seems to be exactly the reason that 2 Peter uses the reference to Noah, and may have even been why he pointed out that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. (I don't discount the other possible meanings, too.)

11 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

And as in Noah’s time, Jesus judgment will appear as a sudden event in Judgement.

(KJV) Matthew 24:37-39

³⁷ But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

³⁸ For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

³⁹ And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so, shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

I couldn't agree more. This must be exactly why Jesus used the reference to Noah. I emphasized your words in red here because I think you encapsulated the meaning perfectly in a way that fits both 2 Peter and Matthew 24. Of course, I also think it's important to point out again that a natural understanding of the verse recognizes that Jesus is focusing on the suddenness and unexpectedness of the judgment event itself. Jesus disciples had just asked Jesus what they might watch out for in the days before the Judgment event that would topple Jerusalem's buildings. They wanted a warning sign in advance of this event, so they asked for a sign of the parousia. 

11 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

. . . .The ONLY similarities between these two events are in “judgment”, it came and will come as a surprise.

Excellent point.

11 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

So, the FACT that people got caught off guard by the FLOOD doesn’t PROVE that Noah never “PREACHED” concerning of that coming judgment, it just tells us that the world paid no attention to the warnings, as they have failed to pay attention to Jesus warning in today’s world.

Absolutely true. Being surprised by something doesn't prove people were not warned, it would just tell you that they hadn't paid attention. The Ark project would have been no small matter and it's hard to see how it could have been hidden from public view. And the Bible never implies that it was hidden or secret.  Any righteous person should have responded to any preaching, and even responded to the possibility that this might be a "way out" from the conditions of the day. That would make it the same way that honest-hearted persons looking for a way out of today's conditions should be searching and seeking. There is not excuse for unrightousness, today or Noah's day:

(Acts 17:26-28) 26 And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell, 27 so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. 28 For by him we have life and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his children.’

(Romans 1:18-20) 18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

5 hours ago, Anna said:

Ahem.....I hope you are wrong. I hope their climb was a spiritual one,  because by your own admission you say that things have changed for the better in the last 20 years.  I have my favourites in the “helpers”, although I don’t know them personally, they seem like good genuine brothers.

I hope I'm wrong too. My information sources are down to only a couple of friends at Bethel who will talk openly about anything, and because they've worked closely with some of the same brothers for several years now, perhaps they have a jaded filter. So it's never fair to paint with a broad brush. When I ask how Brother So-and-So is doing, I get a story that starts out: "You'll never believe what he did the other day . . . " And, of course, it's always something that I can easily believe.

I still happily admit that things are much, much better in the last 20 years or so. That's from both a spiritual perspective (doctrinal changes) and from a material and procedural perspective. The Society is managing hundreds more languages and millions more publishers and doing it all more smoothly and professionally with less "sweat." I"m amazed at how well it runs, and compare my own Bethel experience in the 70's and 80's as "amateur hour" compared to the skills available now. I think Jehovah's spirit permeates and overrides the human deficiencies, so that Jehovah's will gets accomplished no matter what.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Maybe I just couldn’t see the point of this experiment.....all I see is what I have already read from some ex-JWs , especially one  ex GB member  who made it seem like reporting field service created selfish, status climbing, bureaucratic butt kissers (pardon the expression). He was right to a small extend, this did apply to a few, but for the most part, those few are no longer JWs .

I can guess who you mean, but I don't remember reading anything like that from his first book, which I must have read at least 80% of. I never read his second book, but I have skimmed portions. Was this from one of those books, or a later interview?

The reason I ask is that when you first mentioned the "free riders" I was about to respond to the following quote (see quote below) with just "Interesting theory."

On 7/24/2017 at 0:01 PM, Anna said:

Essentially, free riders eventually become nominal Witnesses at best, or totally inactive or disfellowshipped at worst.

The reason I was so tempted to answer this flippantly is because (even if you were right) I was also pretty sure that these were the ones who rose to the very top of the food chain at Bethel, and I don't mean the "spiritual" food chain, even if that's how most of us want to see it. Those who turned their ministry skills into public speaking skills became almost totally inactive or unenthusiastic about any part in the ministry outside of "full-time bureaucratic service." In a very unofficial capacity, I visited just about every branch in Europe in 1978 and 1980. Between those same years, all the branch overseers from around the world visited Brooklyn in several sets, and we not only heard most of them speak, we also sat with them and talked to them at meals, and hosted some in our NYC congregations and even helped host meals for some in local NYC congregations.

