A message of urgency: how would annihilationists respond?

I have some thoughts and questions i'd like for my annihilationist friends to think about and possibly respond to. First, does your presentation of the gospel present any urgency? Obviously, we can debate all day long with the meaning of Jesus' words when he spoke about "hell." But in my opinion, Jesus spoke with an urgency that I feel is even more sobering than what is offered in this video. What I have a hard time accepting is that all this "hell" talk simply boils down to one going to the grave. And that's it.

Just to give credit where credit is due, I think that even given the annihilationist perspective, there is much to offer in terms of eternal life. Even if there were no consequences for one's sins outside of going to the grave, I think that we should all be telling others of the good news of the Kingdom and what they must do to have eternal life.

But all this judgment and wrath stuff, it just doesn't add up with the annihilationist's perspective. Think about it this way: if the annihilationist perspective is true, then Jesus' "hell" statements are for all of us (well, unless Jesus returns in our lifetime). That is, we are all going to die. We will all experience the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" as well as all the other horrific depictions of hell that Jesus portrays, in addition to those in Revelation. But this "experience" in the annihilationist's perspective is fulfilled in one's dying and ceasing to exist, which will happen to us all. I guess the difference is, some will experience this "destruction" eternally whereas all others will have eternal life.

Its quite possible that I just don't understand the annihilationist's position. And I will certainly accept correction if offered. But it just doesn't seem like annihilationists can preach like this guy, or like Edward's famous sermon, "sinners in the hands of an angry God."

Much more could be offered in terms of my problems with the annihilationist view. But more than any of this, i'd simply like an annihilationists to think about and explain their view in light of the presentation of this YouTube video.

(ht: 21Crosscheck21)

You've got mail!

Thanks to a very generous friend (they know who they are!) in using my Amazon Wish List to donate a book to me that i've been wanting to read for quite some time! Its "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" by Richard Bauckham. In this book, the author provides evidence that the gospels are trustworthy eyewitness accounts. Though i'm already convinced of this, i'm looking forward to learning what new insights Bauckham has to offer!

What does the Bible really teach about 1914? (Part 2 of 2)

“When would that grand event occur? Jesus showed that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time. The account in Daniel chapter 4 holds the key to knowing how long that period would last. It relates a prophetic dream experienced by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He saw an immense tree that was chopped down. Its stump could not grow because it was banded with iron and copper. An angel declared: ‘Let seven times pass over it.’ –Daniel 4:10-16”

Immediately, we see an assumption on the Watchtower’s without warrant. That is, they connect the “gentile times” spoken of in Luke 21:24 to the “seven times” of Daniel 4:10, 16. As spoken of earlier, it would seem that for such a dogmatic doctrine, one would expect more solid evidence and less unsubstantiated assumptions.

“In the Bible, trees are sometimes used to represent rulership. (Ezekiel 17:22-24; 31:2-5) So the chopping down of the symbolic tree represents how God’s rulership, as expressed through the kings at Jerusalem, would be interrupted.”

Though it is true that trees are sometimes used (as the Watchtower admits) to represent rulership, is the Watchtower justified in applying this to the tree in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream? When we see that the text identifies the tree as something else, this creates a very difficult problem for the Watchtower’s interpretation; namely, that they are insisting on an interpretation contrary to what is stated in the text:

“This was the dream that I myself, King Neb-u-chad-nez’are, beheld; and you yourself, O Bel-te-shaz’zar [or, Daniel], say what the interpretation is…the tree that you beheld…it is you, O king, because you have grown great and become strong…”
Daniel 4:18, 20, 22, New World Translation

If the meaning of the tree is provided by Daniel, why would we look beyond the interpretation given? In addition, if there is another interpretation or application, where would we look to verify this? Are there other Scriptures which provide additional insights? Is there anything in the Bible that would give us some sort of basis by which we could apply some sort of dual-fulfillment to the dream beyond what is given in Daniel? If so, then why doesn’t the Watchtower tell us?

Even if we consider the possibility that the “tree” represents “how God’s rulership, as expressed through the kings at Jerusalem would be interrupted,” the text itself seems to give a contrary perspective:

“This is the interpretation, O king, and the decree of the Most High is that which must befall my lord the king. And you they will be driving away from men, and with the beasts of the field your dwelling will come to be, and the vegetation is what they will give even to you to eat just like the bulls; and with the dew of the heavens you yourself will be getting wet, and seven times themselves will pass over you, until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind, and that to the one whom he wants to he gives it.”
-Daniel 4:24-25, New World Translation

If the interpretation is what the Watchtower says, then it is contradictory to the interpretation given by Daniel himself under inspiration. That is, Daniel informs the king that the “cutting down of the tree” represents how he will be driven away from human society to act like a beast in the wild. And once again, for a doctrine that is mandatory for all Christians to believe, would we not expect a more solid biblical basis than what the Watchtower has offered us?

