Midweek Meeting Comments – Jan. 20, 2014

Comment by kev c on 2014-01-20 13:33:40

About ezekiels vision meleti who knows what it really means erich von daniken thought it was a spaceship its easy for anyone to pick on these vague visions and prophecies and come up with a meaning no one can really refute it because no one for sure really understands it my attitude has always been with the likes of this is it may be right or it may be wrong but dont base a core doctrine on it and definatly dont try and force me to believe it .kev c

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-20 18:22:35

Kev C I believe as you do .Why are we basing doctrine on symbolic filled prophecies that are difficult to interpret ?( e.g Revelation 7:4 means that only 144,000 Christians are adopted sons of God) We are hardly given scriptural support for these interpretations, we are usually just told that “A” means this or “B” represents this. Those statements are usually the set up to go on this wild journey with GB to interpret any prophecy. In order to buy into interpretation in the first place we are told since we (JW’s) are the only people who are truly faithful to God that gives us the unique ability to understand and interpret prophecy ( that theme is repeated throughout the Revelation book). In reality , "we" have not arrived at the interpretations of any of these prophecies.... it is the eight men who represent us.

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-01-21 03:24:29

"Appreciating Jehovah's Organization," #10 on the old series of 88 public talks. Don't know how many times I gave that 55 minute talk (mostly on Ezekiel), but my wife almost had it memorized :)

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-21 08:17:13

  If only we had known then what we know now, right?

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-21 10:37:58

My comment is from the Bible reading this week.
So far we have read 3 instances in Genesis where there is reference to "calling upon” God. (Gen 4:26 ,Gen 13:4, Gen12:8)
The lively comments under Apollos' post regarding “calling upon” the Lord vs. praying came to mind during my Bible reading this week .
I believe that the context of Romans 10:14 in verses 13 provides much clarification for me . Paul's words help me to understand that it is not the action of “calling upon” that saves me, but rather it is my faith in the One upon whom I am calling that saves me. If calling upon was synonymous with prayer Paul would have just said that. This appeal is not in the form of a prayer but rather it appears to be, in this instance, an acknowledgement of Jesus/Jehovah as the only means of salvation.
I'm reminded of a question I had on Gen 4:26 in our Bible reading a few weeks back. What did the calling upon of the Lord's name mean in this scripture?
I was satisfied with the answer I found in w09 2/1 13
"At that time a start was made of calling on the name of Jehovah.” (Genesis 4:25, 26) Sadly, that “calling on the name of Jehovah” was in an apostate way.”
Upon further reflection I do not believe that in this instance of "calling upon the name of Jehovah" has a negative connotation especially since in every other instance in the Bible it is a positive one. I am more inclined to believe that based on the flow of the surrounding verses that "calling upon” in this verse possibly means that a formal manner of true worship was re-established with the birth of Seth .The previous verses speak at great length about Cain and his unrighteous offspring. Then the scriptures make a transition from that to speaking about the righteous line of Seth and then state “At that time a start was made of calling on the name of Jehovah” .
I think it is also noteworthy that in our Bible reading this week this phrase is repeated at Gen 13:4, Gen12:8 where Abraham is spoke of as "calling upon the name of Jehovah" in reference to the altar that he built. Since there are no recorded prayers to Jehovah by his servants in Genesis that, in my mind, further supports the idea that calling upon Jehovah is not prayer…..
Thanks again Meleti for this space on your forum to express our thoughts regarding the weekly meeting.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-21 12:55:26

  Thank you, GodsWordIsTruth, for giving a thoughtful counter argument to further this discussion.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-21 13:15:05

  GodsWordIsTruth,
  Whilst I don't have a fixed opinion of exactly what "calling upon" means, it does seem to imply an action of some sort. So whilst it may be true that the faith is what saves, there still remains the question of what "calling upon" actually is, even if it is not synonymous with prayer.
  (I agree with you that there seems no particular reason to read Gen 4:26 in a negative context.)
  Apollos

  • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-01-21 20:36:27

    I am in agreement with you Apollos that I too " don’t have a fixed opinion of exactly what “calling upon” means". My opinion is taking shape based on the scriptural reasoning on this site :)

  • Reply by anderestimme on 2014-01-23 10:41:42

    Here's another instance:
    (Genesis 16:13) Then she began to call the name of Jehovah, who was speaking to her: “You are a God of sight,” for she said: “Have I here actually looked upon him who sees me?”
    This comes right after Hagar has a lengthy conversation with the angel of Jehovah. It does not, in this instance, appear to refer to prayer, though it's not entirely ruled out. It's also interesting that she viewed having seen Jehovah's angel as equivalent to having seen Jehovah himself.

    • Reply by anderestimme on 2014-01-23 11:38:15

      Oops, just realized that it says "call the name of", not 'call upon'. The Greek word used here is related to that used in 12:8 and 13:4, but it's not quite the same. In any case, it's the Hebrew that would really matter. So this example may not be relevant.

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-23 18:07:15

        Yes, I misread that first time through too.

        • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-24 06:00:40

          Ah, but that's because the RNWT does indeed say "called on the name of Jehovah". I subsequently read it in the reference Bible where it just says "call the name of Jehovah".
          At first inspection it seems that the old version might be right though. Looking at the masoretic text on http://www.blueletterbible.org/ in Gen 12:8 and 13:4 there appears to be some sort of modifier on the word שֵׁם (shem) which is the "call" bit of the text, so that it becomes בְּשֵׁם. But that modifier doesn't appear in Gen 16:13.
          I've no knowledge of Hebrew so all I can say is that it does appear to be different.

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-31 08:51:23

  In my Bible reading this morning….
  I came across another instance of “calling upon the Lord” at Genesis 26:25 ...
  (ESV)
  New International Version
  Isaac built an altar there and called on the name of the LORD. There he pitched his tent, and there his servants dug a well.
  New Living Translation
  Then Isaac built an altar there and worshiped the LORD. He set up his camp at that place, and his servants dug another well.
  Calling upon the Lord in this instance is again connected with building an altar in the book of Genesis.
  I stated originally that there were no recorded instances of prayer in the book of Genesis. I was wrong. Jacob is recorded praying to God at Genesis 32:9-12 because he was afraid of his brother Esau:
  9 After that Jacob said: “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Jehovah, you who are saying to me, ‘Return to your land and to your relatives, and I will deal well with you,’+ 10 I am unworthy of all the loyal love and of all the faithfulness that you have shown toward your servant,+ for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan and now I have become two camps.+ 11 Save me, I pray you,+ from the hand of my brother E′sau, for I am afraid of him that he may come and attack me,+ as well as the mothers and their children. 12 And you have said: ‘I will certainly deal well with you, and I will make your offspring* like the grains of sand of the sea, which are too numerous to count.’

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-31 09:36:21

    It seems to me that this uncertainty about the meaning of "calling upon" is unfounded. It really does seem that it is an invocation showing faith in God. Did we see any proof to the contrary that such an act was NOT a form of prayer? If not then I think the burden of proof must be upon the one who insists that it is something different.
    Note Psalm 148:18,19:
    Jehovah is near to all those calling upon him,
    To all those who call upon him in trueness.
    The desire of those fearing him he will perform,
    And their cry for help he will hear, and he will save them.
    "Calling upon the name" of a deity always seems to be putting one's trust in him by means of a petition, even when it is the wrong deity. Note 1 Kings 18:26: ... and they kept calling upon the name of Ba′al from morning till noon, saying: “O Ba′al, answer us!” But there was no voice, and there was no one answering. And they kept limping around the altar that they had made.
    This puts in stark contrast the first century Christians calling upon the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 9:14; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Tim 2:22).

