Where Should the Horse Go?

Comment by Sargon on 2013-12-25 14:17:13

Another excellent article. These discussions satisfy our spiritual need more than the increasingly basic teachings we recieve each week at the watchtower study. In harmony with your comments, I feel the entire purpose of eternal life and being adopted as sons of God is so that we can begin to know the wonders of the Father. Jesus mentioned that he came to reveal the Father. I look forward to one day experiencing this to the fullest extent. This is the real life Paul spoke of, true knowledge.

Comment by Sargon on 2013-12-25 14:43:37

Sorry this is a bit off topic. During my study of revelation I wondered why we teach that the great growd are subject to double jeopardy. We say that the "144, 000" who prove faithful until death or who are faithful through the tribulation are rewarded with eternal life. However, those of the "great crowd" or other sheep who prove faithful through the exact same tribulation or until death do not receive eternal life, but must once again prove themselves worthy at the final test? This seems unfair. Why do the 144, 000 get to pass Go and collect $200 but the other tribulation survivors must wait 1000 years?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-25 15:49:25

  To me, this is just one more nail in the doctrine's coffin.

• Reply by imjustasking on 2013-12-26 03:49:46

  Sargon, my thoughts exactly. The whole notion of so called anointed Christians in the way the Society explains is a nonsense. Another stupid WT fabrication to make us distinct. Utter tosh.

• Reply by Jude on 2013-12-26 13:43:51

  Another point I find strange is the significance of the scrolls that persons are judged based on. The idea that God would reveal new laws for persons to live by during the thousand year reign seems uncomfortably reminiscent of going back to a situation akin to the mosaic law period.
  The bible tells us that the purpose of the Law was to point to Christ and that laws are given, not for righteous people but for unruly people. Does God consider Armageddon survivors to be unrighteous and unruly people that he needs to reveal a whole new law system to keep them in check? Is there another post-Armageddon Messiah to come for such laws to point to? It just seems to be counter to the spirit of Christianity being about living by faith and the law of the Christ rather than a written code book. It's like leaving Christian freedom and return to the beggarly elementary aspects of Law.
  I believe that those scrolls contain a record of the deeds of the resurrected ones and that they are judged based on those. Notice that Revelation only speaks of this judging in relation to the dead and not in relation to Armageddon survivors. Revelation 20:5 makes it clear that the dead are raised up at the end of the thousand years. However, we conveniently refuse to accept what Revelation is saying there because of not being willing to accept or understand that persons will be raised up for the sole purpose of facing adverse judgment and then consigned to die again. Aren't we supposed to trust in Jehovah and not our own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5,6)
  If the wicked dead are not going to be raised up to face judgment for their deeds then the words of Ecclesiastes 12:13,14 become meaningless as do the words of Hebrews 10:30,31 and 2 Corinthians 5:10. The wicked dead never get to be held accountable to God for their sins. They never get to "know that I am Jehovah". A wicked man can commit all manner of atrocities in his lifetime and fall die in peace in his sleep, old and satisfied with years, and never be called to account for his wicked deeds. Don't wicked people today sometimes commit suicide as a small victory to avoid being tried and convicted for their atrocities? Didn't God do Enoch a favor by killing him in his sleep to spare him from the wrath of his wicked contemporaries? So how is that wicked people can go out like Enoch and never have to be consciously held accountable for their sins? How is that justice? How is that scriptural?

  • Reply by Jude on 2013-12-26 13:50:42

    So according to your current teaching, the wicked dead get the option to die in peace in their sleep and never be raised up to be held to account for their actions. But just you happen to be an unrighteous person alive when Armageddon comes, and boy are you gonna get a taste of God's wrath! What ridiculous lopsided justice our current teaching paints God as meting out where a person is made to suffer or escape God's wrath based solely on what period of time he happens to be alive in!

    • Reply by Jude on 2013-12-26 13:55:29

      Correction: the first sentence in the above comment should say: "So according to OUR current teaching"

  • Reply by Jude on 2013-12-26 13:53:28

    But if we accept God's word for what it says - that all will be raised up at the end of the thousand years and judged based on what they did in their lifetime, all of these issues are resolved. God gets to vindicate his sovereignty to everyone and all wicked people are held accountable for their wicked deeds.

    • Reply by Sargon on 2013-12-26 18:57:03

      Hey Jude, after reading Rev chapter 18-21 I'm not sure everyone gets killed at Armageddon. I think only the kings of the earth and their armies. This is in harmony with 2 Thes 1:6-10. These wicked ones undergo everlasting destruction (second death lake of fire) along with the beasts. Chapter 20 of Revelation makes it appear that the nations will continue to exist under the rule of Christ and his holy ones for 1000 years. Then Satan will be released and final judgment will occur. The Bible says that this is when the rest of the dead are judged as well. What does that mean? We see new scrolls and the scroll of life. All not found in the scroll of life get to bathe in the lake of fire song with death, Hades and Satan. Afterwards God's will finally takes place on heaven and earth as New Jerusalem comes down from heaven. We finally get to see a new heavens and a new earth. What does this truly mean?

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-27 16:19:06

        Can't answer all the questions, but I wanted to agree with what you wrote about Armageddon. In private conversations I have been surprised to find that some JW's have recognized that this is what the Bible actually says, in spite of the complete annihilation interpretation that we are constantly taught.

