Recent Posts
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
Marvin explains for us the scripture found at Genesis 6:19 which says, "preserve them alive with you" http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 6#c104 "There is evidence that the general moratorium on killing animals was said of EVERY animal taken onto the ark."--Marvin Shilmer. http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 6#c115 "Noah was told to preserve alive the animals God told him to put onto the ark.“He did just so.”—(Gen 6:22)" And yet Noah killed ark animals before being told "animal may serve as food for you". Genesis 8:20: "And Noah began to build an altar to Jehovah and to take some of all the clean beasts and of all the clean flying creatures and to offer burnt offerings upon the altar." Question for Marvin How do you preserve alive every ark animal and yet kill some of those ark animals? (Feb 17, 2013 | post #122)
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
Marvin has claimed that Noah could not kill animals that he brought onto the ark and that this prohibition applied to EVERY animal taken onto the ark. http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 4#c77 "God issued a moratorium on killing animals"--Mar vin. http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 2#c26 "Noah had been issued a command that constructed a prohibition against killing animals"--Mar vin. http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 6#c104 "There is evidence that the general moratorium on killing animals was said of EVERY animal taken onto the ark."--Marvin . http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 6#c115 "Noah was told to preserve alive the animals God told him to put onto the ark.“He did just so.”—(Gen 6:22)"--Marvi n. Marvin has attempted to bridge this claim of his to God's permission to kill animals for food. He claims the permission to kill animals as food was not necessarily to tell Noah he could use animals as food for the first time but rather to tell Noah he could KILL animals once again as before he was told to preserve each animal kind alive prior to the flood. http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 5#c87 "If Noah could KILL an animal as food then God’s moratorium on killing animals issued to Noah was no longer a moratorium on KILLING an animal."--Mar vin. http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 4#c71 "Given Noah was told not to kill animals then “into your hand they are now given" was sufficient to tell Noah he had authority to use animals as slaves, to breed them and the like. But God went further in the instance of Noah to explicitly tell him he could kill animals."--Ma rvin. http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 4#c77 "God issued a moratorium on killing animals and by telling humans they COULD KILL animals as food the prohibition against KILLING animals was lifted. In other words, the killing of animals was no longer prohibited."- -Marvin. But there is one big giant humongous problem with Marvin's premise, namely this: NOAH KILLED SOME OF THOSE ANIMALS HE PUT ON THE ARK BEFORE HE WAS TOLD HE COULD USE THEM AS FOOD. Genesis 8:20: "And Noah began to build an altar to Jehovah and to take some of all the clean beasts and of all the clean flying creatures and to offer burnt offerings upon the altar." Since Marvin's first premise is false: "God issued a moratorium on killing animals" or "moratorium on killing animals was said of EVERY animal taken onto the ark" Then Marvin's second premise has no merit: "by telling humans they COULD KILL animals as food the prohibition against KILLING animals was lifted". The fact is Noah never received a prohibition against killing EVERY animal he put on and took off the ark. Noah was told to preserve each animal kind and their offspring by preserving a male and female of each kind. "two of each, you will bring into the ark to preserve them alive with you. Male and female they will be. Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive. --Genesis 6:19,20. "to preserve offspring alive"--Genes is 7:3. Noah apparently took some animals as instructed by God for the specific purpose of killing them and he did indeed KILL those animals with God's approval. "And Noah began to build an altar to Jehovah and to take some of all the clean beasts and of all the clean flying creatures and to offer burnt offerings upon the altar. 21 And Jehovah began to smell a restful odor"--Genesi s 8:20,21. Simply put in the words of Marvin himself: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 3#c58 "If Noah could kill animals then he could kill animals."--Ma rvin. (Feb 15, 2013 | post #121)
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 6#c115 "Noah was told to preserve alive the animals God told him to put onto the ark.“He did just so.”—(Gen 6:22)" NO he didn't do just so. Because that is ABSOLUTELY NOT what Noah was told. He did not preserve alive EVERY animal he put on the ark. In fact, he killed some of those animals. Killing animals is not preserving animals. Genesis 8:20: "And Noah began to build an altar to Jehovah and to take some of all the clean beasts and of all the clean flying creatures and to offer burnt offerings upon the altar." Your statement is blatantly false. Anyone who would believe you is blatantly ignorant of what the Bible says. (Feb 15, 2013 | post #120)
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 6#c104 "There is evidence that the general moratorium on killing animals was said of EVERY animal taken onto the ark."--Marvin Shilmer. Can you please show us that specific evidence that Noah was prohibited from killing EVERY animal taken onto the ark? If this is really true then Noah broke that moratorium because NOAH KILLED SOME OF THOSE ARK ANIMALS. And in case you didn't know: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T L2GVHLCVITPBNR5E/p 3#c58 "If Noah could kill animals then he could kill animals."--Ma rvin Shilmer. (Feb 15, 2013 | post #119)
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
