Grok on open theism.

 Open theism, also known as open theology or free will theism, is a theological framework that emphasizes God’s relational nature and the openness of the future. It holds that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent but chooses to limit His foreknowledge or control over human decisions to allow for genuine free will. Key points:

Open theism, also known as open theology or free will theism, is a theological framework that emphasizes God’s relational nature and the openness of the future. It holds that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent but chooses to limit His foreknowledge or control over human decisions to allow for genuine free will. Key points:

God’s Knowledge and the Future: Open theism posits that the future is not entirely fixed or exhaustively known by God. Instead, God knows all possibilities and probabilities but leaves room for human free choices, making the future partly "open" or undetermined.

Divine-Human Relationship: God interacts dynamically with creation, responding to human actions in real-time rather than following a predetermined script. This makes prayer, decisions, and actions meaningful, as they can influence outcomes.

Biblical Basis: Proponents cite scriptures where God appears to change His mind (e.g., Exodus 32:14), expresses surprise (e.g., Jeremiah 3:7), or tests people to discover their choices (e.g., Genesis 22:12), suggesting a relational rather than deterministic view.Critiques: Critics, often from classical theism (e.g., Calvinism), argue it undermines God’s sovereignty or omniscience, claiming an all-knowing God must know the future exhaustively. Open theists counter that God’s omniscience includes all that is knowable, but an open future is inherently unknowable in detail.

Key Figures: Theologians like Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd have been influential in developing and defending open theism.It’s a minority view within Christianity, often debated for its implications on divine providence, prophecy, and human responsibility. If you want a deeper dive into specific arguments, biblical texts, or criticisms, let me know!

I repeat my ultimatum to nincsnevem.

 Mr.nincsnevem you made a false claim against us and not only have you not retracted your false claim but you are making additional false claims. Either you supply quotes to back up your false claim or you retract the falsehoods nothing less that that is going to reactivate this conversation

Where is the quote stating that organ transplants were a serious enough violation to warrant expulsion if no repentance was forthcoming? And as for your new lie where did russel say that only those accepting a particular chronology would be saved or who rejected any chronology should be expelled from the congregation?

Your copying and pasting of apostate lies  does not meet my standard you keep repeating the lie that the brother's equated transplants with canabalism the mention of canabalism in that one article was from a direct quote from a nonwitness publication,the fact that you can't produce one single other quote from any witness publication where the brothers themselves make that claim is telling. The book the truth that leads to eternal life is what provided guidance as to qualifications for baptism and also what wrongdoing can lead to disfellowshiping during the sixties and seventies,it NEVER mentioned organ transplants. The book you can live forever in paradise on earth followed it too never mentions organ transplants clearly organ transplants were never put on the same level as transfusions or the flag salute issue. So I going to have to reject your lies until you produce a quote specifically stating that JEHOVAH Hates transplants and that true christians never get transplants that is the language that lets JWs know that a particular pattern of conduct can lead to disfellowshiping.

I note your pathetic excuse making with russel as well,the brother never claimed that anyone who rejected any chronology will not be saved that is a lie plain and simple. You either retract these lies or produce actual quotes not self-serving praphrases chapter and verse.

January 1908": : "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them""

There are essential truths but these pertain to the identity of JEHOVAH and his high priest and his standard of moral and spiritual purity not a complete understanding of recorded prophesy as JEHOVAH'S People have NEVER Had a complete understanding of recorded prophesy even the apostles and prophets who uttered the prophesies did not fully understand them understand them 1Corinthians ch.13:9

And haven't you made loyalty your church a requirement for salvation so why the hypocrisy?

Why can't you at least point to one other article 

We reject the anthropology of those who have repeatedly shown a willingness to trample our rights. The truth book mentions the blood issue it is unconceivable that it eould not also mention the organ transplant issue if it were equally serious. Note to the blood issue is repeatedly mentioned you and your kind have to rely on this one admittedly vague article for your entire case it is never the case that an actionable offense is based on a single vague article.

There are things that violate cultural our norms that do not rise to the level of disfellowshiping there are far more articles about marrying unbelievers for example or watching horror movies than there are about organ transplants but you can't be expel from the congregation for either. You likely will not be considered for any privileges of service but you won't be expelled.

And you keep muddling issues I said nothing about your church expelling anyone I said you made loyalty to your church a requirement for salvation,eternal torture seems a far more serious consequence than loosing fellowship with a tiny hated minority

You need to find some better approach to argumentation your argument by unrecognized authority of your church or your self proclaimed ability to peer into our souls and know what we are thinking is not cutting it. Leave the peering into men's souls to God

You are again confusing the issue the issue is not whether a cultural norm is violated but whether the violation rises to the level of disfellowshiping no disfellowshipible offense has been based on a single article this has never happened your propaganda is rejected but we note that as usual you provide no quotes. Your quote free claims are rejected.

All disfellowshipible offenses are made known prior to baptism in our baptism preparation material during the sixties and seventies that would be the the truth that leads to eternal life the book also mentions offenses that fall below the disfellowshiping level yet it does not even mention organ transplants in that context.

So the issue is not.Our authority is the bible we recognize the administrative authority of the brothers because the BIBLE Commands us to hebrews 13:17 we confirm our essential doctrine by our personal study of the bible enabled by holy spirit we do not believe in modern day prophets. A plenary understanding of prophecy is not required or we would have to reject Christ apostles as God's channel 1Corinthians 13:9. Your church is not recognized as an authority. I recognize the administrative authority of the brothers because the signs JEHOVAH Provides in his word the BIBLE to guide sincere truthseekers to his true church are confirmed in them. Holiness and Peace elements notably lacking in Christendom's churches.

As for real world harm no representative of the bloodstained churches of christendom has any standing to lecture us about real world harm,the reason why many secular voices spoke against transplants back at the beginning of the procedure was because it was not an unmitigated good,many were killed by immune reactions and even in a best case scenario you were prolonging one person's life by months by shortening another petson's life by years. So to speak as if the matter were open and shut is typical of the kind of disengenuity we have come to expect from your kind.

Here is the march 1980 article you mentioned clearly the there is no hint that people were previously disfellowshiped for reaching different conclusions to the writer of the 1967 article.

Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient’s body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals that had been drained of their life-sustaining blood. They may give consideration also to the way people in Bible times viewed sustaining themselves by taking in human flesh. For example, see the account at 2 Kings 6:24-30; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Lamentations 2:20 and La 4:10. At John 6:48-66, Jesus spoke figuratively of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. On hearing this discussion and not perceiving the spiritual significance of his words, some of his Jewish disciples were shocked and turned from following him. These accounts illustrate how some humans felt about eating human flesh.

Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food. In some cases persons nearing death actually have willed body parts to be used for transplants. Of course, if a transplant should require taking in another person’s blood, undeniably that would be contrary to God’s command.​—Acts 15:19, 20.

Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

Note that those who had previously to this article arrived at different conclusions are called sincere christians and they would have felt free to vent their concerns because in their preparation for baptism this was not presented as an essential,that is if it was mentioned at all.

I also observed that you have returned to repeating the vaccination lie for which you can't even cite a vague watchtower article as support. I'm sorry I can't allow you to simply repeat these lies your fellow sociopaths have numerous places on the net where you can repeat your lies unchallenged,you will just have to confine your lying propaganda to those spaces,but it's definitely not going to be happening here.

Again being viewed as immature is not the same as being in line for disfellowshiping you keep conflating the two issues clearly it did not rise to the level of disfellowshiping.