      • Reply by mdnwa on 2013-12-31 12:03:57

        Sargon I'm on the fence about your statement. One one hand I've always felt that our teaching about who will be saved at Armageddon was never based off the bible and rather on teachings of select men. Instead of being like God and not desiring any to die most all religions, and a lot of it's members, seem to look forward to people dying or paint God as more of a harsh demanding God and less of a loving God which the bible states God is love. This in turns will turn off MANY in developing a relationship with God thinking he's just harsh or go to religions where they are way to lax and tolerant about decisions and choices that are CLEARLY HATED by God.
        It's somewhat sad and extremely judgmental we even take it a step further and unlike Christians who believe only Christians will be saved JW's teach ONLY JW's will be saved and not even other Christians. I remember even being taught as a kid that the world would be our (JW's) oyster since there were (at that time) 4 million JW's and we all could just pick and choose where we live around the world since the billions on earth would be dead. Years later I thought how twisted is that?! I felt almost like I was Jonah waiting on the horizon waiting in anticipation to see destruction. I feel most JW's will/ would be stumbled GREATLY if JW's were the modern day Jonah and that situation played out again. The scripture that gives me comfort and why I don't believe in our teaching is Acts 10:34-35. I believe to state things as fact regarding who lives or dies like we have that authority makes us dangerously close to being false prophets and not to be fearful of spoken of in the bible. I try not to reject the "wait on Jehovah" command since I am NO ONE to judge.
        Now saying that... while God is a God of LOVE he also in the past expects his followers to obey or face the repercussion of their lack of obedience. So I do believe that while I do not want ANY to die, evil or righteous, in Noah's day women and children also died along with the troublemakers/ evil for not acting or even some being "lukewarm". So while the bible directly talks about the military and governments falling I believe ones just can't sit on the sidelines and wait for the end to act, otherwise the "thief in the night" or "keep on the watch" scriptures would not have the same power. Whatever happens though I have faith that God is in fact just and a God of love and takes everyone's situation (mental, emotional, past, etc) into consideration before making the ultimate judgment.

        • Reply by Sargon on 2014-01-01 03:53:58

          I enjoyed reading your comments mdnwa. I agree with you that we will all be accountable before our judge Jesus. But does this occur at Armageddon? I'm no longer sure. Compare Matthew 25:31-46 with Revelation 20:11-15. In both of these instances Jesus is shown to be sitting on his throne of judgement. It seems to me that this occurs after the 1000 years. If we prove faithful to death or endure through the great tribulation we can receive the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4 5). Only Christians who obey Christ and endure will receive this reward. Matthew 25 also makes it seem that those who receive the good news but disobey or profess to know Christ but are fraudulent will receive a heavier judgement.

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2013-12-25 17:13:55

Again we are confronted with boxcar thinking on the WT train to Kingdom Come. The more I read my Bible WITHOUT JW reference points, the greater I love Jehovah and Christ. Why? How can this be? I'm really not sure except when I read what Paul wrote in Hebrews 6:1-3, I feel deep within myself a freedom in Christ that I once only had a glimmer of before my studies began in our publications:
"For this reason, now that we have left the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works, and faith toward God, the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment."
Take note that such things are reiterated to anchor us, not to Christ, but so much more rigidly to the "primary doctrine" required of all, before and after baptism. What encourages me most. though, are Paul's conclusive words, "And this we will do (this pressing on to maturity), if God indeed permits."
Thank you Meleti for allowing space for the free flow of thought by those of us who've opened the boxcar doors or even taken off the roof to see a universe beyond what any human can instruct us to believe.
sw

Comment by A searcher for truth on 2013-12-25 23:04:21

It was the Lord Jesus, who taught us how to know God.
Before that the Jewish nation, did not really know God at all, and Jesus indeed had conveyed this fact to them.
And yes I believe that you are correct that to really know God, involves us going on a long eternal journey towards him so that we can really get to know him and in doing so, become perfect as he is perfect.
It is also a journey that transcends inter-dimensional boundaries of time and space, but that is entirely another subject altogether.

Comment by Nick O on 2013-12-26 00:28:01

Excellent article and very noteworthy that we have been putting the cart before the horse.
I have always been enthralled with science and the understanding of not only how the universe works, but also of how infinitely vast it is. I can't help as my own infinitesimal knowledge of it expands (ever so slightly), I can’t help be more and more in awe of the qualities of its creator. I can't help but think about Ecclesiastes 3:11, and believe that understanding the universe is part of understanding our Creator. The other part is understanding Him of course is in His dealings with humans (including myself). No doubt, in order for all of this to be possible, everlasting life is necessary for us to even begin to really know God. As you brought out though, we can never fully know Him. His ways and thoughts are supremely higher than ours, not to mention the infinite head start he has on us in existence.

Comment by imjustasking on 2013-12-26 04:19:47

Hi Meleti another great thought provoking essay.
I've been musing on this verse for some time. I had come to understand this verse in a different way that the Society explains, but not in the way you have outlined here.
My thoughts were more on the line of not 'HEAD' knowledge, as the Society teaches, but a PRACTICAL knowledge of love. So our knowing God, would be to learn to love by studying Jesus' example and to PRACTICE this love in our everyday life. Thus in short, we are to learn to love; so for example, not whether we believe Jesus died on a 'cross' or 'stake' (1 Cor 13 cf 1 John 4:8)
However, so ingrained is the Societies indoctrination of this subject that I'm finding it hard NOT to read into the verses that taking in some kind of knowledge whether 'head' knowledge or otherwise is meant. So even when I read the other translations you quoted, I find it difficult not to understand the verse as learning in order to gain everlasting life as opposed to having everlasting life to learn, as per your argument. AAAARGGGHHHH!!!!!
Could the Societies translation be influenced by ideas expressed in various commentaries? For example the verse under discussion has been treated as follows, in various commentaries:
Vines Word Studies:
Life eternal
With the article: the life eternal. Defining the words in the previous verse. The life eternal (of which I spoke) is this.
That (ἵνα)
Expressing the aim.
Might know (γινώσκωσι)
Might recognize or perceive. This is striking, that eternal life consists in knowledge, or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance, a progressive perception of God in Christ. That they might learn to know. Compare Joh_17:23; Joh_10:38; 1Jo_5:20; 1Jo_4:7, 1Jo_4:8.
Roberts Word Pictures
Should know (ginōskōsin). Present active subjunctive with hina (subject clause), “should keep on knowing.”
Clarke
The only true God - The way to attain this eternal life is to acknowledge, worship, and obey, the one only true God, and to accept as teacher, sacrifice, and Savior, the Lord Jesus, the one and only true Messiah. Bishop Pearce’s remark here is well worthy the reader’s attention: -
“What is said here of the only true God seems said in opposition to the gods whom the heathens worshipped; not in opposition to Jesus Christ himself, who is called the true God by John, in 1Jo_5:20.”
The words in this verse have been variously translated:
1. That they might acknowledge thee, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, to be the only true God.
2. That they might acknowledge thee, the only true God, and Jesus, whom thou hast sent, to be the Christ or Messiah.
3. That they might acknowledge thee to be the only true God, and Jesus Christ to be him whom thou hast sent. And all these translations the original will bear.
From all this we learn that the only way in which eternal life is to be attained is by acknowledging the true God, and the Divine mission of Jesus Christ, he being sent of God to redeem men by his blood, being the author of eternal salvation to all them that thus believe, and conscientiously keep his commandments.
A saying similar to this is found in the Institutes of Menu. Brigoo, the first emanated being who was produced from the mind of the supreme God, and who revealed the knowledge of his will to mankind, is represented as addressing the human race and saying: “Of all duties, the principal is to acquire from the Upanishads (their sacred writings) a true knowledge of one supreme God; that is the most exalted of sciences, because it ensures eternal life. For in the knowledge and adoration of one God all the rules of good conduct are fully comprised.” See Institutes of Menu, chap. xii. Inst. 85, 87.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-26 08:11:38