Naturally, many were just amazingly full of love and encouraging experiences. You just wanted to go back to their country with them and share the joy. But I have also never met so many cold bureaucrats who never wanted to go from door-to-door again in their life. Also, the current brothers who are named "Helpers" of the Governing Body, well, most of these were working their way up the bureaucratic and political ladders at Bethel in 1980 and the personality similarities among many of them. I shouldn't say, so I won't.

Brothers that I admired at Bethel were the ones who were obviously still active in the "field" even if this seemed incongruent with their assignments at Bethel. My wife and I both loved Brother Rusk dearly, because he was a loving, fatherly type who would do anything for you, and he continued to conduct Bible studies with interested persons from the start right up to the point of baptism, without reminding them that he was also the Watchtower editor or the blood-transfusion expert. Other brothers, including several of my friends who had been on the Aid Book project, and who were the most productive at writing Watchtower articles and "Book-Study" publications, worked closely with brothers in their foreign language congregations, and juggled their work in Writing with a lot of responsibility and work at all levels in their local congregation. For years, I had respect for R.Franz for the same reason. It was well known that he had this unassuming humility that allowed him to work actively in his current Spanish congregation in much the same way he had done while in missionary work in the Dominican Republic. I'd be surprised if he didn't put in "auxiliary pioneer" hours while handling his assignments on the Governing Body and in Writing. And yet, a brother I worked for who was also on the Governing Body would NEVER go out in service until, several years after I left, he became nearly invalid and confined to a wheelchair, and then his wife started to wheel him around Brooklyn Heights with a couple of magazines pinned to him. 

3 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

Here's info on the Dead Sea Scrolls and a Picture containing God's Name.

I don't think anyone had any trouble believing that Hebrew manuscripts contained the Divine Name. This has never been doubted by anyone I have ever read. But it is interesting to see that there is already a level of superstition about the Divine Name going on in this text from Psalms that appears to have come from about 100 years before Christ.

It reminds me of a preacher in a church who speaks in modern English but will only quote a scripture by using the archaic KJV English from 1611 CE. Here, we have text written in the current writing style, but every time the Divine Name shows up, it's put in a more archaic style from another 500 years further back.

If you were using this text to read out loud, it could very well have served the same purpose as the later elohim/adonai vowel-pointing techniques that the Mosoretes made use of, so that no one would pronouce the name out loud. The superstition this picture indicates about the Divine Name is an indication that the name might not have been pronounced even in the first and second century BCE, and that the practice was therefore common at the time Jesus read Isaiah in the synagogue. 

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I must say that, once again, I am amazed at the level of "weirdness" you appear to have personally encountered over the years. Particularly this incident regarding the disfellowshipping of your sister over what appears to be entirely legitimate grounds for separation is disturbing.

60 years in 8 different congregations in 3 states can offer up a few anomalies. My sister's experience was actually not so uncommon in the mid-west (Missouri) congregations I grew up in (1964-1976). But I've never personally heard of such things being covered up in the last 20 years. At the time, 1981, the elders seemed more concerned that my sister was going to tell the truth to the hospital staff, and this seemed to be their greatest fear. (Small towns revel in gossip and judgmentalism, so fears of public reproach on the congregation were very real.)

The only truly "weird" disfellowshipping I ever got involved with (and on the "wrong" side, at that)  was that of a 90-year old brother because his friends asked me if I could do something about it, and maybe even help to initiate an appeal. It was the kind of travesty that directly resulted in the loss of several other members of this old brother's congregation, including the couple who asked me if I could get involved.

Yet, I have never directly seen a pedophile case or child abuse case in all my years and congregations. I have not seen an apostasy case since 1984. Immorality, divorce issues, smoking and other youthful indiscretions are the only types of cases I've seen in 30 years, and these have been relatively rare, only one every few years. And, of course, the joyful side of each of these has been the return to normalcy after spiritual encouragement.

What I really hoped to get to in this conversation was to just go ahead and admit that I don't believe we shun properly, most of us anyway. That probably won't surprise anyone. I have no doubt at all, personally, that we overdo it, especially with family-based shunning. I think that shunning should be defined as not inviting disfellowshipped persons into congregation activities (platform teaching, audience comments, public prayer, congregation outings, etc). It has nothing to do with whether we should continue to do good things for any and all persons: enemies, friends, neighbors. We should be able to encourage them, talk to them, hire them, visit them when they are sick, etc., etc. That won't work for every single person in the congregation, especially someone who may have been wronged, but it will work for most.