Its so stupid to remark that marrying outside the faith was never called cannibalistic. 

As for vaccines The watchtower is the voice of the governing body not the awake and again why can't you cite two or three of these screeds from the golden age, besides the one article written by a nonwitness you liars you usually trot out I mean,I promise to put them unedited on the blog so the public can read them for themselves

As soon as the blood issue was deemed serious enough to warrant expulsion that was explicitly stated publicly likewise some issue of the truth book would have clearly stated the prohibition against transplants if rose to the level of expulsion just as it mentioned smoking,saluting national emblems the blood issue. your position is in effect that we should unquestioningly accept the claims of those with a history of violently trampling our rights without CLEAR evidence. I don't care what your apostate handlers have been telling you but we are not idiots so that will never happen I demand chapter and verse minus your anthropology and mind reading if you can't meet that Standard this dialogue is over. 

I repeat the conclusion of the november 15 1967 question from readers bear in mind this is the only article on which this expulsion claim is based here is it's conclusion

It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.​—Prov.

That kind of language is NEVER used in articles about smoking,voting national election,fornication, saluting national flags those aren't personal decisions for a dedicated servant of JEHOVAH you can't be baptised unless you come around to JEHOVAH'S Opinion on these matters.

The Vaccination Fraud By Mrs. Andrew J. Holmes

The article is written by a woman I also observe that she does not cite a single scripture to back up her theories. On the inside copy of each issue of the golden age is a disclaimer making it clear that publishers and editor do not necessarily support every view there in hence my demand for watchtower article the 1931 article was written by a nonwitness.

More lies the watchtower was always the flagship publication there was never a time when that was not the case the absence of a single article making it clear that vaccines strictly prohibited. Clearly shows the mind of the leadership some may have been swayed by popular scepticism re vaccines at the time but in the absence of a scriptural foundation the GB at the time were cautious how come no articles from prominent members of the society were published anywhere how is it that no convention talks mentioned this Ironclad prohibition. I use the word liar because my own firsthand experience has established that as the case.

The 1921 article is written by a W.M Pugh even Grok could find him so I suspect that like the writer of the 1931 article he too was not a brother. Definitely not a brother of note. When it came to knew situations the brothers were ultra cautious it took decades before a firm stance was taken on the blood issue even though solid scriptural evidence was mounting,similarly with vaccines there were conflicting opinions even at the top,the hardliners had their way for a time but there was never any sanction. Rather it was presented as a test of maturity.

The 1923 article list some imminently qualified experts who also were sceptical about the 1920s version of vaccines

Among the names of famous men who are opposed to vaccination is that of Alfred Russell Wallace, who after exhaustive study prepared an essay on the subject “Vaccination a Delusion; Its Enforcement a Crime.” Prof. Wallace says: “While utterly powerless for good, vaccination is a certain cause of disease, and is the probable cause of about 10,000 deaths; and annually of 5.000 inoculahle diseases of themost terrible and moat disgusting character.” - Dr. Walton Ross, a scholarly student, physician and scientist, has this to say on the sub-ject:     “I should fail in my duty and prove false to the beat interests of humanity did I not record my convictions based on irrefutable facts that vaccination is an unmitigated curse, and the most destructive medical delusion which baa ever afflicted the human race. I know full well that the vaccinator sows broadcast the seeds of many filth diseases, of the skin, the hair and eye^ which are transmitted from generation to generation, an ever-abiding curse to humanity.”Dr. Charles Crighton, a recognized authority on epidemiology, and a pronounced vaccin- -ist, was selected by the publishers of the "Encyclopedia Britannica” to write an article on vaccination. To his own surprise and that of the editors, the fifteen-column article resulting from his exhaustive investigation was packed full with irrefutable proofs of the fallacy of vaccination.Dr. Carlo Ruata, Professor of Materia Medics, University of Perugia, Italy, was indicted and arraigned in the Prefers Court in Perugia* When making his own defense, he stated, after reciting the disastrous results of the practice in Italy:

“Were it not for this calamitous practice, smallpox would have been stamped out years ago, and would have disappeared. Believe not in vaccination; it is a worldwide delusion, an unscientific practice, a fatal ^uper* stition whose consequences are measured by thousands of dead and wounded, by tears and sorrow without endF. M. Lutze, M. has this to say about vaccination:

“When sowing disease we can only reap a harvest disease and death, and this is the result of vaccination.

I have treated a very large number of children for granular eyelids, disease of the heart, lungs, bronchi, and indigestion, undoubtedly due to vaccination, for they had become ill immediately after vaccination. Children who had been intellectually bright became dull and stupid soon after vaccination, and were restored to health with difficu“Sanitation, construction of sewers, collection and destruction of all refuse and waste, properly ventilated dwellings, pure food—these alone can prevent smallpox or any other disease.”

Just to show that concerns of some among the brothers were not conjured out of thin air.

Your no quotations no citations approach earns scepticism the watchtower would have expressed the firm prihibition if there ever was all JWs no that. There was widespread scepticism about vaccines even among prominent people like alfred wallace. Some of the brothers were drawn in nut the fact that there was never a convention talk or watchtower article is conclusive proof that there was no actionable ban. Your lies notwithstanding that is the way prohibitions have always been handled through the watchtower and conventions so until you can produce a convention talk or watchtower article you have lost this one your fellow haters can buy this nonsense if they like but it is obviously unfounded.

Cite an editorial. 

The encyclopedia britannica is a fringe publication?google Alfred Russel Wallace And again there NEVER was an actionable ban on vaccines the TOTAL absense of a convention talk or watchtower article establishes that beyond all reasonable doubt.

There was never any actionable ban on organ transplant the fact that it was not even mentioned in baptism preparation material when even non actionable issues like entertainment were mentioned establishes that beyond reasonable doubt.

Again the 1931 article was written by a nonwitness,in the absence of a single watchtower article or convention talk you simply have no case. Every actionable offense is the subject of multiple watchtower articles and convention talks. It has always been that way

You say there were editorials can you produce an example?

When I say actionable I mean there was no penalty some accepted many did not. And contary to your lies only the watchtower is the voice of the GB not any other publication I gather that you are unable to find an article that can even be twisted so as to appear to support your position so you have to assign this fictional status to the golden age. Find a watchtower article  that is your only hope

I only asked for an editorial because you claimed such editorials existed. Is this yet another false claim? Are you trying for some kind of record?

Again there is disclaimer making it clear that contributions I would think especially by nonwitnesses are not necessarily endorsed by the magazines publishers. That is why in the absence of clear direction through the church's flagship publication none of these would be regarded as an actionable prohibition

Give it up if you can't produce a watchtower article that is the end anyone who is familiar with our inner workings knows that.

The apostates who are feeding you these falsehoods know that too but they are conscienceless liars.

Every other publication has ALWAYS Been secondary to the watchtower any other claim is a lie period. Your utterly unfounded lies are rejected. And the fact that you need to stoop to such mendacity makes our point because if even one article that could have been quoted out of context so as to appear to support your claim existed that is exactly what you would have done.

What about tracts ,handbills and the like? Any of those? If the brothers are in some kind of rabid antivax campaign there would have to be some of those?

Don't get on any high horse with me. I am the authority on my beliefs not lying propagandists like yourself. The watchtower magazine has always been paramount re: the brother's official opinion everything else is ancilliary. Any actionable prohibition MUST  (not may) be explicitly stated by a watchtower article. And worse if you can't even produce a tract or handbill.