  Thank you for adding that research to our understanding of this verse. This alternate interpretation of John 17:3 certainly has merit in my opinion. I'm finding an unexpected but not surprising richness in Jesus' words. So much meaning packed into a single verse!
  To add to our understanding, consider:
  (1 Timothy 6:12) . . .Fight the fine fight of the faith, get a firm hold on the everlasting life for which you were called. . .
  (1 Timothy 6:19) . . .in order that they may get a firm hold on the real life.
  One cannot hold on to something which is not present. Christians who do not release their hold on everlasting life must therefore have it in their grasp even in an imperfect state. Adam had everlasting life until he gave up his hold on it. Once a person accepts Jesus as savior and obeys the Father and the Son, symbolizing this by baptism, he has everlasting life. Those alive at the very end will "never die at all" but will be transformed. So their consciousness continues from imperfection to perfection. Those who remained faithful in the past and died an Adamic death also 'never died at all' for they live in God's memory and from their point of view will experience less of a break in their life than one experiences after a night's sleep.
  So, our having everlasting life so as to know God and his Son has already begun. It starts with our acknowledging and submitting to--as your research shows--the Son and the Father.
  Your contribution to the discussion, and that of the others demonstrates, the benefit of a free and unhindered interchange of knowledge. I wouldn't have thought of any of this without the chance to openly discuss these Scriptural thoughts. Iron sharpens iron, but in our meetings such sharpening is not permitted. We are to sit there and listen. The introduction of any thought that does not directly support the official teaching is strongly discouraged. So sad that we deprive ourselves of such a wealth of nutritious food.
  So then, who is the faithful steward who provides food at the proper time. Would it not be all true Christians? (Sorry for making an off-topic point.)

Comment by miken on 2013-12-26 07:54:42

In the October 15, 2013 Watchtower on page 27, under the sub-heading Knowing The Only True God, with reference to John 17:3the following is written:-
7 According to Greek-language scholars,the Greek expression translated
“taking in knowledge” can also be translated “should keep on knowing” or
“should continue knowing.” The two meanings are complementary, and both
are important. The footnote to John 17:3 in the Reference Bible gives the alternative
rendering “their knowing you.”Thus, “taking in knowledge” refers to
an on going process that results in theprivileged state of “knowing” God.
Knowing the greatest Person in the universe, however, involves much more
than having a mental grasp of God’s qualities and purpose. Knowing Jehovah
includes having a close bond of love with him and with fellow believers......
This I believe to be a more correct understanding than previously held and as Meleti points out the Greek word ginóskó. "to know" has one definition of “to know, especially through personal experience (first-hand acquaintance).” Strong (1492 B) when comparing Ginosko with Oida states that " while ginosko frequently implies an active relation between the one who "knows" and the person or thing "known", oida expresses the fact that the object has simply come within the scope of the "knowers" perception. Thayer states that ginosko refers to knowledge grounded in personal experience 1 John 1:3 Greek "koinonia" fellowship cf Acts 2:42. Most would agree that this "close bond of love" with God is achieved not only by taking in information about him, his activities and directions but also developing a intimate fellowship with him. This is also done through meditation and communication in the form of prayer Phil 4:6.
However as with the Watchtower reference cited above Meleti concentrates on the first half of John 17:3 with reference to coming to know God and fails to address the second part "and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ". Clearly everlasting life depends upon having a ginosko relationship with both God AND Jesus Christ. Jehovah's witnesses (even those who claim to be part of the bride of Christ) however, cannot have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ because they have been instructed since 1954 not to worship Jesus Christ which would include praying to him, (WT 1954 Jan 1 p31) hence the "taking in knowledge" rather than knowing emphasis. A recent talk at my local Kingdom Hall dealing with how to cope with the pressures, stresses and difficulties of life rightly, but exclusively, referred to scriptures and scriptural examples of relying on God for help. Jesus words about not being anxious, Matt 6:25-32, were referred to but not his invitations at Matt 11:28-30 and John 5:39-40 because those verses imply communicating with him in accord with his invtation at John 14:14. In the Greek (see kingdom interlinear) to directly ask HIM and he would do it.
The first century Christians prayed to God Acts 12:5 but did they also develop a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by praying to him also? I believe there is scriptural evidnce that they did . I will try to demonstrate.
In Hebrew Qara “Call” is used with reference to calling on God’s name to summon His aid; calling in this sense constitutes a prayer prompted by a recognised need and directed to one who is able and willing to respond. (2063 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament).
An example of this is recorded at 1 Kings 18:24, 36, 37. Elijah says he will call on the name of Jehovah in verse 24. He does this in prayer to Jehovah in verses 36 and 37.
Joel 2:32 repeats the same phrase “ call on the name of Jehovah” again using the same Hebrew word for “call” Qara.
In both Acts 2:21 and Rom 10:13 Joel 2:32 is quoted “calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved”. In Acts 2:21 and Rom 10:13 the Greek word used for “calls on” is Epikaleomai (appeal to) which is the same word used at 1 Cor 1:2 with regard to those who are “calling upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.” The same Greek word is also used with reference to “calling upon” Jesus name at Acts 9:14,21.
It is just as Paul’s appeal (epikaleo) to Caesar (Acts 25:11) would have involved direct communication with Caesar and not just his aides
So if Jehovah is prayed to when his name is “called on” it appears Jesus was also prayed to by those “calling upon” his name. The context of 2 Cor 12:8-10 I believe shows that the Lord Paul
"three times entreated" was the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul's personal relationship with Jesus is also demonstrated at Acts 18:9-10; 23:11. Having a personal relationship with both God and Christ also harmonizes with John 14:23 "we will come to him and make our home with him" NIV, "abode"NWT, Greek mone from meno "to abide, be present". Jesus said at John 6:56 "He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him," (the NWT" in union with" is not in the Greek), reflects I believe John 14:23, an in dwelling. Also compare John 17:21-22 in the kingdom interlinear where again the NWT" in union with" is not in the Greek. Those who have such a personal relationship with God and Christ also have their spirit Rom 8:9, Gal 4:6.
In Rev chapter 5 the 24 elders bow down before the Lamb with bowls full of incense, the prayers of the holy ones, and sing a new song to the Lamb. Verses 12-14 picture the one sitting on the throne (cf Rev 22:1) and the Lamb receiving blessing, glory, honor and worship. Surely praying to the Lamb would be a part of worshipping him.
Of course this appears to contradict Jesus own words to Satan at Matt 4:10 and those recorded at Rev 22:8-9., "worship God." If you believe in trinitarian God (three persons in one God, 1+1+1=1) then praying to Jesus Christ should be less problematic. I quote from an article by Raymond Faircloth of bible truth seekers:-
The English word ‘worship’ comes from the Old English ‘weorthscipe’ which means ‘worthiness.’The Greek word proskyneo is used often in reference to Jesus and according the Greek-English lexicons means: worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself, to show reverence. Also several Bible translations give “pay homage to” as a meaning of proskyneo. Because this word is used of Jesus as well as of God Trinitarians say that it is a proof that Jesus is the Almighty God. However, note what The NIV Theological Dictionary of NT Words says about proskyneo:
whenever obeisance is made before Jesus, the idea is either explicit or implicit that he is king (Matt. 2:2), Lord (8:2), the Son of God (14:33), or one who can act with divine omnipotence (e.g., 14:33; Mk. 5:6; 15:19).
So rather than our worship of Jesus being a worship of him as literally being God Almighty, our worship of him is as King, Lord or Son of God i.e. God’s representative. So this means that we worship him as the Lord Messiah. Under the word proskyneo, Bauer’s Gk/Eng Lexicon states that it can be directed: “to human beings, but by this act they are recognized as belonging to the superhuman realm ... Jesus, who is rendered homage as Messianic king...” So ones worship of someone, human or divine is because of the recognition that that person is one’s superior. This is why Peter refused the worship of himself by Cornelius (Acts 10: 25, 26); and also why the angel refused the worship of himself by the apostle John (Rev. 19:10) giving the reason as his being only “a fellow servant” (Rev. 22:9).......
...Evidently it is right to communicate with Jesus in imitation of both Paul and Stephen (Acts 7:59) and to praise Jesus by following the admonition to “call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Such communication or prayer to Jesus is to him as the Lord Messiah. Furthermore, in honouring him in this way we honour God – our heavenly Father (John 5:23).