(I think I ignored the previous conversation on shunning.)

32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

bind them fast for seventy generations

Just noticed that if the angels who sinned were to be bound for 70 generations in Tartarus until their judgment, then this could have triggered a lot of discussion about genealogies (chronology) in the first century congregations and evidently even into Tertullian's generation, when many Christians still treated Enoch as inspired. If the check of the Bible genealogies let them see that Noah's flood had been about 2,400 years before Christ, then imagine the discussions about how long a generation would have been.

We currently date the Flood to about 2,370 years before Jesus was born, which is 2,440 years before Jerusalem was destroyed in 70. (But it was possible to get dates anywhere from 2000 to 3000 BCE for the Flood.) So imagine the possible speculation if each generation was considered to be 40 years long, then 70 generations could be 2,800 years. (40x70=2,800).  If they used 37 years as the length of a generation (from the time of Jesus prophecy until Jerusalem was destroyed) then the angels were to be imprisoned for 2,590 years, possibly fueling speculation of an imminent Armageddon. Even if they thought there should be an entire 1000-year millennium before the judgment of the angels then a generation of 49 to 50 years (Jubilee) would also mean that Armageddon was possibly just a few short years away.

This could have been part of the reason that the Bible includes the following admonition:

(Titus 3:9) But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile. . .

(1 Timothy 1:4) 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith.

(2 Peter 3:8) However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

4 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

So again, I'm not clear on whether I'm following your point correctly or off on something else entirely. Are you suggesting that Enoch's prophesying found it's fulfillment at the flood...much later at Armageddon...or some other time? 

Enoch had already been brought up into this context before Eoin mentioned him, and the prior implication had been that Enoch had provided a warning about a pending judgment due to unrighteousness. No one had specifically tied this warning to the Flood, however. I thought that these facts from the Bible might have a bearing on whether this could qualify as a "flood warning."

It was just an opening to the discussion if someone wanted to follow up. I don't personally see it as a flood warning, but this was just some info to see if others might have already considered it in their own conclusions.

4 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

Since his words were prophetic without specifying a time frame, it could have had it's fulfillment much later (even though it was so sure to happen it was described in the past tense).

I agree that Jude uses the quotation from the Book of Enoch (or at least the equivalent quotation from another source) without specifying the time frame. What you call the "past tense" here is just the common way of translating the Greek aorist and second aorist tenses. In fact, note the following about the Aorist tense from http://www.franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=183

AORIST TENSE: This tense is characterized by its emphasis on precise accordance with details, WITHOUT consideration for past, present or future time. THERE IS NO CLEAR EQUIVALENT FOR THIS TENSE IN ENGLISH!

The Ethiopic version of Enoch says:

Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.

If Jude could be shown to have purposefully moved the tense from present to past, then this could have become evidence that Jude recognized a previous fulfillment of the judgment event. But we don't have enough information, and the context of Jude appears to move the meaning to a still near-future judgement day, especially since he added nothing to the context to force the aorist tense into a past tense equivalent. (Therefore, it need not have been translated as past tense in any modern language, anyway.) It's just as accurate to translate Jude 14,15 the way the NKJV translates:

“. . . Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

On the side of tying Enoch's prophesies to Noah, David Guzik's Bible commentary quotes Trapp as saying:

“Tertullian tells us that the book of Enoch’s prophecies were preserved by Noah in the ark, and that they continued and were read until the times of the apostles. But because they contained many famous testimonies concerning Jesus Christ, the Jews out of malice suppressed and abolished the whole book.” (Trapp)

Also, even if possibly anachronistic, the book of Enoch also discusses the Nephilim and pre-flood conditions with the idea of prophetic warning in some of the contexts. I don't treat the Book of Enoch as inspired, but here is an example from Chapter 10:  ( http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe013.htm )  The language of Genesis 6-8 is alluded to several times, and also the abyss of Tartarus for the angels who sinned (2 Peter), and some ideas also found in Isaiah and Revelation and elsewhere.

1. Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, and said to him: 2. '〈Go to Noah〉 and tell him in my name "Hide thyself!" and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. 3. And now instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.' . . . And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. 8. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin.' . . . 11. And the Lord said unto Michael: 'Go, bind Semjâzâ and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. 12. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated. 13. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: 〈and〉 to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations. 15. And destroy all the spirits of the reprobate and the children of the Watchers, because they have wronged mankind. Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth and let every evil work come to an end: and let the plant of righteousness and truth appear:  . . .

18 And then shall the whole earth be tilled in righteousness, and shall all be planted with trees and be full of blessing. 19. And all desirable trees shall be planted on it, and they shall plant vines on it: and the vine which they plant thereon shall yield wine in abundance, and as for all the seed which is sown thereon each measure (of it) shall bear a thousand, and each measure of olives shall yield ten presses of oil. 20. And cleanse thou the earth from all oppression, and from all unrighteousness, and from all sin, and from all godlessness: and all the uncleanness that is wrought upon the earth destroy from off the earth. 21. ⌈And all the children of men shall become righteous⌉, and all nations shall offer adoration and shall praise Me, and all shall worship Me. And the earth shall be cleansed from all defilement, and from all sin, and from all punishment, and from all torment, and I will never again send (them) upon it from generation to generation and for ever.

3 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

but I have been known to beat a dead horse .. which of course is NOT torture.

4 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

Here's some proof  from a fragment from the LXX translators that was recently found.  They are called the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There were no Dead Sea Scrolls in any of the fragments you showed.

2 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

(And as an aside, because the Americans were attacked first, the RESPONSE was self-defense, NOT murder.... The responsibility for all the deaths on BOTH sides of the conflict rests with the Japanese Military High Command, and with all those that gave their allegiance and support to that Empire.)

Yes, "War is hell!" which makes the above quote only a little bit off topic. Still, fwiw, it might be fun to take up this idea you just made and see how much of it holds up to common sense.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Torture is ONLY torture, if the INTENT is to torture .... just as first degree murder is completely different than an accidental homicide.

Just thought I'd point out that this is wrong, imo. I would think the following is more accurate:

Torture is ALWAYS torture, whether there was intent to torture or not. A person tortured through an accidental one-minute dip in carbolic acid is just as tortured as the one who was purposefully dipped for one minute in carbolic acid. The person who was purposefully tortured prior to a bombing because he might have information about it, can be tortured just the same as the one who goes through the ordeal after exploding the bomb.

Also, torture is still torture no matter what the intent, just like homicide is still homicide, even if one is accidental and the other is first-degree premeditated.

Torture is also wrong. God has allowed it, but my God, who is slow to anger and merciful, would not allow something he cannot completely reverse the effects of. 

22 minutes ago, Bible Speaks said:

Sorry to offend you.

Sorry you thought you offended me.

I wasn't offended in the least. Just pointing out something I see about once a day on this site, and it's something that reduces the credibility of the site as a discussion forum. I've even seen complaints from authors on this site, for not getting permission or crediting sources. Not picking on you, either. Many have done it. I've left off a source, now and then, too. Only bringing it up for the sake of the reputation of the site overall.

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Even the highly regarded BBC cannot resist the  temptation to indulge in gutter-press standard reporting when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses.

This report on the Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipping process is rather misleading. It associates the disfellowshipping action with totally unrelated experiences and leaves the impression that this action is taken: 
1. when a person leaves an abusive relationship 
2: when a person does not attend the annual memorial celebration of Christ's death.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a shame because I have relied on the BBC as an excellent source of information on the abuse scandals within the Catholic Church and have usually found their religion section to be reliable.

On the second point, I can state for a fact that most disfellowshippings, on average, take place within a 190-day window after the Memorial. All disfellowshippings take place within a window of time that is either 183 days before or after a Memorial. So the average amount of time between a disfellowshipping and the time of the Memorial is less than 90 days. See what you can do with numbers?

On the first point about leaving an abusive relationship, I would have to admit that this has happened. A few months ago I told the example of my own sister under a different thread. I'll copy it here:

On 3/11/2017 at 9:08 AM, JW Insider said:

This was my sister's experience. She was always told to err on the side of enduring abuse, even if it meant not going for needed treatment at a hospital - for violent abuse. Her husband, my brother-in-law, remained a ministerial servant after at least half-a-dozen complaints. My sister was disfellowshipped for finally "defying" the elders' recommendations and separating from her husband saying she had no intention of ever trying to patch things up with "mildness and submissiveness"

But this was about 35 years ago, and this person in the BBC article is saying that something like this happened much more recently. I have not seen the type of thinking that produced such disfellowshippings in the last couple of decades. I have serious doubts about it.