You said that the society's officer mr.woodworth  authored editorials anonymously against vaccines. And now you a mendaciously revising your previous claims none of those articles were authored by mr.woodworth or mr.rutherford and I have not seen any of the anonymous editorials that you alleged supported the antivax position.

Can you point to an article by Mr.Rutherford against vaccines or a talk against vaccines? Because the absence of such an article or talk would be utterly inexplicable given the imperial of his presidency.

Unless your brain has been turned to mush by apostate lies,it would be obvious that no actionable prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s could take place apart from direct vocal or written input of the then very imperial president of the society and his lieutenants.

You haven't produced a single article by mr.Woodworth himself none of the articles you cited were written by mr.woodworth,The Watchtower was always the lead publication your unfounded and selfserving assertions to the contrary only underline your desperation. The fact that neither rutherford nor his lieutenants had any direct input cannot be brushed aside at the behest of lying propagandists like yourself. A more realistic take woild be that likely some felt that the scepticism re:vaccines of people like the great alfred russel wallace, by no means a fringe thinker, had some merit on purely scientific grounds and the right of those who chose to conscientiously object to vaccines was being defended,but the upper leadership could not find a biblical basis for an ironclad ban. So this was the compromise allow the findings of qualified sceptics to be published,but there was no ironclad ban. Incidentally there was no disfellowshiping until the 1960s. 

 The bulk of the literature published by the society at that tine was authored by the president and his lieutenants including the watchtower's articles and there were definitely convention talks. So your claim that the president and his lieutenants need not weigh in on actionable prohibitions is at least as nonsensical as it sounds.

Your inability to produce a single article from the president or a lieutenant in support of your unfounded claim exposes you as the shameless liar that you are. 

If you were preparing for baptism in the 1920s and 1930s you would study the harp of God surely there would be something about christians missing out on paradise if they allowed their bodies to be polluted by vaccines in its pages if that was what Mr. Rutherford and his lieutenant thought.

From the book "Faith on the March" by AH McMillan page 188,189

One of the more serious problems I had to deal with, as I

remember, was vaccinations. An order was received from the

health department in Washington for all the inmates and

guards to be vaccinated. Some of our boys in one prison in

particular considered this the same as blood transfusions, and

refused to submit. This caused considerable trouble. Then the

order came from Washington to put all the men who refused

to be vaccinated in solitary confinement. This did not change

our men. The prison authorities hesitated to be overly strict

about it; still they had their orders from headquarters. Well,

during the excitement I arrived on my regular visit. Now the

matter was put up to me to advise our men.

I asked the Warden to permit me to talk to all the men who

refused to be vaccinated.

He said, “IYe can’t do that because all the men are in soli-

tary on orders from tvashington and they’ll have to stay there

until they submit.”

“Well,” I answered, “they’ll be there all their lives, then,

for they’re not the kind to go contrary to their consciences.

Now if you’ll permit me to talk to all the men we can do some-

thing, but with some in solitary I’m helpless.”

Then the Warden phoned iVashington and told them what

I said. He was told to permit all the men to attend the meet-

ing and to allow them to spend as much time in the meeting as

Macmillan thought best.

We had an interesting time. For about half an hour the

men talked about the evils of vaccination, and so on. After

all had had their say, I told them, “We’re wasting time talk-

ing about the evils of vaccination because much could be said

both ways. The point for us to consider is what are we going

to do about being vaccinated. They have you all where they

could vaccinate an elephant, and they will vaccinate you all.”

Up spoke the leader of the resistance and said: “What

would you do if you were in prison and were called up for

vaccination? ”I was in prison,” I reminded them, “and T bared my arm

and received the shot. Furthermore, all of us who visit our

foreign branches are vaccinated or we stay at home. Now

vaccination is not anything like blood transfusion. No blood

is used in the vaccine. It is a serum. So you would not be

violating those Scriptures which forbid taking blood into your

system.

Grok confirms that many nations required certificates of vaccination especially for smallpox during the preworld war 2 period as precondition for entry.

Actually the faith on the march story shows that it was a conscience issue some took that position others did not McMillan who was a high ranking member of the organisation did not take that position and by implication neither did mr.Rutherford and his lieutenants. your evidence free claim of some kind of esoteric knowledge of the inner workings of the organisation is rejected. Logic and commonsense alone would tell any balanced person that there is no way that given the imperial nature of the presidency of the Rutherford era his silence would carry the force of a permit. The fact that you can't locate a single article or talk from then president rutherford or any of his lieutenants is conclusive evidence that this was always viewed as a conscience issue.

The 1931 article was written by a nonwitness the fact that the president not only did not confirm it but according to the testimony of mr.McMillan accepted vaccines when they were in prison and also as a precondition when visiting foreign branches confirms they view it as a conscience issue.

The book the harp of God by mr.Rutherford was the baptismal preparation material of the time the absence of any mention of vaccines therein proves conclusively that this was considered a conscience issue.

McMillan was the equivalent of a governing body member today and thus outranks any of the writers you quoted.

Thus you could not only disagree with the writers of those golden age articles a remain a rank and file member in good standing,you could do so and be consider qualified for the highest privileges of service. You need to give it up you are embarassing yourself.

 Mr.Mcmillan was a member of the equivalent of the governing body at the time. He stated that while he and his fellow governing body member was in prison they were vaccinated. And that to travel to foreign branches he and his fellow governing body members had to get vaccinated it's all right there for anyone to read this would of course include brother rutherford. You have lost. Vaccines were clearly a conscience issue.

The fact that mr.rutherford and his lieutenants and their traveling representatives were themselves were vaccinated exposes as a total lie your claim that those who acted contrary to the articles in the golden age were victimised. Clearly that was not the case. Contrary to your lies apart from direct verbal or written input from mr.Rutherford and his lieutenants articles in the golden age would be secondary, not only but the longterm behavior of mr.Rutherford and his lieutenants for they did receive vaccinations as early as their imprisonment during world war 1 and there after would confirm the fact that vaccines were a conscience issue.

 If your aim was to totally destroy what little credibility you began with you have succeeded spectacularly mr.Rutherford and his lieutenants were vaccinated,traveling representatives of the society were vaccinated what rubbish are you talking?

They were in jail for refusing to violate their conscience so clearly they would not have received vaccines if these violated any conscienciously held conviction and leaders we are talking about are the topmost members of the visible organisation. Their traveling representatives rotinely received vaccines. The behavior and the silence of Mr.Rutherford and his lieutenants did clearly establish the vaccine issue as a conscience issue. Your failure to produce a single article from the watchtower or the harp of God establishes the fact that this was not a prohibition beyond all REASONABLE doubt.

They were in jail because of consciencious objection clearly they were not the kind to violate their conscience during world war II While the catholic and protestant clergy and were licking the fuhrer's boots it was the brothers who for the sake of conscience chose death or a life on the run rather than participate in the mass slaughter of their fellowmen so your argument makes zero sense.

Grok on whether God can defy the laws of logic according to christendom's theologians

 Christian theologians generally hold that God’s omnipotence allows Him to do anything that is logically possible, but not things that are logically impossible, as these are not coherent "things" to be done. A Euclidean triangle, by definition, is a flat, two-dimensional shape with three straight sides and angles that sum exactly to 180 degrees. This is a logical and mathematical necessity inherent to Euclidean geometry.