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-26 08:22:36

  I appreciate your thoughts very much. I don't agree with all you've said, but I won't comment on it here so as not to take the discussion off topic. Instead, at the end of January, Apollos and I are going to discuss our differing views on the nature of Christ which will undoubtedly include the issue of prayer and worship. There will be a lot of opportunity for all to get into the discussion then and I'm confident we can look forward to an encouraging and instructive discussion.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-26 08:46:04

  Hi miken
  I would also like to thank you for your well thought out comments. I appreciate your extensive scriptural citations and hope that readers will take the time to examine these, as I think much of what you say is well supported.
  As Meleti wrote, we look forward to a wider discussion of this topic soon.
  Apollos

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2013-12-26 11:09:01

  Miken phenomenal comment! I appreciate you taking the time to research and lay the groundwork for the idea of the necessity and appropriateness of developing a relationship with Christ. Very well written! I have always admired the ability of others to formulate and translate thoughts into written form in a well organized manner. I definitely can learn from that (Proverbs 27:17) :)

• Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-12-26 21:00:04

  Again we are at the mercy of translators who split the same word in Greek (proskyne′ō) into two English words, "worship" and "obeisance," depending on the translator's religious bias. Can translators be religiously biased? Show me anyone who isn't. Not only that, but translators must have consensus with those employing them. Even if they don't, they are given the mandate to smooth over the English road by filling in those nasty Greek potholes with religiously acceptable interpretations.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-26 21:10:14

    Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason David BeDuhn devotes a chapter to "proskyneo" and who the modern English word "worship" doesn't serve to translate it in every instance. It is a worthwhile read.

    • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-12-26 21:59:54

      Yes I have the book. And I also recommend it. While it does fall slightly short in some areas of reasoning, but hey! Give the guy a break! He was interpreted by his critics as not to have been sufficiently scholarly to be such a scholar.
      I once thought of writing a book too but then thought better since anything I wrote would likely be critiqued similarly by all whose religious bias told them otherwise.
      sw

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-27 12:47:45

        I have to agree that it's a very good book and it certainly helped me appreciate many of the challenges in translating the individual texts he uses as examples, as well as the important overall point that is being made about bias.
        Having looking into some of the Bible texts in even more detail since my first reading of the book I can see that we still have to tread very carefully. Because the NWT is made to look very favorable compared to the other translations there is such a temptation from a JW standpoint to accept BeDuhn's work as more authoritative than it actually is. I myself certainly fell into this trap when I first read it.
        Please note that I do not call it a "trap" in the sense that BeDuhn is wrong about anything in particular. It is a trap in the sense that so easy to fall prey to "confirmation bias". If I find myself treating one scholarly work as having more weight than another for no other reason than it confirms my existing viewpoint, then I am failing to think with an open mind.
        Of course I don't say that all scholarly viewpoints should be treated as of equal value. But when we elevate one viewpoint above another we must ask ourselves whether we are doing so based on its true merit, or merely because it supports something we were already inclined to believe.
        Apollos

    • Reply by anderestimme on 2013-12-27 13:40:30

      Wasn't BeDuhn's point that proskyneo simply means obeisance, and whether such obeisance is an act of homage or an act of worship is determined by the context? Is there something controversial about that that I'm not getting?