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-31 09:52:32

      I am beginning to agree. I came across New International Version 1 Samuel 12:18 this morning as well
      “Then Samuel called on the LORD, and that same day the LORD sent thunder and rain. So all the people stood in awe of the LORD and of Samuel.”
      I just read the verses you quoted. It’s hard to say that in “calling upon the Lord” prayer is not inclusive.

Comment by anderestimme on 2014-01-23 11:27:19

Here's another interesting verse for it's use of the word "generation".
(Genesis 15:13, 16) And he began to say to A′bram: “You may know for sure that your seed will become an alien resident in a land not theirs, and they will have to serve them, and these will certainly afflict them for four hundred years....But in the fourth generation they will return here, because the error of the Am′or·ites has not yet come to completion.”
The word used in the Septuagint is "genea", the same one used it Matthew 24:34. Here it definitely seems to have a temporal aspect.
Also interesting is that here, as in the time of the judges, 400 years is equivalent to four generations.
(Matthew 1:5, 6)  Sal′mon became father to Bo′az by Ra′hab; Bo′az became father to O′bed by Ruth; O′bed became father to Jes′se;  Jes′se became father to David the king.

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-23 18:47:26

anderestimme
This is a really interesting comment.
First of all I agree that the generations here have a temporal aspect. This is consistent with Ex 1:6 also (which is the scripture used to "support" the overlapping generations idea).
I'm not sure about the four generations being the same things as the 400 years in the Gen 15 passage though. I haven't researched it so I could be wrong, but in v13 he says that the Israelites will serve as slaves in Egypt for 400 years. But the ending of the fourth generation of v16 coincides with the error of the Amorites coming to completion and the Israelites returning "here". Where is the "here" that is being spoken of? It is where Abraham is at the time - the promised land - and specifically the piece of the promised land that would be inhabited by the Ammorites.
But the Israelites did not find themselves there at the end of the 400 years. The 400 years according to out official timeline ran from 1913 - 1513 B.C.E. at which point the Israelites DID leave Egypt, but they would not find themselves "here" in the promised land for at least 40 more years on top of that. Now 4 generations can't correspond to 40 years either, but could it possibly correspond to the time from leaving Egypt to actually having gained ascendency over the Amorites so as to literally be "here" where Abraham was? I don't know it's just a thought.
That having been said, your observation about Sal'mon -> David is a good one.Your dates appear to be right on the mark. How old were each of these men when they were having the next generation? They must have been pretty old. As long as their wives were young enough then I guess there is technically no problem with that. But would that segment of genealogy be typical of how generations were described? By my calculation the previous 400 years in that line had consisted of 8 generations, and the subsequent 400 years a whopping 15 generations as far as I can see. Maybe I have that last figure wrong because Matthew says 14 generations from David to the deportation to Babylon, but the footnote to Matt 1:8 indicates that Matthew skipped three for some reason. I must check that out.
It's a really interesting point anderstimme. I have to do some more research on that. Or would that be contrary to 1 Timothy 1:4 . . ."nor to pay attention to ... to genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research"?
:)
Thanks.
Apollos

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-23 19:13:46

  I remember something going way back about the 400 or was it 450 years counting from the mistreatment of Isaac at the hands of his older half-brother. So the Israelites didn't reside in Egypt for 400. I don't know if that impacts on the 4 generations.

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-24 06:13:35

    You're right. And it is arguably 4 generations for the complete period. Please mostly discount my earlier objection.
    As long as you count after Isaac it's Jacob -> Judah -> Perez -> Hezron (Matt 1:2,3; Luke 3:33,34).
    So Hezron would have come out of slavery, and his son Ram was born in the wilderness presumably.
    I say "arguably" because you have to not include Isaac, and then Ram would technically be the fifth generation. But perhaps Hezron counts just for being in the wilderness on his way to the promised land.
    I hadn't realized that Israel's slavery in Egypt was so relatively short i.e. 2 generations.