More seriously, however, a person who leaves the Witnesses for doctrinal reasons is considered very differently from a person who decides not to return to the Witnesses after immorality, improper divorce, or simply drifting farther away from association with the congregation. I have been personally involved in a discussion of a person who decided not to associate for doctrinal reasons, and a discussion of going after him for disfellowshipping came up. The conversation went something like this:

First Elder: "His father says he called us a cult"

Second Elder: "At least he came to the Memorial."

First Elder: "So he probably isn't really that antagonistic."

Second Elder: "Or he's just trying to make his parents think he might come back some day, that he still has a chance."

The conclusion was not to go after him, but watch if he causes any commotion. But if a person really is causing divisions and contentions as an ex-JW or apostate, I'd be just as concerned whether he showed up for Memorial or not. I agree that it has nothing to do with disfellowshipping.

@Bible Speaks

These items you post are often very nice, but it is considered very rude to plagiarize. It would not hurt anything to just post the source. In many cases, depending on the purpose, you also should get permission, in addition to posting the source.

The closest I found is here. http://ezinearticles.com/?Do-You-Have-Difficulty-Making-Decisions?&id=1246563 Perhaps you got it from somewhere else:

Do You Have Difficulty Making Decisions? By Ruel V Hinaloc  |   Submitted On June 13, 2008

Do you like it? Should I buy it?" asked Flora, displaying the finely tailored black coat she was trying on. "I like it," said her friend Anna, "but it's your choice to make." Weakened by indecision, Flora placed the coat back on the rack and left the store.

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Why not bring the prophet Enoch into this discussion?

Enoch was born 1,164 years before the Flood (according to Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the number would be similar from the LXX). So any preaching of a warning during his 365 year life would have been nearly 1,100 to 800 years prior to the Flood. Jehovah's purpose to destroy mankind appears to have been "decided" about 120 years prior to the Flood.

(Genesis 6:2-8) . . .. 3 Then Jehovah said: “My spirit will not tolerate man indefinitely, because he is only flesh. Accordingly, his days will amount to 120 years.” 4 The Nephʹi·lim were on the earth in those days and afterward. During that time the sons of the true God continued to have relations with the daughters of men, and these bore sons to them. They were the mighty ones of old times, the men of fame. 5 Consequently, Jehovah saw that man’s wickedness was great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 Jehovah regretted that he had made men on the earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah.

5 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

LXX translators were members of Christendom

???

11 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I'm not clear on your point here (sorry). In reading Matthew 24

No problem. Perhaps another thread on Matthew 24 would be better than taking this subject up again under this one. In my experience, that topic can produce a lifetime of commentary.

9 hours ago, John Houston said:

Great discussion; and I thought I would include Jehovah God in this discussion. For even though scripture tells us how Jehovah felt about mankind when he gave ark instructions to Noah, had his words/feelings that would later be written down at Ezekiel 18:23 change?  So then what what is written at Genesis 6:7; would Jehovah God allow the wicked the chance to turn around,repent? Only if they knew, were warned! Who warned the wicked of the coming judgment day of Jehovah? 

Noah was faultless among his contemporaries, how did he base his faith on Jehovah in that wicked world? He fathered 3 sons and because of their lifestyle, 3 women left and joined them. And when Jehovah God told Noah to build the ark, these women stayed with them. But none of their families joined to help or board the ark! This lifestyle or arkbuilding was not done in secret. And if Jehovah is unchangable, the Noah's knowledge would move him to speak, just as the angels did when saving Lot at Genesis 19:12,12. So why would these people not be warned? That goes against all that Jehovah is! And scripture tells us that Enoch began warning people, correct? Jude 14,15?

 So these people, like Ezekiel states about, Jehovah were warned. Jehovah has not changed. Our reasoning imperfect and flawed, should always include Jehovah God, not human thinking and such.