Most theologians, following thinkers like Thomas Aquinas or C.S. Lewis, would argue that God cannot create a Euclidean triangle with angles summing to more or less than 180 degrees because such a shape would contradict the definition of a Euclidean triangle, making it a logical impossibility akin to creating a "square circle." God’s power extends to all possible realities, but logical contradictions are not realities to be actualized.

However, some theologians might note that God could create non-Euclidean geometries (e.g., spherical or hyperbolic), where triangles have angle sums different from 180 degrees, as these are logically consistent systems. This doesn’t contradict the Euclidean definition but expands the geometric framework.

In short, most Christian theologians would say God cannot make a Euclidean triangle with angles not summing to 180 degrees, as it’s a logical contradiction, not a limit on His power.

Against unknown

Me:This is exact kind of stupidity couched in high sounding language the the holy scriptures warns us against ephesians.5:6

Unknown:Thomistic metaphysics provides the necessary clarity: God knows all things—past, present, future, and possible—by knowing Himself as the universal cause of all that is. His knowledge is not piecemeal or successive, but a single, eternal act. 

Me:if God foreordains a universe inhabited by true free moral agents akin to himself then logically only the possible choices of such free moral agents can be  foreknown since they have been granted the privilege of sharing with JEHOVAH in creating the future being true sons of God. If all of God's thoughts and acts are eternally foreordained then logically he himself is not free and therefore cannot confer freedom on any of his sons.

Unknown:All possible choices and contingencies are present to Him, but He causes no one to sin;

Me:No every choice has already been made by God in your behalf. To prevent evil all he would need to do is not create those making the wrong choices unless he himself has no choice.you don't get to have your cake and eat it too

 Unknown:He merely permits it, respecting the genuine secondary causality and freedom of rational creatures. Predestination, 

Me:If he foreknew your choice eternally prior to your existence his giving you the means to commit evil with that knowledge in mind makes him an accessory. If his acts are all foredetermined then he himself is not free and cannot be a source of freedom

Unknown:in Catholic doctrine, is always subordinated to the universal salvific will of God (1 Tim 2:4); no one is predestined to damnation apart from foreseen resistance to grace. God’s foreknowledge is thus the mirror of His eternal act: it is both absolute and, paradoxically to the temporal mind, perfectly compatible with the free cooperation or refusal of creatures.

Me:All determinism counters morality because morality presumes genuine choice in moral decisions an eternal determinism makes choice a mere illusion God is not good if determinism is a fact.

Unknown:The Watchtower position, in seeking to exonerate God from responsibility for evil, only empties God of His divinity. A God who learns, is surprised, or cannot see the future is not worthy of worship, nor can He guarantee the fulfillment of His promises. Classical theism—and this is the Catholic faith—holds that God’s knowledge and will are not opposed to creaturely freedom but the very condition for its possibility. If God were not outside of time, upholding all things by His word, there would be no free agents to choose at all. To reject this is not only to misunderstand Scripture but to surrender the very ground of hope in divine providence.

Me:Plain logic and common sense tell us that only a free Father can beget free sons. God being free has eternal foreordain a creation where free children are a possibility. We can increase our freedom by making wise choices or decrease it by making foolish choices. Determinism manifestly excludes genuine freedom.

Unknown:In conclusion, the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine of “selective foreknowledge” is a grave theological error. It arises from a false dilemma (that God’s knowing causes our doing), a defective anthropology (reducing freedom to mere unpredictability), and a deficient theology (denying God’s immutability and omniscience).

Me:JEHOVAH Creates the future and is free to create an undetermined future to deny this fact is to undermine his true majesty JEHOVAH is not afraid of the dark he is the creator and sovereign over the the dark just as he is of the light he knows the limits of the dark see Isaiah.45:7. It is christendom's theologians who are injuring JEHOVAH'S Majesty in effect reducing him to the status of a machine.

Unknown:Catholicism, in the line of Thomas Aquinas, teaches that God’s omniscience is both perfect and perfectly compatible with genuine, meaningful freedom.

Me:Omniscience is not the issue does JEHOVAH Have the might and wisdom to create a future that is undetermined in certain respects. Does he have the freedom change his mind. BTW moral choices aren't only choices rendered meaningless by determinism,the entire concept of choice and liberty is rendered moot.

Unknown:The mystery of divine providence is not a rational contradiction but the very source of our confidence and awe before the Creator, who knows us better than we know ourselves, and yet “calls us friends” (John 15:15), inviting our free response to His love

Me:Every attempt to rationalise the obvious contradiction  between determinism and free will fails. Merely empty words, trust your divinely provided common sense and reject the the high sounding absurdities that the worldly wise are always attempting to pass off as subtleties.

Against Litigious XIX

 You accuse the Catholic Church of "mass murder" and "tolerating immorality" but fail to substantiate these claims with proper historical evidence. 

Bloodstained history of christendom is well known. Is there really an individual so deluded as to be unaware of it? But it is not the way that christendom has oppressed religious minorities that is the major stumbling block but the way she has treated her coreligionists,during the two world wars christendom introduced the world to mass fratricide on an industrial scale, industrial scale fratricide has returned to europe and again it is the christendom clergy who are beating the war drums.

While it is true that members of the Church, including clergy, have sinned throughout history, these individual failings do not represent the teachings or mission of the Catholic Church. Christ also instructed us on what to do when our religious leaders are hypocrites, even though their teachings are objectively correct: "Therefore, do and observe all that they tell you, but do not do according to their deeds, for they teach but do not practice." 

The law covenant was on its way out trying to reform that dying system would not have made sense as for the church of Christ hypicrisy was not to be tolerated.

 1corithians ch.5:12,13NIV"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” d"

(Matthew 23:2) The Church has always called for repentance and sanctity, recognizing that human beings are fallible (e.g., 1 John 1:8-9, Mark 2:17). Events like the Crusades or the Inquisition are often cited out of context. For example, the Crusades were largely defensive wars responding to centuries of Muslim aggression against Christian territories. While there were abuses, these were deviations from Church teaching, not evidence of systemic immorality. Similarly, the Inquisition's primary purpose was to combat heresy and preserve societal order in a deeply religious age, not to indiscriminately kill or oppress. Your argument ignores the Church's extensive contributions to human rights, charity, education, healthcare, and peacebuilding. Figures like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Calcutta, and Pope John Paul II exemplify the Church's commitment to promoting the dignity of every human life.

It is your deeds not your words and like I pointed out it is not the violent persecution of religious minorities that concern us(although that is bad enough)JEHOVAH Does not care whether you've killed your fellowman over religious or political or ethnic differences,all religions that tolerate mass killings by their members fall under curse of revelation 18:24 ,regardless of any sanctimonious proclamations about peace or repentance.

You compare criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses to Jewish opposition to the early Christian Church. This analogy is flawed. While the apostles sometimes misunderstood the timing of eschatological events (e.g., Acts 1:6-7), it’s all happened BEFORE they received the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), they never made false prophecies. They always affirmed that the exact timing of Christ's return was known only to God (Matthew 24:36). In contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses have repeatedly set specific dates for the end of the world (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975), which failed to come true. This is explicitly condemned in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, where false prophecy is identified by unfulfilled predictions. The early Church grew through the apostles’ preaching of Christ’s resurrection and their willingness to suffer martyrdom for their faith. This stands in stark contrast to the repeated doctrinal flip-flops and failed prophecies of the Watchtower Society, which have led to disillusionment and departures from the organization.

The apostles were actual prophets the brothers never claimed any type of prophethood Ive read all of those predictions in their proper context and not ONCE have I seen a thus saith the LORD type proclamation

(january 1908 watchtower" "We are not prqophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them".