“Revelation 12:6, 14 indicates that three and a half times equal ‘a thousand two hundred and sixty days.’’Seven times’ would therefore last twice as long, or 2,520 days after Jerusalem’s fall.”

Like the connections made between Luke 21:24 and Daniel 4, we are not given a basis for which we should connect Revelation 12:6, 14 to the “seven times” of Daniel 4. But even if we assume such a connection, the Watchtower still has to make the case that the “cutting of the tree” represents “God’s rulership” when, in fact, the text says something different.

Even if this leaves open the question of what the “seven times” means in Daniel 4, we are limited with what the text says, for Daniel 4:28 states that, “All this happened to Nebuchadnezzar the king.” In addition, verse 33 articulates, “The word concerning Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled.” Therefore, whatever the “seven times” are, the interpretation tells us that they were fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar.

“Evidently, then, this prophecy covers a much longer period of time. On the basis of Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, which speak of a ‘day for a year,’ the ‘seven times’ would cover 2,520 years.”

This is yet another place where connections are made without a basis. Though interpretive formulas are helpful in explaining some texts, we are not warranted in creating connections where the Scriptures are silent. That is, what basis does the Watchtower have in connecting the “formulas” in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 to the “seven times” of Daniel 4? If none are given, should the Watchtower be this dogmatic about the doctrine?

Furthermore, are we warranted in applying 2,520 years to the “seven times” when Daniel 4 specifically tells us that this time period was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar? Was the king really dethroned for that long? As for Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, is there anything in these texts which give us a basis for making “interpretive formulas” and imposing them on other texts? If so, where do we draw the line? Should the “a day for a year” formula be applied to any place where the word “day” occurs? If not, then on what Scriptural basis does the Watchtower have for making this connection with Daniel 4?

“The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, the ‘appointed times of the nations’ ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly king. –Psalm 2:1-6; Daniel 7:13, 14”

Since a) 2,520 years as well as the 607 date have been shown to be speculative at best, b) the connections between Luke 21:24 and Daniel 4 are made without basis and c) Scripture supports the idea of Christ’s enthronement occurring at the ascension in the first century, then this paragraph made by the Watchtower has no merit.

“Just as Jesus predicted, his ‘presence’ as heavenly King has been marked by dramatic world developments—war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences. (Matthew 24:3-8; Luke 21:11) Such developments bear powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of ‘the last days’ of this present wicked system of things. –2 Timothy 3:1-5.”

It is interesting to note that many Bible students that are not Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that we are living in “the last days” without having any knowledge of the 1914 doctrine. There is no disputing the fact that significant events occurred in 1914. But without a Scriptural basis, what warrant is there for believing that Christ was enthroned in 1914? In addition, what Scriptural basis does the Watchtower have in insisting that one cannot be a true Christian unless they hold to this complex doctrine?

In conclusion, I’d like to encourage any Jehovah’s Witness who reads this to not take my word for it or the Society’s. Instead, I would challenge you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. And if it turns out that the Watchtower’s basis for 1914 falls short of its claims for themselves in being “God’s sole channel of communication,” then what will this mean for you as a Christian? Will you remain in the organization, or will you look for something else? For many Jehovah’s Witnesses, this information will not sway them one way or another, since they have determined in their minds that there is nowhere else to go, even if the doctrine proves to be incorrect. But for others, they will feel lost and abandoned due to the Society’s strict policies on doctrinal descent.

However discouraging this may be, I would like offer a few words of encouragement. Thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses have found happiness and contentment after leaving the Watchtower; not because they found something else, but someone else. This was the message of the early Christians. When confronted with the gospel, many Jews were probably confused in figuring out where to go when “God’s organization” (i.e. the Jewish community) was shown to be inadequate for their salvation. But the early Christians didn’t point them to just another organization. Instead, they pointed them to the person of Jesus Christ for salvation. This is the alternative I have to the Watchtower, which is something I believe to be far more satisfying. And it is the alternative I have for who are becoming doubtful of the Watchtower’s claims:

“Most truly I say to YOU, He that hears my word and believes him that sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.”
-John 5:24, New World Translation

Christ’s invitation is for all who are willing to place their faith in Him and “the one who sent Him.” And until one does this, they cannot be saved, no matter how much one submits to “God’s organization.’