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-27 14:47:29

        I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me even though you made it as a reply to Meleti. If so, I wasn't talking about proskuneo specifically. I was just generally agreeing that it's a good book, and then making an observation about how some people have treated it (myself included).

      • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-12-27 14:59:32

        Actually it was Meleti's response to my reference to translators who resort to making interpretations of proskyne′ō based on their own religious bias. Thus, when they read proskyne′ō, their decision to write “worship” or “obeisance” is based on their beliefs coupled with those employing them which is largely governed by the institution that oversees translation. And since the Bible is still the world's bestseller, there is major competition to make its bias sufficiently acceptable to the buying population.
        At least that's my biased opinion :)
        sw

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-27 23:57:24

    Are you saying that if I am translating from Greek to English, I should always render proskyne′ō as "worship"? If yes, then would you also agree that were we translating from English back to Greek, we would always render "worship" as proskyne′ō?

    • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-12-28 14:24:15

      Not sure whether you are addressing this to me but from my prospective I have enough trouble fathoming just one direction of translating. Although Greek will always be Greek to me, I do have a sneaking hunch that a Greek would have the same challenge when it comes to Hebrew.

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-28 14:33:16

        I was. You see, worship nowadays has pretty much only one meaning. proskyne′ō does not have only one meaning. So while you could always translate worship today as proskyne′ō, you cannot simply do the reverse. You have to decide which meaning is intended by the writer or speaker. Even if it were possible to completely eliminate bias, the translator would still be saddled with a decision, i.e., to determine what English term would correctly render the meaning from the Greek.

      • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-12-28 22:44:10

        From Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings
        Worship ~ shahhah
        By Jeff A. Benner
        "In our modern western culture worship is an action directed toward God and God alone. But this is not the case in the Hebrew Bible. The word shehhah is a common Hebrew word meaning to prostrate oneself before another in respect. We see Moses doing this to his father in law in Exodus 18:7. When the translators translate the word shehhah they will use the word "worship" when the bowing down is directed toward God but as "obeisance" or other equivalent word when directed toward another man. There is no Hebrew word meaning worship in the sense that we are used to using it in our culture today. From an Hebraic perspective worship, or shehhah is the act of getting down on ones knees and placing the face down on the ground before another worthy of respect."
        I found this to be a most interesting site since Mr. Benner has done extensive research into the Ancient Hebrew language and culture.

Comment by Joel on 2013-12-26 12:46:35

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This viewpoint is something I have read on other Christian sites and I am inclined to agree. Doesn't the idea of God wanting us to know him sound much more than simply studying to take in knowledge and more knowledge. Of course knowledge is an important part of who we are and God in omniscient, but God wants us to know that he is first and foremost love, not knowledge.
It made me think about other expressions:
Keep seeking as for hid treasure
He becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him
Fear God and keep his commandments the whole obligation of man
Obedience is worth more than sacrifice
Cramped and narrow is the path to life and few are the ones finding it
Even the righteous are being saved with difficulty
Camel through a needles eye, but with God all things are possible
Turn back, though your sins be as scarlet you will be made white
Fear not you are worth more than many sparrows
The message is "turn to me and I will refresh you" and that "we are not under law". Prescribed weekly programmes of study, examinations/approvals and monthly reporting of how much work we have done, personally, no longer makes me feel fulfilled in any way.
Sorry, this next bit is a tangent, but there is just one line that I may not agree with completely:
"Adam already had everlasting life when he was created and yet he did not know God."
Now that may well be true, but can we be absolutely certain? One reason I have doubts about this is that God placed an angel and a spinning sword at the gate to the garden of Eden in order to prevent partaking of the tree of life.
Now, you may quite rightly say that they were allowed to partake of ANY tree in the garden except for the tree of knowledge. So far as we know this is indeed true, but consider the reason the path to the tree of life was blocked: "that they may not eat from it and actually live to time indefinite". I'm not so sure they had eaten from this tree and God made it impossible for them to do so. In the bible account the eyes of man were opened by partaking of the tree of knowledge and this is clearly something that God did not want them to do, at least at that particular time. It seems to me when I read it, as if the tree of life would also do exactly as its description indicates and that in God's justice, no matter how a man had gotten access to this tree they would automatically be entitled to eternal life. If they had already been invited to eat of the tree of life, could that not have been raised as an objection?

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-26 14:32:19

  Hi Joel.
  Doesn't the article and discussion about whether Adam was perfect reflect the point you are making? If we treat the eating from the tree as something that would have happened when humans reached that point, as opposed to something that they lost and were therefore denied after previous access had been granted, then all those thoughts tie together.
  Apollos

  • Reply by Joel on 2013-12-26 15:23:10

    Yes and that was a great eye opening article. I agree that if you can take the view that the bible does not mention perfection, then it might follow that Adam and Eve did not necessarily already possess eternal life. That's not to say it wasn't a given as long as they were obedient, but I don't think we can know for sure that they were already granted eternal life. We have eternity in our hearts by design, but I'm not sure we have eternity by design. I really believe that the eternity requires Gods sustenance.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-26 15:25:16

  I don't know if the tree of life was symbolic of life or if one had to eat its fruit to keep living. I tend to think the former, because the tree of the knowledge of good and bad was symbolic. That is, the tree existed, but eating its fruit didn't magically impart knowledge of moral issues.
  However, all that is separate from the point I was making. Adam was created to live forever. He was sinless and only if he sinned would he die. So his life was everlasting, but conditional on obedience. It wasn't conditional on having a certain level of knowledge of God, since he was only just beginning to know God. I hope that clarifies the point I was trying to make.