But even the apostles admitted that they did not fully understand the prophesies that they proclaimed see 1Corinthians ch.13:9 just like the prophets of old did not fully understand the prophesies they proclaimed daniel ch.12:9. Note that their will continue to be an incomplete understanding of prophesy down to the end. But on matters having to do eith the identity of the true God JEHOVAH and his true high priest Jesus Christ and keeping ourseves in a sanctified condition upholding the bibles moral standards and keeping ourselves away from nationalism,war and politics the sign of JEHOVAH'S Presence among us and his absence from christendom could not be plainer

You claim that Jehovah's Witnesses fulfill Isaiah 2:2-4, which prophesies global peace under God's kingdom. However, Isaiah 2:2-4 refers to a future messianic age, not a present organizational structure. The prophecy envisions a time when all nations will seek God's ways and war will cease completely. This has not yet occurred, as evident in the ongoing conflicts and divisions in the world. While you claim internal peace, this ignores the emotional, spiritual, and familial harm caused by policies such as shunning, disfellowshipping, and the mishandling of abuse cases. True peace cannot exist where systemic harm persists, even if outward conflict is suppressed.

We have resisted pressure to kill our fellowman that includes threats of death from christendom's princes. If anyone finds our way of life to restrictive all he or she has to to do is not get baptised it's that simple the penalty(see 1Corinthians ch.5:11-13) for turning ones back on the vow you took of your own free will us known in advance,but it is a lie to clain that families are divided by the penalty, cohabiting blood relations are not required to abandon family obligations(Since blood and marital relationships are not dissolved by a congregational disfellowshiping action, the situation within the family circle requires special consideration. A woman whose husband is disfellowshiped is not released from the Scriptural requirement to respect his husbandly headship over her; only death or Scriptural divorce from a husband results in such release. (Rom. 7:1-3; Mark 10:11, 12) A husband likewise is not released from loving his wife as “one flesh” with him even though she should be disfellowshiped. (Matt. 19:5, 6; Eph. 5:28-31) Parents similarly remain under the injunction to ‘go on bringing up their children in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah’ even though a baptized son or a daughter yet a minor is disfellowshiped. (Eph. 6:4) And sons and daughters, of whatever age, remain under the obligation to ‘honor their father and mother’ although one or both of these may be disfellowshiped. (Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2) This is not difficult to understand when we consider that, according to the Scriptures, even political officials of this world are to be shown due honor by Christians) from the august 1 1974 watchtower page 470 par.17

Your assertion that there are "no harmful policies" among Jehovah’s Witnesses is demonstrably false. Shunning and disfellowshipping isolate individuals from family and community, often causing severe emotional and psychological harm. The Bible calls for forgiveness and reconciliation (Matthew 18:21-22, Luke 15:11-32), not punitive isolation. The prohibition of blood transfusions has led to preventable deaths, including children. This policy is based on a misinterpretation of biblical passages like Acts 15:28-29, which refer to dietary restrictions, not life-saving medical procedures. Numerous legal cases have revealed the Watchtower Society's failure to protect victims of abuse, often prioritizing organizational reputation over justice. This contradicts biblical teachings on caring for the vulnerable (Matthew 18:6).

Are you seriously comparing loss of fellowship by a minority of of ones relatives,you can still fellowship with the majority of your family and as we have seen it it is just a flat out lie that spouses and cohabiting offspring are forbidden from having normal family ties. Compared to the churches of christendom who use the power of the state to force their religion on those born in a certain geographic area this is nothing, remember we do not practice infant baptism,every baptismal candidatendies so of his own free will with full awareness of the penalty for breaking his oath,and the idea that a member of the catholic church thinks that he can compare the catholic churches record re:child abuse with us is laughable,grok gives the number of cases involving JWs in the last ten years as between 50 and 150 where as for the population at large 600,000 cases were brought before the court at the same time. Likely we can all agree that those are 50 to 150 cases too many but the fact is that it represents between 1 in 25000  and 1 in 8000 approximately whereas the ratio for the population at large is about one in 50. So this idea pushed by you and your kind that JW children are more likely to be abused is yet another lie. The idea that those who opt for bloodless medicine yet more lies,if any figures to that effect existed we both know that you and your fellow haters would make sure that they posted in a loop all over the internet,the only reason we have not seen any such figures is because they don't exist.

What's in a name?VII

  

Find article here.

 

 

 

 

4. There is strong evidence that Matthew (and possibly other NT writers) wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic). If this is so, the inspired Bible writer would surely have used the personal name of God! The Hebrew manuscripts at that time (and for many hundreds of years thereafter) contained the Name nearly 7000 times. Whenever Matthew (and the Hebrew-speaking Jesus and his Apostles) quoted from the Hebrew scriptures, he would have used the Name just as it is found in the Hebrew scriptures.

The WT Society also believes Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic):

"In the fourth century, Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, reported: `Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language.... Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea.' Since Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it is inconceivable that he did not use God's name, especially when quoting from parts of the `Old Testament' that contained the name." - p. 24, The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, WTBTS, 1984.

Noted trinitarian scholar F. F. Bruce agrees that the Gospel of Matthew (at least) was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic) and cites another source as evidence:

"Aramaic is known to have been the common language of Palestine, and especially of Galilee, in the time of Christ, and was in all probability the language which He and his Apostles habitually spoke. The New Testament writers usually call it `Hebrew,' thus not distinguishing between it and its sister language in which most of the Old Testament was written. Now, we have evidence of an early Aramaic document in another fragment of Papias [c. 60-130 A. D.]: `Matthew compiled the Logia [literally, "the collection" - Thayer] in the `Hebrew' speech [i.e. Aramaic], and everyone translated them [into Greek] as best he could.' " - p. 38, The New Testament Documents, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.

So, whether originally written in Greek or "Hebrew," the writings of the New Testament should have used the Name of God, especially in quotes from the Old Testament.

And when we restore the name of God to the NT, we eliminate the confusing contradiction of Matt. 22:43-45 and its parallels (Mk 12:36-37; Lk. 20:42-44) where Jesus quoted Ps. 110:1.

"How does David in the Spirit call him `Lord,' [kurios] saying, `The LORD [kurios] said to my Lord [kurios], "sit at my right hand, until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet." ' If David then calls him `Lord,' [kurios] how is he his son?" - Matt. 22:43-45, NASB.

Literally this says in the NT Greek:

"How therefore David in spirit is calling him Lord [kurios] saying Said `Lord [kurios] to the Lord [kurios] of me Be sitting out of right hand of me until likely I should put the enemies of you beneath the feet of you'? If therefore David is calling him Lord [kurios], how son of him is he?"- The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, WTB&TS, 1985.

First, of course, it doesn't say "The LORD said..."; it actually says "LORD said..." because the original was "JEHOVAH" (without "the," of course) and "Lord" was substituted for this name later (still without "the").

Second, in this version there are two uses of "Lord" [kurios], but Jesus speaks as though there is only one (because there really was only one "Lord" [kurios in the Greek here] at the time he spoke it! The other word that later copyists changed to kurios was originally "JEHOVAH" as can be seen by actually looking at the OT manuscripts that have the scripture Jesus was quoting!).

