The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
I too received this booklet from my local JW. I was pleased to find this response chapter by chapter as I have agreed to discuss it with her (in a friendly way!) and wanted an example of a Christian response. I'll bookmark your blog so I can read this while reading the booklet.
Thanks for taking the time to do this; it's a very useful resource.
It's from a cult. Don't read the booklet - it's filled with all kinds of spurrious teachings that takes the Bible out of context. I'm all for respecting individuals that do good services and good works, but not when it works against the Holy Spirit.
I'd be very interested to see if it's possible to find out whether this was also a reaction to the way that America tend to do things with regards to holidays and festivals, Halloween being a prime example.
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!
A soul uplifting, masterpiece that is as true today as it was over a century ago.
helpful, thanks.
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
Yet you suggest it is a fine summary of much biblical material.........
Yet you suggest it is a fine summary of much biblical material.........
Yet you suggest it is a fine summary of much biblical material.........
Yet you suggest it is a fine summary of much biblical material.........
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
I too received this booklet from my local JW. I was pleased to find this response chapter by chapter as I have agreed to discuss it with her (in a friendly way!) and wanted an example of a Christian response. I'll bookmark your blog so I can read this while reading the booklet.
Thanks for taking the time to do this; it's a very useful resource.
Blessings,
Lucy
It's from a cult. Don't read the booklet - it's filled with all kinds of spurrious teachings that takes the Bible out of context. I'm all for respecting individuals that do good services and good works, but not when it works against the Holy Spirit.
I'd be very interested to see if it's possible to find out whether this was also a reaction to the way that America tend to do things with regards to holidays and festivals, Halloween being a prime example.
Not surprised that they don't mention the Spirit, given that they believe that it is God's power given to us, not one of the Trinity.
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!