What does the Bible really teach about 1914? (Part 1 of 2)

To say that the 1914 doctrine is important to Jehovah’s Witnesses is an understatement. To stress how important this doctrine is to them, it would suffice to use the Watchtower Society’s own words:

*** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?…That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10)

*** w83 1/1 p. 12 par. 5 The Kingdom Issue to the Fore! ***

Properly, then, the ending of the Gentile Times in the latter half of 1914 still stands on a historical basis as one of the fundamental Kingdom truths to which we must hold today.

*** w85 9/1 p. 25 par. 15 God’s Ministers Prove Their Qualification ***

So Christendom’s clergy refuse to take a stand for Jehovah’s Kingdom by Jesus Christ. For failing to support it, they will be destroyed in the “great tribulation” just ahead. But unlike them, Jehovah’s Witnesses have abandoned Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion, and are preaching the Kingdom message in 203 lands. This unparalleled work is an outstanding feature of “the sign” proving that in 1914 Jesus was installed as heavenly King, to rule amid his enemies.—Matthew 24:3, 14, 21; Psalm 110:1, 2; Revelation 18:1-5.

In light of these quotes, it is no stretch to say that according to the Watchtower, your very salvation depends on the acceptance of 1914 in addition to their “entire range” of teachings. Because of such statements, would we not expect the doctrine of 1914 to be based on the most solid biblical reasons? Would we expect our salvation to be based on something that is doubtful or speculative?

Therefore, let’s investigate 1914 and see if it is based on the best possible reasons. And I would encourage all Jehovah’s Witnesses watching this to do their own homework and “examine the Scriptures to see whether these things are so.” (Acts 17:11) That is, don’t take anyone’s word for it. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

With that said, I’d like to use the Watchtower publication, “What does the Bible Really Teach” in our investigation. Though more detailed explanations are given elsewhere, I think most Jehovah’s Witnesses would agree that this publication contains one of the best and most concise explanations of the doctrine.

Beginning on page 215 in What does the Bible Really Teach:

“DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. What were these and what evidence points to 1914 as such an important year?

There are a few things to note about this statement. First, it is misleading. It is quite an understatement to suggest that the early proclamations of 1914 were of “significant developments.” Though it is true that 1914 brought about World War I, this was not something that was foretold by Russell or the “Bible Students.” Instead, the facts clearly reveal that the “Bible Students” were predicting something much more significant: the “Battle of Armageddon” and the end of the world. Unfortunate as it was, they credited the teaching that we now know to be false to God Himself:

“There is no reason for changing the figures; they are God’s dates, not ours; 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but the end!”
-The Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p. 1677

Second, in addition to understating the facts pertaining to the early proclamations of 1914, the What does the Bible Really Teach book seems to give the impression that the Bible Students were doing something commendable in their proclamation. The question I would ask is, is it commendable for the “Bible Students” to be proclaiming a false doctrine and attributing it to God?

Last, given that the Society has had a poor track record of falsely pointing to dates that were supposed to have specific fulfillments (1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1935, 1975), do you not find it to be at least questionable that the Society teaches that you must accept what they are now teaching about 1914 to be a true Christian?

“As recorded at Luke 21:24, Jesus said: ‘Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations [“the times of the Gentiles,” King James Version] are fulfilled.’ Jerusalem had been the capital city of the Jewish nation—the seat of rulership of the line of kings from the house of King David. (Psalm 48:1, 2) However, these kings were unique among national leaders. They sat on ‘Jehovah’s throne’ as representatives of God himself. (1 Chronicles 29:23) Jerusalem was thus a symbol of Jehovah’s rulership.

How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin to be ‘trampled on by the nations’? This happened in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians. ‘Jehovah’s throne’ became vacant, and the line of kings who descended from David was interrupted. (2 Kings 25:1-26)

The first obstacle we have to deal with is the 607 date. This is one very important link in the 1914 chronology to which, if proven false, then the doctrine of 1914 is false. In light of the Watchtower’s declaration that your status as a true Christian depends on 1914, should we expect to find a link in the chain that is made out of very thin rope instead of steel? The truth is, the 607 date is at worse, completely false; and at best, questionable. It is not my intention to go into all the details surrounding this date. But it must be emphasized that the vast majority of historians, both biblical and secular, date the destruction of Jerusalem at 586/587 B.C.E. as opposed to 607. Much has been written and debated from both sides of the issue, which is too complex for our purposes here. I would only ask that you do your own research on the subject from both sides of the issue and come to your own conclusions on the matter.