Third, not only is it confusing to have two uses of kurios here, but, if we insist on this version, it would be grammatically much more accurate to select the first use of this word (the substitute for "JEHOVAH") as the one Jesus was referring to. Since he said, "If David calls him `Lord'..." but not "David calls him `the Lord' (or `my Lord')...", it would be proper to say that Jesus was referring to the first `LORD' (which is without the word "the") in that quote from the OT. In reality, of course, he was actually referring to the "second" use of kurios as found in modern texts! All this would be smoothed out if the name were simply restored to the NT where it obviously was originally: "JEHOVAH said to my Lord" as found in the original Hebrew Old Testament Scripture at Ps. 110:1 which Jesus was quoting - ASV.

"Since confession of Jesus as Lord was the mark of the Christian and since for Christians there was no other Lord, it was natural for Paul to speak of `the Lord' when he wished to refer to Jesus. It is true that the same title was used to refer to God the Father, and that this can lead to a certain ambiguity as to whether God or Jesus is meant (this is especially the case in Acts; ...); generally, however, `LORD' is used for God by Paul almost exclusively in quotations from the OT" - p. 590, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publ., 1982.

Again, if the name of God were restored, there would not be so much "ambiguity" because these uses of `Lord' in quotations from the OT were originally `JEHOVAH' and hence there was no ambiguity or risk of confusion at all until later copyists changed that divine name in the NT manuscripts to kurios!

5. Of course Jesus used the name "JEHOVAH" in such places. He was a speaker of Hebrew who was quoting (or reading) scripture to other speakers of Hebrew. Of course he would use the Hebrew scriptures rather than the Greek Septuagint scriptures when quoting to these people. It would have been ludicrous for Jesus to have quoted from the Septuagint to these people when most of them would not have understood the Greek language of the Septuagint in the first place.

The native-born Jews in Israel spoke, of course, Hebrew. The Roman conquerors and administrators of the Empire spoke Latin. And the many businessmen and commercial travelers who visited and resided in Israel understood, in addition to their own languages, the common language of commerce in the Mediterranean world: Greek.

Of course there were some Jews who could speak Latin and/or Greek. There were some Romans who could speak Greek (and probably even a very few who could speak Hebrew also). And there were undoubtedly some foreigners there who could speak Latin (and probably a very few who could speak Hebrew also). But, by and large, if you wished to communicate with the majority of the Jews, you would have to do it in Hebrew (or the closely-related Aramaic). And if you wished to communicate with the Romans, you would have to do it in Latin, and so on.

So when Jesus was teaching the Jews from the holy scriptures, he was doing so in Hebrew.

If we should doubt such an obvious conclusion that the majority of Jews did not understand Greek (and therefore Jesus would not have taught them by quoting or reading from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint), we only need to look at John 19:19, 20.

"And Pilate wrote an inscription also .... Therefore this inscription many of the Jews read, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek." - NASB

Obviously the Latin was so the Romans could read the information about Jesus, and the Greek was so the foreign merchants and travelers could read about Jesus. But Pilate certainly would not have gone to the trouble of writing 1/3 of the sign in Hebrew if most of the Jews could already read one of the other two languages on that sign! It is obvious from this passage alone that many of them could not understand Greek and needed to read Hebrew to understand what Pilate wanted them to know!

Therefore, Jesus must have quoted from the Hebrew Bible when reading to the Jews. And the Hebrew Bible which he quoted at

Mt 21:42 actually says: "This is JEHOVAH'S doing; it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps. 118:23)

Mt 22:37 - "And you shall love JEHOVAH your God with all your heart..." (Deut. 6:5)

Mt 22:44 - "JEHOVAH said to my Lord: `Sit at my right hand...'" (Ps. 110:1)

Jn 12:38 - "... to whom has the arm of JEHOVAH been revealed?" (Is. 53:1)

6.

"Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Meir [`Second century rabbi who prepared a systematic edition of traditional Jewish law and doctrine, which paved the way for the final edition of the Mishnah' - p. 479, An Encyclopedia of Religion] are said to have made unfriendly puns on the word Euangelion [`the Greek word for "Gospel"' - p. 102] by altering its vowels to make it read 'Awen-gillayon or `Awon-gillayon, meaning [in Hebrew/Aramaic] something like `Iniquity of the Margin' ...." - p. 102, The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?, F. F. Bruce, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 printing.

So the word `margin' (gillayon) was used in a derogatory way for a Gospel ("most probably ... the Gospel according to Matthew" as first written in Hebrew or Aramaic - p. 102) of the Christians by these two very early Rabbis.

And when this word is made plural (`margins') it becomes gillayonim (or gilyohnim). Therefore, it is probable that this word was used derogatorily to denote copies of a Christian Gospel written in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

7. "From the middle of the 2^nd century AD [around 150 AD] Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms [instead of the original traditional Jewish terms]" – The New Encyclopaedia Britannica.

8. We can see that the source of Halleluia in existing copies of the Septuagint is really two words in the original Hebrew. For example the Hahlayloo Yah of Psalm 146:1 is obviously two separate Hebrew words: Hahlayloo [`praise ye'] and Yah [`Jehovah']. And yet, our oldest existing copies of the ancient Septuagint show these two words combined into one `new' word in Greek: Halleluia. And the same Greek word, Halleluia [ JAllhlouia], which was found in the earliest copies of John's Revelation, was likewise treated by copyists of the 2nd century. Whether John himself had combined the two words into one for the benefit of those Hellenic Jews to whom he wrote (who were familiar with the term as it was found in the Septuagint) or whether early copyists had done it to conform with the Septuagint is not the point here.

9. And, of course, it was passed along from its Septuagint use to other early Christian writings:

"The more diligent in prayer are wont to subjoin in their prayers the `Hallelujah,' and such kind of psalms, in the closes of which the company respond. And, of course, every institution is excellent which, for the extolling and honoring of God, aims unitedly to bring Him enriched prayer as a choice victim." - Tertullian (3rd cent. A.D.), ch. 27, `On Prayer,' The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, Eerdmans Publ., 1993 printing.

"And afterwards the deacon holding the mingled cup of the oblation shall say the Psalm from those in which is written `Hallelujah' [in the Septuagint].... And afterwards the bishop having offered the cup as is proper for the cup, he shall say the Psalm `Hallelujah.' And all of them as he recites the Psalms shall say `Hallelujah,' which is to say: We praise Him who is God most high" - Hippolytus (c. 160-235 A.D.), `The Apostolic Tradition,' 26:29-30 as quoted from The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Alban Press, London, 1992 ed.

10. Dr. F. F. Bruce correctly points out that, strictly speaking, the LXX deals only with the Law and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." (The Books and the Parchments, p.150). This is important to note because the manuscripts which consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD. Although there are fragments which pre-date Christianity and some of the Hebrew DSS agree with the LXX, the majority of manuscripts we have of the LXX date well into the Christian era. And, not all of these agree. - http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/septuag.htm - RDB.

Not so fast!

 

The word rendered worship is "proskuneo" and while JEHOVAH  receives absolute proskuneo/worship the bible clearly shows that holy messengers of God both human and superhuman can also lawfully receive a kind relative proskuneo/worship for instance,

Daniel ch.2:46KJV"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and WORSHIPPED Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him."

1Chronicles 29:20KJV"And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and WORSHIPPED the LORD, and the king."

Note that king David is worshiped alongside the Lord JEHOVAH

What about this:

Luke ch.4:8KJV"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the LORD thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

To help us reason scripturally on this matter lets consider another caution Jesus gave us.

Matthew ch.23:9,10NIV"And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah."

A careless investigator of God's word might conclude that Paul is in violation of Jesus's command based on such texts as:

  Romans ch.4:1NKJV"What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?"