I have no need to prove that Noah took more animals then he was instructed to take because I have never claimed that. Noah took exactly the number of animals he was told to take. And some of those animals were taken on the ark for the specific purpose of killing. They were in fact killed before Noah was told "into your hand they are now given" or "animal may serve as food for you". For a fact, there was absolutely and positively no moratorium telling Noah that he had to abstain from killing every single animal that he took on and then off the ark. (Feb 14, 2013 | post #114)
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
Noah already knew that he could kill animals. We know this because NOAH KILLED ANIMALS. When God told Noah "into your hand they are now given" and "animal may serve as food for you" the "preserve them alive" command was not negated. The explicit command to "preserve them alive" remained in force because Noah was not to kill any animal kind to extinctionYou are quite good at stating irrelevanciesThe moratorium on killing animals is what is an artificial concoction because there was no such moratorium on all animals. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE NOAH KILLED ANIMALSYes, Noah was not to kill the animals he was to preserve alive with their offspring, that being the male and female brought for that purpose. We know that Noah brought some animals to kill because NOAH KILLED THEMAnd thus there was no moratorium on killing animals because Noah brought animals apparently for the specific reason of killing themYou must have let your anti-JW agenda drive you out of your mind. The scripture specifically states at Genesis 6:20: "Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive." Preserving each animal kind was exactly what Noah was told to do. (Feb 14, 2013 | post #113)
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
preserve them alive"? Who is them? The Bible answers: "two of each, you will bring into the ark to preserve them alive with you. Male and female they will be."--Genesis 6:19. "to preserve offspring alive"--Genes is 7:3. Noah was to preserve a male and female in order to preserve offspring. We know that there was no moratorium on killing all ark animals because, now look at this closely Marvin, NOAH KILLED ARK ANIMALSNoah could not kill animals to extinction. That was the moratorium placed upon him. He could not kill the male and female brought to repopulate the earth with their offspring. Again I repeat, there was no moratorium on killing animals, if it was for an acceptable reason, because NOAH KILLED ANIMALS and apparently was told to bring those animals for the purpose of killing those animalsSince Noah could kill animals then there was no moratorium on killing animals. The moratorium was on killing certain animals specifically, that being the male and female that was to repopulate the earth. And of course, the killing of animals had to be for an acceptable reason approved by God AlmightyThis is false because it was not acceptable for Noah to kill just any animal claiming he was giving it to God. Noah could not kill any animal kind to extinction. The only moratorium on killing animals was that the male and female that was to repopulate the earth was not to be killed and that whatever animals were killed had to be acceptable to God. continued (Feb 14, 2013 | post #112)
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
Thus we know it is false to say that Noah could NOT kill animals. There was no moratorium on killing animals because Noah did indeed kill animals. Rather than killing animals, if there was a moratorium, it would be on using animals for personal reasonsPreserving alive each animal kind did not mean not killing any of the animals Noah took off the ark in every case. We know this is a fact because Noah did indeed kill some of those animals. It meant not killing animals to extinction for a fact. We know these two facts: 1. There was no moratorium on killing animals because Noah killed animals. 2. Noah was to preserve alive each animal kind thus he could not kill them to extinction. We can deduce that Noah could not use animals for himself because after the flood Noah was told, "into your hand they are NOW given". Then and only then could he use animals for personal reasons it would seem, they being placed in his hand once again as before the flood. But even after Noah received those instructions he still could not kill them to extinction thus the mandate to preserve alive the animals remained in place. That mandate did not end with these words: "into your hand they are now given" or these words "animal may serve as food for you". Your premise that Noah needed explicit permission to kill animals is thus a bogus premise not based on logic nor scripture because 1. You have no scripture telling you that Noah could NOT kill animals but only that he must preserve each animal kind. 2. Noah killed animals before he was told he could kill them as food. 3. Noah's instructions to preserve each animal kind still remained in place after he was told he could use animals as food. (Feb 14, 2013 | post #110)
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
And I did not say otherwiseMy claim that there was no general moratorium on killing animals beyond this: "of every living creature of every sort of flesh, two of each, you will bring into the ark to preserve them alive with you. Male and female they will be" is based on this: Genesis 8:20: "And Noah began to build an altar to Jehovah and to take some of all the clean beasts and of all the clean flying creatures and to offer burnt offerings upon the altar. 21 And Jehovah began to smell a restful odor" Noah killed animals and Jehovah approved of it. Thus I conclude that there was no general moratorium on killing animals because Noah killed animals with God's approval. Its possible Noah could only kill animals in sacrifice, but I don't know that for sure. Your premise that Noah could kill animals as long as it was in sacrifice to God is untrue because Noah could not sacrifice animals to extinction since Noah was to preserve alive each animal kind. You have actually invented two mandates from God to Noah: 1. You can't kill animals. 2. Preserve alive each animal kind. I can find the number 2 mandate in the Bible, but I am unable to find the number 1 mandate in the Bible and in fact Noah violated your number 1 mandate by killing animals. (Feb 14, 2013 | post #107)
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