But leaving aside the date, there are other questionable issues at hand; namely, the “trampling of the nations” that is spoken of by Jesus. The publication states that this “trampling” occurred in 607. But notice the time-tense that Jesus places on the statement: “Jerusalem will be trampled.” That is, Jesus is speaking in the future tense. How could Jesus be speaking of something in the future that, according to the publication, happened hundreds of years before he came to earth? The publication does not tell us. In addition, there are other clues in the context of Jesus’ statement that gives us even more reason to believe that He is speaking of something future:

“Woe to the pregnant women and the ones suckling a baby in those days! For there will be a great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people; and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.”
-Luke 21:23-24, New World Translation

Given all the future-tense phrases that are found in this passage, is there any good reason to view the “trampling” as the exception in referring to the past event? In light of this, have we observed any solid evidence thus far in the publication’s summary? Or have we seen statements that are questionable, if not false? What would the Scriptures teach about such things?

“Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.”
-1 Thessalonians 5:21, New World Translation

In other words, should we not, as Bible Students, examine the Watchtower’s claims and “make sure” it aligns with Scripture? And if it doesn’t, or we find the reasons given to be questionable, should we not be more hesitant to join with an organization that claims our salvation to be dependent on this doctrine?

“Would this ‘trampling’ go on forever? No, for the prophecy of Ezekiel said regarding Jerusalem’s last king, Zedekiah: ‘Remove the turban, and life off the crown…It will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him.’ (Ezekiel 21:26, 27) The one who has ‘the legal right’ to the Davidic crown is Christ Jesus (Luke 1:32, 33) So the ‘trampling’ would end when Jesus became King.”

Though no explicit statement in Scripture says such, the Watchtower insists that Jesus “became King” in 1914. The problem is, the Scriptures indicate that Jesus became King in the first century.

“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.”
-Matthew 28:18, New World Translation

“He has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come.”
-Ephesians 1:20-21, New World Translation

The question is, how could Christ be further exalted or any more “King” when it is clear that He has been given “all authority” and “seated at the right hand” of God Almighty in the first century?

Do you hate false religion? Then show it!

The next time a Jehovah's Witness tells you, "stop being so critical of our beliefs!" or "all you seem to do is hate on us!" or "you should spend more time preaching the kingdom of God instead of trying to expose us!" then share with them the following quote:

*** w92 7/15 p. 12 Christ Hated Lawlessness—Do You? ***

Hating False Religion and Apostasy

18 Then, too, as Jesus showed his hatred for lawlessness by exposing hypocritical religionists, so today Jehovah’s Witnesses are showing their hatred for all hypocritical religious lawlessness. How? By distributing Bible literature that lays bare Babylon the Great for what she really is, a religious harlot. If we truly hate lawless religious hypocrisy, we will be forthright in exposing Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion. We will do so for the sake of honesthearted people whom she has blinded and held in spiritual bondage. To the extent that we truly hate the lawlessness of Babylon the Great, to that extent we will be zealous in sharing in all the features of the Kingdom ministry

Dr. Terry Mortenson defends biblical creationism on public radio

In this interview, Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis defends why he believes Genesis should be taken as straight-forward history up against several others who believe in theistic evolution (one of which is apparently not a theist at all). Though each person didn't have much time to develop their ideas, I thought the contrast between the positions was very clear.

The interview begins at about 7:45 into the program. You can listen to it HERE, where there is also the option to download.

(ht: Ken Ham)

Why John Piper "abominates" the "prosperity gospel."

Why Dawkins brings Ruse into Disrepute

This is certainly not the FIRST TIME atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse has expressed his feelings and sentiments towards the "new atheists." Recently, an ARTICLE appeared in The Guardian U.K. titled, "Dawkins et al brings us into disrepute," where Ruse explains in more detail why he believes that the "new atheists" are a "bloody disaster".

"There are several reasons why we atheists are squabbling – I will speak only for myself but I doubt I am atypical. First, non-believer though I may be, I do not think (as do the new atheists) that all religion is necessarily evil and corrupting."

I'm glad to finally hear an atheist admit that religion doesn't "poison everything." Its unfortunate that the "new atheists" give atheists like Ruse such a bad rap. While Ruse is hardly a friend to theism, its good to hear that he doesn't treat it like a disease.

"Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously."

It doesn't get more bold than that! And for the most part, Ruse is right on the money. Take "The God Delusion," for instance. How many times did Dawkins reference and interact with the likes of William Craig and other prominent theistic philosophers? I could probably name the number of references on one hand. Sure, Dawkins doesn't think their arguments are "worthy" of a response. But Aquinas was?