1corinthians ch.4:15NIV"Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

Clearly our Lord was cautioning against the use of honorific titles especially those that might obscure JEHOVAH'S Unique fatherhood and Christ's unique teaching authority

So JEHOVAH Recieves absolute worship but his divinely appointed and empowered prophet can also lawfully receive relative worship out of regard for the God who selected and empowered him see Daniel ch.2:46 but Luke ch.4:8b uses the Greek word Latreo only the God and Father of Jesus is ever depicted as receiving Latreo in the Holy scriptures and no one else, so it is interesting that Jesus takes pains to spell out that only the Lord JEHOVAH is entitled to this absolutely sacred form of worship.

Health risks that corelate with regular gay sex according to GROK

 Anal sex:

Tissue Damage and Injury: The anal tissue is delicate and lacks the natural lubrication of the vagina, making it prone to tearing or abrasions. Repeated trauma can lead to fissures, hemorrhoids, or chronic pain. Over time, this may weaken the anal sphincter, potentially causing incontinence, though evidence on significant sphincter damage from consensual anal sex is mixed and not conclusive for most people.

Increased STI Risk: Anal sex has a higher risk of transmitting sexually transmitted infections (STIs) like HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and HPV due to the thin rectal lining, which is more susceptible to microtears that allow pathogens to enter the bloodstream. Consistent condom use significantly reduces this risk, but it’s not foolproof. HPV, linked to anal cancer, is a particular concern, especially without vaccination.

Infections: Bacterial infections, such as those from E. coli or other fecal bacteria, can occur if hygiene isn’t prioritized. This includes urinary tract infections or, in rare cases, abscesses. Enemas or improper cleaning methods can also disrupt the rectal environment, increasing infection risk.

Anal Cancer: Long-term anal sex, particularly with HPV exposure, correlates with a higher risk of anal cancer, though this is rare. The risk is higher in populations like MSM (men who have sex with men) due to higher HPV prevalence, but it’s not exclusive to them. Regular screening and HPV vaccination can mitigate this.

Discomfort and Pain: Without proper lubrication or relaxation, regular anal sex can cause chronic discomfort or pain, sometimes leading to psychological aversion or sexual dysfunction. Using adequate water-based or silicone-based lubricants and pacing activities reduces this risk.

 STIs: Oral sex can transmit infections such as herpes (HSV), gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and human papillomavirus (HPV). HIV transmission is less common but possible, especially if there are cuts, sores, or bleeding gums. HPV is notable for its link to throat and mouth cancers, particularly from high-risk strains.

And oral sex:

Bacterial Infections: Less commonly, bacteria like Treponema pallidum (syphilis) or Neisseria gonorrhoeae (gonorrhea) can infect the throat, sometimes without obvious symptoms.

Oral Health Factors: Pre-existing oral wounds, gum disease, or poor hygiene can increase susceptibility to infections during oral sex.

Other Risks: Rare cases of gastrointestinal infections (e.g., from fecal-oral contact in specific practices) or allergic reactions (e.g., to semen or lubricants) have been noted.

Romans ch.1:27NKJV"Likewise also the [j]men, leaving the natural use of the [k]woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

Let God be found true.

 

 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One

Why It Matters; What the Evidence Shows 

Watchtower 1/10/2011

This is the first of two articles in consecutive issues of The Watchtower that discuss scholarly questions surrounding the date of the destruction of ancient Jerusalem. This two-part series presents thoroughly researched and Bible-based answers to questions that have puzzled some readers.

“According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction.*Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.? What is your basis for this date?”

SO WROTE one of our readers. But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. One historian said that it led to “a catastrophe, indeed the ultimate catastrophe.” The date marked the end of a temple that had been at the heart of the worship of Almighty God for more than 400 years. “O God,” lamented a Bible psalmist, “they have dishonored your holy temple. They have left Jerusalem in ruins.”—Psalm 79:1, God’s Word Bible.*

Second, because knowing the actual year when this “ultimate catastrophe” began and understanding how the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem fulfilled a precise Bible prophecy will build your confidence in the reliability of God’s Word. So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.

“Seventy Years” for Whom?

Years before the destruction, the Jewish prophet Jeremiah provided an essential clue to the time frame given in the Bible. He warned “all those living in Jerusalem,” saying: “This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:1, 2, 11, New International Version) The prophet later added: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.’” (Jeremiah 29:10) What is the significance of the “seventy years”? And how does this time period help us to determine the date of Jerusalem’s destruction?

Instead of saying 70 years “at Babylon,” many translations read “for Babylon.” (NIV) Some historians therefore claim that this 70-year period applies to the Babylonian Empire. According to secular chronology, the Babylonians dominated the land of ancient Judah and Jerusalem for some 70 years, from about 609 B.C.E. until 539 B.C.E. when the capital city of Babylon was captured.

The Bible, however, shows that the 70 years were to be a period of severe punishment from God—aimed specifically at the people of Judah and Jerusalem, who were in a covenant to obey him. (Exodus 19:3-6) When they refused to turn from their bad ways, God said: “I will summon . . . Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon . . . against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations.” (Jeremiah 25:4, 5, 8, 9, NIV) While nearby nations would also suffer Babylon’s wrath, the destruction of Jerusalem and the 70-year exile to follow were called by Jeremiah “the punishment of my people,” for Jerusalem had “sinned greatly.”—Lamentations 1:8; 3:42; 4:6, NIV.

So according to the Bible, the 70 years was a period of bitter punishment for Judah, and God used the Babylonians as the instrument for inflicting this severe chastisement. Yet, God told the Jews: “When seventy years are completed, . . . I will . . . bring you back to this place”—the land of Judah and Jerusalem.—Jeremiah 29:10, NIV.

When Did “the Seventy Years” Start?

The inspired historian Ezra, who lived after the 70 years of Jeremiah’s prophecy were fulfilled, wrote of King Nebuchadnezzar: “He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power. The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.”—2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, NIV.

Thus, the 70 years were to be a period when the land of Judah and Jerusalem would enjoy “sabbath rests.” This meant that the land would not be cultivated—there would be no sowing of seed or pruning of vineyards. (Leviticus 25:1-5, NIV) Because of the disobedience of God’s people, whose sins may have included a failure to observe all the Sabbath years, the punishment was that their land would remain unworked and deserted for 70 years.—Leviticus 26:27, 32-35, 42, 43.

When did the land of Judah become desolated and unworked? Actually, the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem twice, years apart. When did the 70 years commence? Certainly not following the first time that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. Why not? Although at that time Nebuchadnezzar took many captives from Jerusalem to Babylon, he left others behind in the land. He also left the city itself standing. For years after this initial deportation, those left remaining in Judah, “the lowly class of the people,” lived off their land. (2 Kings 24:8-17) But then things drastically changed.

A Jewish revolt brought the Babylonians back to Jerusalem. (2 Kings 24:20; 25:8-10) They razed the city, including its sacred temple, and they took many of its inhabitants captive to Babylon. Within two months, “all the people [who had been left behind in the land] from the least to the greatest, together with the army officers, fled to Egypt for fear of the Babylonians.” (2 Kings 25:25, 26, NIV) Only then, in the seventh Jewish month, Tishri (September/October), of that year could it be said that the land, now desolate and unworked, began to enjoy its Sabbath rest. To the Jewish refugees in Egypt, God said through Jeremiah: “You have seen all the disaster that I brought upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah. Behold, this day they are a desolation, and no one dwells in them.” (Jeremiah 44:1, 2, English Standard Version) So this event evidently marked the starting point of the 70 years. And what year was that? To answer, we need to see when that period ended.