These are excellent points. The reason I included what was written in Genesis 6 was because we absolutely need to include Jehovah in this discussion. In Genesis 6, it appears that Jehovah had already judged the world as wicked and only mentioned finding one righteous person, Noah. The way a person is known to be righteous to others is by standing up for what is right in their conduct, speech and of course, the important part that Jehovah sees, the right motivation. I have no doubt that Noah had distinguished himself not only in front of Jehovah, but also in front of others. As Romans 10:10 and Luke 12:34,35 shows, this would have included his speech. Therefore both his example and his speech apparently made him a preacher of righteousness.

(Matthew 12:34, 35) . . .For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things. . .

@b4ucuhear pointed out that Hebrews 11:7 shows that Noah showed godly fear and constructed an ark and through Noah's faith he condemned the world. It's not that much of a logical stretch to surmise that this was the way in which he "preached" but, as b4ucuhear also said, we don't know for sure whether this meant that he actually preached a divine warning. 

The point from Ezekiel 33 is about a person commissioned as a watchman to preach a warning to Israel.

(Ezekiel 33:2-6) . . .“‘Suppose that I bring a sword upon a land, and all the people of that land take a man and make him their watchman, 3 and he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the horn and warns the people. . . .  6 “‘But if the watchman sees the sword coming and he does not blow the horn and the people receive no warning and a sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that person will die for his own error, but I will ask his blood back from the watchman.’

The others that Jehovah had condemned in Noah's day were not in the same situation as this, so we can't claim that Jehovah was required to do the same thing in Noah's day as he did for Israel when he commissioned Ezekiel to be a watchman. It was Jehovah who made the warning, but only to Noah. We don't really even know if Noah's family helped him or believed him. They were not said to be part of a band of preachers, nor does the Bible even say that they lifted a finger to help Noah with the ark-building project. We can only guess. I would guess the same as you have, but we can't claim that it must be true just because it's a good guess.

Also, when you read about the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 and 19, you notice that the warning came from Jehovah only to the people he wanted to save. Similar to what happened to Noah, the angels only asked Lot to get his relatives out of the city. We read of no warning to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, themselves. Jehovah had told Abraham that he (Jehovah) had already judged that there were not even 10 righteous people in Lot.

Why else could Jesus say the following?

(Matthew 10:14, 15) . . .. 15 Truly I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah on Judgment Day . . .

(Matthew 11:23, 24) . . .if the powerful works that took place in you had taken place in Sodʹom, it would have remained until this very day. 24 But I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom on Judgment Day than for you.”

My point is that it is a tendency of "human thinking" and "human reasoning" to add to the scriptures. It is always better to remember what you said: "Our reasoning imperfect and flawed, should always include Jehovah God, not human thinking and such."

4 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

the scriptures say that they laughed and scoffed at him

The scriptures do NOT say that they laughed and scoffed at him. (This is the very kind of thing I was trying to address by pointing out. Just because something makes sense, and it might even be true, it's still just speculation.)

1 hour ago, Jay Witness said:

"The consent forms were not admitted merely to show that Seels-Davila understood the risks of treatment, yet elected to proceed," Shogan wrote. "The consents were admitted to prove that Seels-Davila knowingly refused treatments that would have saved her life."

I know a lot of Witnesses who, deep down, believe that you can't really die from lack of a blood transfusion. Some Witnesses can't even bring themselves to admit that blood transfusions save thousands of lives every year. So there is this idea that doctors didn't do all they could, and that the doctors' representatives are only claiming that the patient died explicitly from the lack of a blood transfusion. Of course, there really is a lot of incompetence and malpractice and mismanagement and who knows what all the factors were in this case.

But it's sad situation made even sadder if the reason were primarily based on the family's misunderstanding of the risks.

24 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

This, I'm sure, will lead us into another direction in this conversation, but I'll try to stay on point.

It's my guess that talk of how the "torment" works would still be on point.

25 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

The second death in my opinion would be the "destruction" and that too would fit equally in your association above. The problem is that something cannot be destroyed twice, or it was never destroyed in the first place

I wasn't sure how aware you were of the different definitions we (JWs) give to Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus. Second death is the lake of fire which would then be the same as Gehenna. Those were the only terms to which we would have applied the meaning of "Destruction." Death and the Grave (Hell) would be pretty much the same thing, and therefore the Grave (Hell) is NOT "destruction." That's why there can be a resurrection, whether of righteous or unrighteous. The Grave is not final destruction, second death or Gehenna is.