  • Reply by Joel on 2013-12-26 17:47:49

    Yes, this is a tricky one. I would not really imply "magical" as such, but I do think that clearly something very real changed for them when they ate of the fruit. I think the tree of life would have given them life literally, perhaps via the covenant it represented.
    It is on the next point I am not certain - Adam was meant to live forever, but I do believe everything in the physical universe was created to die, which contrasts with spiritual creation. Eternity is in our hearts, but we absolutely require Gods power to sustain us, because we do not have any life of ourselves.
    Sorry, as I said it is a tangent and I completely appreciate the point of your article! :)

• Reply by mdnwa on 2013-12-31 13:24:47

  I love "but God wants us to know that he is first and foremost love, not knowledge". While in 2 Timothy 3:16 talks about the bible being beneficial for teaching and setting things straight I think some just focus primarily on getting dates, times and meanings right and loose focus on the enjoyment and thousands of examples of love, justice, and mercy from God. While we take up the torture stake being a Christian knowing death or hardship might be reality his teachings were NOT to be a burden meaning to me K.I.S.S.
  While even angels want to peer into the deep things of prophecy and understand if they do then it's in imperfect human nature to want to do the same I found more enjoyment when I stopped trying to be right all the time to somehow prove I was more worthy or holier somehow. My love for God deepened since we have eternity to learn directly from the source and understand more clearly things in the bible. Right now it's hard enough just keeping clean in this world and imitating his example.

Comment by Jude on 2013-12-26 13:17:22

I appreciate the point about everlasting life affording us the opportunity to know God but I don't think that is the point being made at John 17:3. Nor do I think that the NWT's renderings of that verse have been the best.
The old rendering was very misleading as it gave one the singular impression of an intellectual exercise of taking in knowledge being the requirement for eternal life. The Greek text, however, does not speak about knowledge but about knowing. Yes, there is a significant difference.
Taking in knowledge is speaking about an academic, intellectual, theoretical-study exercise. Knowing, however, conveys a broader meaning that involves both taking in knowledge and living in harmony with that knowledge. Knowing God and Christ refers to a relationship with them that is characterized by living in a way that pleases them. (compare Jeremiah 22:16).
The new rendering "Coming to know" is a little bit more accurate but still not the best. It's not the best because it focuses on the act of coming to know rather than being in the continuous ongoing state of knowing. To illustrate my point: If a Christian learns about God and lived faithfully for a while and then later fell away to apostasy without ever repenting, it can still be said correctly from a linguistic point of view that he came to know God. And one can still speak linguistically correctly of the fact of that individual's "coming to know God" (in the past). But will he gain eternal life? No.
The most accurate rendering would be one that says "their knowing you". This is closest to what the Greek says and shows that one has to be in the state of knowing God and Christ rather than just experiencing the act of "coming to know" them.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-27 15:21:35

  Jude
  There are a couple of considerations here. One is the translation of the bit that now reads “their coming to know you” in the NWT 2.0, which is what you appear to be trying to address.
  But the primary point of Meleti's article (as per the title) is what relationship is being conveyed between the “knowing” and “life eternal” in the text.
  You said that you don't think that “everlasting life affording us the opportunity to know God ... is the point being made at John 17:3”, but it appears you've only expounded your view by dealing with the first point – about the translation of “knowing God” - not the issue that's truly under question.
  There is a conjunction ἵνα (hina) in the middle of the sentence meaning “in order that”. The Interlinear therefore reads “This but is the everlasting life in order that they may be knowing you ...”
  What is dependent upon what according to this construction?
  Apollos

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2013-12-26 13:45:00

Hi Joel :)
I agree with you in part. The bible does not state the first pair had everlasting life from the start. However, the scriptures state that Adam and Eve were forbidden from eating only the tree of knowledge of good and bad. All the other trees they could partake of. (Gen 2:9, Gen 3:1-3, Gen 1:29)
I don’t see any reason why they would not have been partaking from the tree of life up until they were blocked access by God because of their disobedience. Being forbidden from partaking of this tree any longer, to me, is symbolic of them being cut off from everlasting life. I don’t believe that Jehovah gave the tree “powers” that would grant everlasting life. Ultimately Jehovah is the life-giver. When they failed the opportunity to show Jehovah obedience by partaking of the Tree of Knowledge they forfeited the right to continue living or to eat from the Tree of Life

• Reply by Joel on 2013-12-26 14:45:50

  You may well be right of course, but I would ask, that if they had already eaten of the tree of life, why would eating of it once more, apparently obligate God to revoke their sentence and once again sustain their life? If they had already eaten of the tree of life, then was it the case that they would have eaten from it continually? If so, then again, why would eating from it once more provide them with eternal life, despite their sinful state?
  I completely agree that God is the source of life. I believe this is reiterated in Genesis 6:3
  KJV
  "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
  It seems like Gods spirit is linked with both our lifespan and our condition?

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2013-12-26 16:09:37

    I understand what you are saying….I am wondering are we saying the same thing ? To help me understand better…. Do you think that if Adam and Eve even after being disobedient that they could have eaten from the tree of life and kept living? I am not so sure. At Gen 3:22 “ Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”
    Now … I should preface this by saying that I do not claim any credentials in translation whatsoever so the words in that scripture in Hebrew could convey a different idea. Honestly I do not go through what I believe to be a painstaking process of deciphering the Hebrew language at all. I read and understand the bible as a layperson … I do however greatly appreciate the perspectives of the individuals that do.
    So here goes…… I always understood that to mean that Jehovah did not want them to continue to partake of the tree. The passage “, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” the “and” in that passage meant “in addition to” the tree of knowledge. So I’ve concluded that Jehovah did not want them to take from the tree of knowledge and the tree of life too. Am I on the right track ?

Comment by Dakota on 2013-12-26 17:20:46

I enjoyed your comment, and it makes sense. Of note is that the context also seems to that knowledge now is required of Jesus and his father as necessary for receiving ever-lasting life. The following scriptures seem to prove that some knowledge is needed now:
Note: My use of “Word” is understood by me in two different ways:
1. The expressed or manifested mind and will of God
2. Someone’s promise or assurance that can be relied on
John 17: 6 “I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word”….. (They already obeyed what Jesus told them)
John 17:7,8 “Now they have come to know that all the things you gave me are from you; because I have given them the sayings that you gave me, and they have accepted them and have certainly come to know that I came as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me.”….. (Jesus gave them “sayings” or “knowledge” from Jehovah, they recognized him as the father’s representative, and believed that he was sent…to believe this they had to take in some knowledge, so as to have faith)
John 17:17-19 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth. Just as you sent me into the world, I also sent them into the world. And I am sanctifying myself in their behalf, so that they also may be sanctified by means of truth. (They were set a part, or considered as Holy by means of truth or God’s Word.. .of course this would require them gaining a certain knowledge)
John 17:20 “I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word” (We receive salvation through faith….we give our “word” through action because we have come to know the Father and His son)
John 17: 25,26 “Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you, but I know you, and these have come to know that you sent me. I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.” (Once we take in knowledge, naturally we would want to make their names known)….Some have “not come to know”…There are some interesting scriptures on that:
John 16:2,3 “Men will expel you from the synagogue. In fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he has offered a sacred service to God. But they will do these things because they have not come to know either the Father or me.
John 8:19 “Then they said to him: “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered: “You know neither me nor my Father. If you did know me, you would know my Father also.”
John 8:31,32 Then Jesus went on to say to the Jews who had believed him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (requires getting knowledge)
John 8: 51 “Most truly I say to you, if anyone observes my word, he will never see death at all.” (We need knowledge, so that we can obey)
John 8:55 Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word.
My conclusion:
1. There is some basic knowledge, that a person must gain and believe in for ever-lasting life.
2. John 16:12,13 “I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now. However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come. (Our faith is strengthened as we gain more knowledge through the Holy Spirit).
3. Forever is not sufficient to learn all there is about our creator…guess we won’t be bored…Eccl 3:11 We will come to know Jehovah even more through eternity,
Dakota