When Did “the Seventy Years” End?

The prophet Daniel, who lived until “the kingdom of Persia came to power,” was on the scene in Babylon, and he calculated when the 70 years were due to end. He wrote: “I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.”—Daniel 9:1, 2, ESV.

Ezra reflected on the prophecies of Jeremiah and linked the end of “the seventy years” to the time when “the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation.” (2 Chronicles 36:21, 22, NIV) When were the Jews released? The decree ending their exile was issued in “the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia.” (See the box “A Pivotal Date in History.”) Thus, by the fall of 537 B.C.E., the Jews had returned to Jerusalem to restore true worship.—Ezra 1:1-5; 2:1; 3:1-5.

According to Bible chronology, then, the 70 years was a literal period of time that ended in 537 B.C.E. Counting back 70 years, the start date of the period would be 607 B.C.E.

But if the evidence from the inspired Scriptures clearly points to 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction, why do many authorities hold to the date 587 B.C.E.? They lean on two sources of information—the writings of classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy. Are these sources more reliable than the Scriptures? Let us see.

Classical Historians—How Accurate?

Historians who lived close to the time when Jerusalem was destroyed give mixed information about the Neo-Babylonian kings.* (See the box “Neo-Babylonian Kings.”) The time line based on their chronological information disagrees with that of the Bible. But just how reliable are their writings?

One of the historians who lived closest to the Neo-Babylonian period was Berossus, a Babylonian “priest of Bel.” His original work, the Babyloniaca,written about 281 B.C.E., has been lost, and only fragments are preserved in the works of other historians. Berossus claimed that he used “books which had been preserved with great care at Babylon.”1 Was Berossus really an accurate historian? Consider one example.

Berossus wrote that Assyrian King Sennacherib followed “the reign of [his] brother”; and “after him his son [Esarhaddon ruled for] 8 years; and thereafter Sammuges [Shamash-shuma-ukin] 21 years.” (III, 2.1, 4) However, Babylonian historical documents written long before Berossus’ time say that Sennacherib followed his father, Sargon II, not his brother, to the throne; Esarhaddon ruled for 12 years, not 8; and Shamash-shuma-ukin ruled for 20 years, not 21. Scholar R. J. van der Spek, while acknowledging that Berossus consulted the Babylonian chronicles, wrote: “This did not prevent him from making his own additions and interpretations.”2

How do other scholars view Berossus? “In the past Berossus has usually been viewed as a historian,” states S. M. Burstein, who made a thorough study of Berossus’ works. Yet, he concluded: “Considered as such his performance must be pronounced inadequate. Even in its present fragmentary state the Babyloniaca contains a number of surprising errors of simple fact . . . In a historian such flaws would be damning, but then Berossus’ purpose was not historical.”3

In view of the foregoing, what do you think? Should Berossus’ calculations really be viewed as consistently accurate? And what about the other classical historians who, for the most part, based their chronology on the writings of Berossus? Can their historical conclusions really be called reliable?

The Canon of Ptolemy

The Royal Canon of Claudius Ptolemy, a second-century C.E. astronomer, is also used to support the traditional date 587 B.C.E. Ptolemy’s list of kings is considered the backbone of the chronology of ancient history, including the Neo-Babylonian period.

Ptolemy compiled his list some 600 years after the Neo-Babylonian period ended. So how did he determine the date when the first king on his list began to reign? Ptolemy explained that by using astronomical calculations based in part on eclipses, “we have derived to compute back to the beginning of the reign of Nabonassar,” the first king on his list.4 Thus, Christopher Walker of the British Museum says that Ptolemy’s canon was “an artificial scheme designed to provide astronomers with a consistent chronology” and was “not to provide historians with a precise record of the accession and death of kings.”5

“It has long been known that the Canon is astronomically reliable,” writes Leo Depuydt, one of Ptolemy’s most enthusiastic defenders, “but this does not automatically mean that it is historically dependable.” Regarding this list of kings, Professor Depuydt adds: “As regards the earlier rulers [who included the Neo-Babylonian kings], the Canon would need to be compared with the cuneiform record on a reign by reign basis.”6

What is this “cuneiform record” that enables us to measure the historical accuracy of Ptolemy’s canon? It includes the Babylonian chronicles, lists of kings, and economic tablets—cuneiform documents written by scribes who lived during, or near, Neo-Babylonian times.7

How does Ptolemy’s list compare with that cuneiform record? The box“How Does Ptolemy’s Canon Compare With Ancient Tablets?” (see below) shows a portion of the canon and compares this with an ancient cuneiform document. Notice that Ptolemy lists only four kings between the Babylonian rulers Kandalanu and Nabonidus. However, the Uruk King List—a part of the cuneiform record—reveals that seven kings ruled in between. Were their reigns brief and negligible? One of them, according to cuneiform economic tablets, ruled for seven years.8

There is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of Nabopolassar (the first king of the Neo-Babylonian period), another king (Ashur-etel-ilani) ruled for four years in Babylonia. Also, for more than a year, there was no king in the land.9 Yet, all of this is left out of Ptolemy’s canon.

Why did Ptolemy omit some rulers? Evidently, he did not consider them to be legitimate rulers of Babylon.10 For example, he excluded Labashi-Marduk, a Neo-Babylonian king. But according to cuneiform documents, the kings whom Ptolemy omitted actually ruled over Babylonia.

In general, Ptolemy’s canon is regarded as accurate. But in view of its omissions, should it really be used to provide a definite historical chronology?

The Conclusion Based on This Evidence

To sum up: The Bible clearly states that there was an exile of 70 years. There is strong evidence—and most scholars agree—that the Jewish exiles were back in their homeland by 537 B.C.E. Counting back from that year would place Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E. Though the classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy disagree with this date, valid questions can be raised about the accuracy of their writings. Really, those two lines of evidence hardly provide enough proof to overturn the Bible’s chronology.

However, further questions remain. Is there really no historical evidence to support the Bible-based date of 607 B.C.E.? What evidence is revealed by datable cuneiform documents, many of which were written by ancient eyewitnesses? We will consider these questions in our next issue.

Footnote 

A PIVOTAL DATE IN HISTORY

The date 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus II conquered Babylon is calculated using the testimony of:

▪ Ancient historical sources and cuneiform tablets: Diodorus of Sicily (c. 80-20 B.C.E.) wrote that Cyrus became king of Persia in “the opening year of the Fifty-fifth Olympiad.” (Historical Library, Book IX, 21) That year was 560 B.C.E. The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 485-425 B.C.E.) stated that Cyrus was killed “after he had reigned twenty-nine years,” which would put his death during his 30th year, in 530 B.C.E. (Histories, Book I, Clio, 214) Cuneiform tablets show that Cyrus ruled Babylon for nine years before his death. Thus, nine years prior to his death in 530 B.C.E. takes us back to 539 B.C.E. as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon.

Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C.E. Though this tablet contains some errors regarding the astronomical positions, it contains the descriptions of two lunar eclipses that the tablet says occurred in the seventh year of Cambyses II, the son and successor of Cyrus. These are identified with lunar eclipses visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E., thus pointing to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of Cambyses’ seventh year. That would make his first regnal year 529 B.C.E. So Cyrus’ last year would have been 530 B.C.E., making 539 B.C.E. his first year of ruling Babylon.