30 minutes ago, b4ucuhear said:

"Noah warned everybody as a preacher," but again, if we can accept that a "preacher" by definition, is someone who spoke/speaks, what logically would he be speaking about after being given divine warning?

It makes sense, but the Bible never says that he became a preacher after being given divine warning.

From the time Noah was given the divine warning, all we know, for sure, is that Noah built an ark and got it ready. And he apparently got his wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law to join him. Perhaps these are the only ones he preached to. Perhaps he only preached about righteousness, and never preached anything about a warning. Perhaps he had only been a preacher of righteousness BEFORE he was given the divine warning. We just don't know.

What we DO KNOW is that Jesus said that the Flood came, in effect, without a warning.

Even the expression "they took no note" -- even if this had been a proper way to translate the Greek -- still does not say that Noah warned anyone. Perhaps they "took no note" of the fact that Noah was building an ark. The idea of a warning is what WE WANT to read into the idea of "they took no note." Undoubtedly, it was also the reason to "translate" it this way.

Perhaps there was no reason for a warning, because Jehovah had already made the decision before he picked Noah and his family as the only ones chosen for survival. In fact, that way of reading Genesis 6 is just as likely as the assumption that Noah decided to go preaching when Jehovah told him to build an ark. Perhaps it's even a more likely reading. Consider:

(Genesis 6:7-14) . . .So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah. 9 This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God. 10 In time Noah became father to three sons, Shem, Ham, and Jaʹpheth. 11 But the earth had become ruined in the sight of the true God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 Yes, God looked upon the earth, and it was ruined; all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. 13 After that God said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth. 14 Make for yourself an ark from resinous wood. . . .

Notice that Noah was already a man who was righteous, and faultless, and walking with God. Notice that there was no reason to warn anyone as Jehovah had already decided to wipe mankind off the earth, to bring an end to all flesh. Noah didn't necessarily even try to convince the other 7 people in his household. He is only told to take them into the ark, not because they are righteous, too, but because Noah was righteous:

(Genesis 7:1) . . .“Go into the ark, you and all your household, because you are the one I have found to be righteous before me among this generation.

So your same point from Romans 10:10 would have produced the "preaching" from Noah long before the divine warning was ever given, and we know nothing about Noah preaching after he was given the divine warning. And whether he preached before or after given the divine warning, we don't know that he himself ever preached about a warning to others. Perhaps that would have been cruel and self-righteous, since they had already been condemned to drown, and Noah was not told that they could do anything if they wanted to.

14 minutes ago, Anna said:

Thank you for explaining.

A full explanation (aka, a REALLY long post) would probably appear like a pendulum swinging between the extremes of never reporting and reporting everything we are asked to report and then some. (Matthew 23:3) "Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe. . ."

Similar to what @PeterR said, my opinions are expressed here as a "thought experiment" for anyone to consider and respond to.

33 minutes ago, Anna said:

However, if we view “legality” as a means of keeping order, and not something that robs one of “Christian freedom” or as per Galatians 3, then we have the right attitude.

Yes, it's possible for "legalism" to exist side-by-side with proper motivation. Jesus dealt with this situation as a necessity during his own ministry when the legalism had not yet been nailed to the stake. Jesus put it this way:

(Matthew 23:23) 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things.

Of course, when the Law is written on your hearts, this refers to the total primacy of the heart-felt motivation: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." But all of us need a bit of tutoring in our motivation, just as the Law was a tutor. But the Law showed us where we came up short, and therefore took away most of the joy.

(Galatians 3:19) Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive. . .

41 minutes ago, Anna said:

But I have never known a pioneer to last more than a few years just counting hours. If that was the only motivation. Because naturally there cannot be any JOY just counting hours.

This is quite true, but counting hours is not the only motivation in keeping up the "status" of being a pioneer. It's the accolades from men that go with the title. The same could also be said of appointed elders, and ministerial servants, and the various types of overseers in the organization, and yet the terms are Biblical -- and these are privileges to be reached out for. Paul spoke of various thresholds of qualification for those "titles."

But one of the legalistic problems with the various pioneer titles is that when considering something to be "full-time" service, there is no such thing as saying one person is in full-time service and another is not. 400 hours a month might not be full-time to one person, and yet 5 hours a month might be full-time for another. (Remember the widow's "mite.") In truth, all Christians must be full-time; that's what whole-souled means.

(Matthew 22:37-40) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, . . .