Again Can you show us a scripture that places a moratorium on killing animals beyond Noah's charge to take 2 of each to preserve each kind with their offspring? (Feb 14, 2013 | post #101)
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
Can you show us a scripture that places a moratorium on killing animals beyond Noah's charge to take 2 of each to preserve each kind with their offspringThe link you provided gave not one scripture. (Feb 13, 2013 | post #100)
Comparing Genesis 1:28-29 with Genesis 9:2-4
Asserting the statement of Genesis 9:2 (into your hand they are now given) to mean the same as Genesis 1:26 (subjection of animals) is a A. True assertion B. False assertion Lets see if you ever became brave and honest enough to answer a question straightforwardlyA nd you can't. Still afraid are you? Afraid of what Shilmer has already said when he was arguing some other anti-JWism, huh? (Feb 10, 2013 | post #92)
JWs & Blood--Interviewing Marvin Shilmer
Let me summarize: Marvin, you have agreed with the WT publications that transfusing blood is equated to eating blood in that either way: 1. blood is consumed by the body receiving it. 2. blood is used to sustain the body receiving it. 3. blood is used as nourishment for the body receiving it. 4. blood provides nutritional benefit as food to the body receiving it. 5. blood provides nutritional value to the body receiving it. 6. matter from blood is placed in the digestive tract of the body receiving it. 7. blood is providing nutrition or new material/energy for the body receiving it. 8. blood is NOT equated in the way it is administered into the body receiving it. Once again, we thank you Marvin Shilmer for showing us that you agree with the WT publications and Jehovah's Witnesses and that transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in various ways but NOT in the way it is administered. (Feb 10, 2013 | post #36)
JWs & Blood--Interviewing Marvin Shilmer
Continuing 4. Please tell us Marvin, can transfusing blood be equated to eating blood in that either way the blood provides nutritional benefit as food. Marvin: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T MJNI9GCAKQT300F8/p 15#c293 "if transfusing constituents from blood provides nutritional benefit as food, then it is false to say Witnesses abstain from blood. This is my perspective, too." So again we see that 'if transfusing constituents from blood provides nutritional benefit as food' then transfusing blood itself would do the same. Next question 5. Can transfusing blood be equated to eating blood in that either way the blood provides nutritional value to the body. Marvin: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T UO2TM17MU0IFMIIO/p 4#c61 "Transplantin g blood intravenously ... will provide nutritional value to the body" 6. Since it is scientific fact that transfused blood will end up placing blood matter into the digestive tract, can transfusing blood be equated to eating blood in that either way matter is placed in the digestive tract because of the blood entering the body. Marvin: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T UO2TM17MU0IFMIIO#c 5 "Eating is to place matter into our digestive tract." 7. Since transfused blood is new material that was not in the body before being transfused into the body, can transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in that either way the intake of that blood is providing nutrition or new material/energy for the body receiving it. Marvin: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T D05G5S7L7O0T0A82/p 60#c1195 "Nutrition is the intake and extraction of new materials/energy. " 8. Marvin do you also understand and agree with JWs that transfusing blood can NOT be equated to eating blood in that either way it is administered in the same manner. Marvin: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T T4FD167078BSM9BG/p 15#c290 "I HAVE NOT asserted that Watchtower teaches that intravenous administration and swallowing matter are THE SAME as physical acts.... -- I HAVE asserted that Watchtower teaches that intravenous administration of BLOOD and swallowing BLOOD are acts that should be EQUATED. Got that?" Yes we do 'got that'. We do understand that you agree that WT DOES NOT TEACH that intravenous administration of blood and swallowing blood are equal in that they are the same physical acts or administered into the body in the same exact manner. We also understand that Marvin equates transfusing of blood to eating blood in the same exact way that the WT publications equate transfusing of blood to eating blood. (Feb 10, 2013 | post #35)
JWs & Blood--Interviewing Marvin Shilmer
Marvin, lets now talk about the different ways that transfusing blood can be equated with eating blood? 1. Is transfusing blood and eating blood both to be considered as consuming blood? Marvin: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T OFT1VKOU24DN43H3/p 3#c60 "Transplantin g blood is consuming blood." http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T MJNI9GCAKQT300F8/p 31#c611 "Dietary use of blood....Tissue transplantation... both are CONSUMPTION" 2. Can transfusing blood be equated to eating blood in that either way the blood is used to sustain the body receiving it. Marvin: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T 9HAJ4BAL30DA5HLA/p 29#c565 "Of course plasma has a value to help sustain life, this is why it is used in transfusion medicine as are many other products from blood." 3. Can transfusing blood be equated to eating blood in that either way the blood is used as nourishment for the body receiving it. Marvin: http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T UO2TM17MU0IFMIIO/p 4#c78 "Nourishment is anything taken into the body so sustain life." http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T T4FD167078BSM9BG/p 2#c21 "nourishment is anything that helps sustain the body, which would include acts such as topical application of fresh blood to a wound or severe burn." So certainly if Marvin believes that topical application of blood is nourishment then most definitely he believes that intravenous feeding of blood would be nourishment to the body receiving it. (Feb 10, 2013 | post #33)
Q & A with Thirdwitness
Headline:
thirdwitness.com
Blog / Website / Homepage:
www.thirdwitness.com
Copyright ©2013 Topix LLC