Comment by Joel on 2013-12-26 17:37:36

I think our views are differing slightly, but I am also a layperson and not sure. I will outline my thoughts as clearly as I can for what they are worth. I don't believe it is a black and white issue, I don't think an absolute understanding is central to Christian faith, so while it is a complete tangent, I think it is interesting to consider?
"Do you think that if Adam and Eve even after being disobedient that they could have eaten from the tree of life and kept living?"
Honestly I do think that is what the bible says. I think the "and" in Genesis 3:22 actually may convey the idea that they had not already done so. I don't think the 2 trees were linked as such? The tree they ate from was called the tree of knowledge and their eyes were opened. God had decreed that in the day they did this they would die, or perhaps they would begin to die because Gods justice would not allow him to sustain them. Not because of knowledge, but because of obedience. Eating from the tree of life would have granted them life somehow despite this, otherwise, why even record this in Genesis? Why even block access to the garden? I'm not going to pretend that I really understand how that works. The only way I can understand it is if it were a separate covenant - that is, the tree of life was a covenant for life that had not yet been offered and would have been honoured by God.
Not saying I am even close to correct of course, but it does fascinate me.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-26 17:57:29

  I have had some discussions on the forum about the use of the word "interpretation". Perhaps I can use my answer to your question to better explain my position on that word as well. Without engaging in interpretation, I can tell you that Jehovah blocked access to the tree of life so that Adam and Eve could not live to time indefinite.
  What that means (the definition of interpretation) I cannot say for sure because Jehovah did not inspire Moses to tell us what he meant. So I will engage in my own interpretation, but that is really just my own speculation.
  I think the tree of life represented symbolically Man's right to continue living. He was allowed access to that anytime he wanted because a) he had access to all the trees of the garden save one, the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and b) the tree was a literal tree with a symbolic use. Therefore, I conclude that for Jehovah to have allowed Adam and Eve to again eat from the tree of life would have been to have acquitted them of their sin, hence they could have gone on living.
  Having said that, I cannot rule out the thought that the tree of life had a physical function. Scientists have discovered things about DNA that have caused them to believe that aging has to do with degradation of DNA strands. They theorize that a tailored virus could be made to repair the damage. Perhaps the tree of life carried such a virus in its fruit. In other words, Jehovah didn't have to do anything to human DNA to cause the aging process. He merely had to keep man from eating that fruit. Pure speculation, of course.
  Either way, whether representative of a legal right, or whether needed for genetic repair, access to the tree of life would grant man life to time indefinite and because they had sinned, Jehovah blocked that.

  • Reply by Joel on 2013-12-27 08:02:27

    Yes as you say, while is interesting to think about, it is impossible for us to determine if the properties were truly physical or a symbolic. I was just trying to put that thought out there, that we really cannot be sure if Adam and Eve were already eternal. My thoughts on the reason for the tree of life and your thoughts on the validity of "perfection" certainly throw a double sided spanner in the works for me!

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-27 08:49:07

      I'm going out on a bit of a limb here, but I don't believe that "everlasting Life" and "eternal" are completely synonymous in the Bible. If you have the latter, you have the former (in a sense), but having the former doesn't in any way imply you have the latter.
      I'll explain.
      Adam had everlasting life--conditionally. His everlasting life depended on eating and drinking and breathing. It also depended on obedience to Jehovah. If he had continued doing all those things, he could have lived forever. If he stopped any one of them, he would have lost everlasting life. So you can have or possess something, but still lose it. Such is the nature of possessions. Everlasting life is a possession. The angels that fell may well have been around since before the universe was formed. They had everlasting life, but lost it. Now they do not have it.
      It would seem that a human passing a test of the nature that Jesus faced and passed enters into a new phase of being. He is truly perfect, not just sinless (one meaning of the word "perfect" in the Bible), but actually incapable of sin. As Apollos explains in of his posts, such a human is truly complete and as such has a guarantee of everlasting life. It is still a possession, but now God guarantees it, so it can never be taken away. I believe this will be the state of humans who pass the final test after the 1,000 years of Christ's reign has ended.
      None of the foregoing has to do with being eternal. Jehovah is eternal. His son, now that he has been made perfect, is eternal.
      Being eternal isn't about time, nor about living forever. God is not subject to anything, including the flow of time which is a created thing. He simply IS. So I believe the term "everlasting life" refers to something you have or possess. I cannot be everlasting life, but I can possess it. However, "eternal" refers to a quality of the person.
      So I agree with you that Adam was not eternal, and I'll go even further to suggest that neither he, nor any other human, could ever be eternal. An eternal being cannot be dependent, as we are, on external forces to sustain life--food, water, air.
      Jehovah doesn't have life, he is life. He doesn't have everlasting life. He is eternal.

      • Reply by Joel on 2013-12-27 09:56:00

        Agreed in principle that the word "eternal" does not strictly apply to us even though we can be given everlasting life. I think though this is a distinct situation from that of the fallen angels. Although destruction awaits, it apparently must be executed, so in a sense they do already have unending life as a possession, whereas we do not. As you correctly say we are subject to eating and drinking and breathing and poisons and a myriad other things. We age because our cells are designed to do so and scientists are only just beginning to unlock the secrets of the mechanisms that govern aging and death. What the real nature of eternal life is, I must leave to God.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-27 10:01:49

          Good point about the life of angels. There are so many unknowns.