"I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery."

I realize that Dawkins might respond with, "Sure, people might think my arguments are simplistic, but they never explain why or offer a refutation." But Dawkins misses the boat completely. If you check out the more serious and scholarly responses to theistic arguments, you will notice one key difference from Dawkins: they actually interact with them. Dawkins, on the other hand, shows almost no evidence that he is even willing to read what the best of the other side has to say. In my opinion, Dawkins' arguments are just as lame as the Christian, "Goddidit" response.

"I don't have faith. I really don't. Rowan Williams does as do many of my fellow philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (a Protestant) and Ernan McMullin (a Catholic). I think they are wrong; they think I am wrong. But they are not stupid or bad or whatever. "

Ruse is right. The "New Atheists" need to clean up their act. As wrong as I think atheists are, I do not for a second think that they are dumb.

"I want evolution taught in the schools and I can think of no way better designed to make that impossible than to spout on about religion, from ignorance and with contempt."

Exactly. I'm convinced that the "new atheists" are doing far more harm than good for the cause of evolutionary education and atheism in general. Richard Dawkins, for instance, can't seem to talk about evolution without finding some way to bring religion into the mix.

"But don't worry. In the God Delusion, we have a message as simplistic as in The Genesis Flood."

While many of the scientific arguments in "The Genesis Flood" are probably out of date (i'm sure Ruse, or any other atheist would categorize all the arguments as false, but that's beside the point), I get what Ruse is saying. If you are an atheist and want to step into my shoes, then consider this: the manner in which you view a 50 year-old book like "The Genesis Flood" is the same manner in which I view a 2 year-old book like "The God Delusion."

Atheists: its time to step up your game and call each other to a higher standard. Don't settle for garbage. Read what we have to say and interact with us. Show us that you have a willingness to investigate our best arguments and respond to them. This will do much for your cause. I promise.

(ht: RichardDawkins.net)

Fascinating interview with Evolution Critic, Dr. David Berlinski

Below is a series of short clips from an interview with Dr. David Berlinski. Apparently, Dr. Berlinski is not a Christian nor a theist as far as I can tell (correct me if i'm wrong on that). He seems to identify himself as more of an "evolution critic." In this interview, Dr. Berlinski presents a very compelling case for the unanswered questions in Neo-Darwinian theory. When this video is finished, click on the right arrow to go to the next. I think there is a total of about 19 short clips. You should be able to get through the whole thing in about 30 minutes.

Want to help make this blog better?

I've had an amazon.com wishlist for quite a few years now. And unfortunately, my ratio from books added to books bought is pretty wide. Recently, i've been seeing a lot of ministries posting their own wishlists publicly so that supporters could buy them books. Since I don't really consider this blog a "ministry," I don't think I could ever ask for or even accept money that was donated. However, I would be open to others donating by purchasing books that could be very valuable to the research that I do. If you feel led to aid me in my cause to "give an answer" (1 Peter 3:15), then feel free to do so by CLICKING HERE. All you have to do is add the book to your cart and it should ship straight to my address automatically after payment.

How Willingly Do People Go to Hell?

John Piper explains a common [mis]conception of hell. That is, "hell is where sinners want to go." Personally, I thought that Piper's words were pretty sobering. I think even my annihilationist friends will get something out of this.

What does the Bible really teach about 1914? (Part 3 of 3)

Wow, this is a great idea!

I'd say take it a step further and create a bound-volume of "The God Delusion" and The Bible and pass it out to everyone. It would give people an opportunity to read both sides and come to their own conclusions!

I have to wonder: why would this atheist think that Christians wouldn't like this? I mean, I know that atheists don't want people to hear both sides of the issue, but c'mon! We're not like you guys! Some of us actually want people to think critically about these things!

(ht: Ray Comfort)

Watchtower CD Library on a Mac?

Needless to say, I was pretty excited to find that I could run the Watchtower 2008 CD Library on my Mac. Yes, its a Windows-only program, but someone was smart and nerdy enough to figure out how to get it to run on a Mac without a Windows emulator. Above is a screen shot. If anyone wants to know how to get the Watchtower Library on their PC or Mac without having the actual CD, please hit me up. The Watchtower CD Library is an absolute essential for anyone who studies Watchtower theology and history; whether from inside the organization or outside. And unless you're a baptized member, you can't get it through the Watchtower like you can their other publications. Or you could spend 60 bucks on ebay for the cd. But why do that?