  • Reply by anderestimme on 2013-12-27 13:50:04

    While we're speculating, how about if the eye-opening effect of eating the forbidden fruit was simply a built-in effect of disobeying God? What I mean is, when you do something you know is wrong, your conscience produces a powerful psychological effect which I'm guessing is chemical. Why not the eye-opening effect as well? For that matter, why not the accelerated dying effect?
    I'm not sure what the implications might be for the tree of life.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-27 16:03:30

      I agree with you, anderestimme, that it is likely that the eating of the "forbidden fruit" merely triggered a feeling of guilt, something they had never experienced, and thus they knew good and evil for the first time.

    • Reply by Joel on 2013-12-27 18:27:15

      That is possible, but I wonder why the bible provides a specific additional detail that they also realised they were naked? which then prompted God to ask the question - "who told you, that you were naked?" So here too I am left with the same question as with the tree of life. If the account is indeed symbolic in all these details, then why provide the details?

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-27 19:31:46

        Hi Joel,
        I don't understand the premise of your question.

        • Reply by Joel on 2013-12-28 10:15:54

          "it is likely that the eating of the “forbidden fruit” merely triggered a feeling of guilt"
          I appreciate your view. I was just asking, if that is the case, then why provide the additional conversation regarding their nakedness? Being naked does not trigger guilt. The account specifically says "7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; 10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid. 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”"
          So I am just asking the question - all this discussion of nakedness is simply about guilt? Personally, I don't think so. I don't believe the account can be merely patchwork symbolic. It seems to say that their perception was completely changed somehow - was that because the spirit of God left them? Was it because something actually changed in them? That's just my view and by the way, this is your site and I did not mean to deviate so far from the original topic which was great, so feel free to moderate :)

          • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-28 10:42:23

            I see your point, Joel. Yes, I've wondered about that too. When I was a kid, we left the dog inside too long while away. When we got him, he ran away from us when he usually ran to meet us. We found him cowering in the corner because he had peed and he knew he wasn't supposed to. I put this forward only as an illustration. Whether a dog has some form of rudimentary conscience or whether this was the result of conditioned behavior, I cannot say. But it was obvious that he knew he had done wrong and his first reaction was to hide. Adam and Eve both had a working conscience and it would have informed them that they had sinned. That would be the source of the guilt. Their recognizing their nakedness however is not so clear. Was it like the dog? Were they recognizing how exposed they were? Is that why they hid? They felt naked and vulnerable before God?
            Or did a broken conscience trigger something more? Would they be programmed to recognize their unworthiness to reproduce? Did something more fundamental change in their brains as a result of sin? I really can't say, but you've brought up a very interesting question.

Comment by Sargon on 2013-12-28 02:42:43

I love this post and the comments about everlasting life and knowing Jesus. As JWs we are never really taught to know Jesus. I think that's why many are depressed. I didn't really come to know Jesus until I began reading the bible without the help of WT publications. Once I came to know Jesus I became happier and was no longer feeling guilty about not perfectly meeting the millions of rules that are imposed upon us. Instead I was only concerned about following Jesus explict commands. If we came to know Jesus we wouldn't be so demanding and judgemental of our brothers. If we knew that our names have already been written in the book of life by our Lord as mentioned in Revelation 3:5 we would esteem that gift. We would do everything to hold on to our crown instead of chasing the dangling carrot as we've been taught (Rev 3:11). This would move us to holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion. Instead we are taught to feel that we must earn our reward, and many of our brothers do things just to earn life and not because they are moved by love for Christ. We cannot be truly motivated by love of Christ until we come to know him. And if we know Christ than we know God as well, because Christ reveals the father to us (Matt 11:27). I wish more of our brothers knew that we already have the gift everlasting life, unless we prove unfaithful and reject our gift like Adam. If we keep a firm grip on our gift, when we die we will be granted to eat from the tree of life which is in the paradise of God (Rev 2:7).

• Reply by mdnwa on 2013-12-31 16:06:31

  Sargon I feel EXACTLY like you and hid it so long I developed DEEP depression. My depression was so deep my head hurt, back hurt, and I didn't even want to leave the bed sometimes. I thought for years it was only me that had such questions and I in somehow was "spiritually weak" and rejecting the GB so disapproved somehow to God. However, like you said the more I just simply read just the bible and not use the publications which seemed to change every year and confuse me even more and talk with other Christians (and not to puff up Meleti but read this blog :) I have been getting better.
  That's not saying there are not some good material but before I ALWAYS never felt good enough or just was waiting to die at Armageddon but now I actually am excited about the future and much more honest with myself and things I need to work on NOT out of fear of the elders but because of my appreciation of what Jesus and God have done for me. While not perfect and still have issues with depression sometimes it's not even close to before and I snap back much faster. I must admit that me applying what was in front of me all this time and not worrying about men was the best thing for me, but of course everyone is different.

Comment by A searcher for truth on 2014-01-01 06:36:43

Well the horse could go here for a start for a refreshing drink.
https://anointedjw.org/Fathers_Acceptable_Year.html

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-02-03 01:21:47

Meleti,
Here are my thoughts on john 3:17:
Knowing god here has nothing to do with knowledge. It has to do with knowing him like a newborn knows his mother. Everlasting life is promised to those who come to know God through Christ, and requires one to be born again. Once anointed, they know God as a Father.

Comment by The Irish Dub on 2019-04-21 16:26:43

Everlasting / Eternal LIFE is a quality of Life (Zoe Life) . This Life is God's own Life/substance/divine nature/Spirit that is also in the person of the Word aka Jesus. John 5:26, 1 John 1:1-3.
John17:3....KNOW God ...A Nature has an affinity to its own Nature (not mere head knowledge/information) and it's motivation is evident and experienced in what it can achieve in pots of clay, that otherwise are just that ! 2 Peter 1:3-12, 2 Timothy 2:13, 1 Peter 1:3-16

Comment by Romana on 2021-08-15 16:29:11

Hi Eric, this is true, we were selling a product and not really for the cheap price!