For the fundamentalist Christians reading this post who do not like my hermeneutics (principles of Biblical interpretation), I challenge you to look up all the passages of the Old Testament that are quoted in the New Testament. Read the surrounding context of each quotation as it appears in the Old Testament. You will be shocked to discover that the context of the verses in the Old Testament almost never correspond to the way the verses are actually used in the New Testament. The New Testament writers mainly yank verses wildly out of context and use them willy-nilly as they please! None of them use the "historical-grammatical method" considered to be The One True Method by protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists. The historical-grammatical (literal) method is the root of the "death of God" in modern theology. It turned theology from a mysterious spiritual pursuit into a science, and theology became a lifeless husk, because "the letter kills but the Spirit gives Life." (2 Corinthians 3:6) This happened because the historical-grammatical method of Biblical interpretation restricts biblical understanding to the banal, obvious, superficial interpretation, and closes the door to the far richer and more powerful allegorical meanings hidden within. The hidden, allegorical meanings give us spiritual "meat" but the historical- grammatical method gives us mere "milk." The historical-grammatical method gives us flat dull bovine understandings that lead to disunity. If it did not, there would not be over 30,000 Christian sects in the USA alone.
If you bother to read Galatians 4:21-25, you will see that the apostle Paul was anything but a literalist when he declared that the stories about Mount Sinai, Mount Horeb, and about Sarah and Hagar, in the Old Testament are not literal history but are ALLEGORIES ("allegoreo" in Greek, see Strong’s #238) about the old and new covenants. Paul even tells us that Jerusalem is an allegory for our Heavenly Mother! The New Testament writers fail miserably as fundamentalists. So much for the "historical-grammatical" method! Therefore I do not debate my hermeneutics with anyone, least of all with literalistic fundamentalists. "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8) Fundamentalists are sorely amiss in not acknowledging, as the Apostle Paul does, the deeper hidden allegorical meanings in the Bible. Fundamentalists and others insist the historical-grammatical method is the only "true" method, yet the Apostle Paul and the other New Testament writers abundantly prove that to be gravely erroneous thinking. Thus endeth the lesson.
MY CHALLENGE TO FUNDAMENTALISTS/LITERALISTS
by Nate Merit 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Nate Merit
-
tetrapod.sapien
The historical-grammatical (literal) method is the root of the "death of God" in modern theology. It turned theology from a mysterious spiritual pursuit into a science, and theology became a lifeless husk, because "the letter kills but the Spirit gives Life."
nice one nate! my quote of the day: lifeless husk
and in everyday useage? oh i don't know. let's say:
"I toss my lifeless husk of faith in your general direction, Jehovah."
or
"Joshua the lifeless husk of genocidal despotism at your service, Jesus!"
TS
-
Nate Merit
nice one nate! my quote of the day: lifeless husk and in everyday useage? oh i don't know. let's say: "I toss my lifeless husk of faith in your general direction, Jehovah."
or "Joshua the lifeless husk of genocidal despotism at your service, Jesus!"
TS
LOL TS! Try some Louisiana hot sauce on them there lifeless husks! Oops....Louisiana..DONT HURT ME JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES! I"M SORRY!
My late demented (paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur) mother-in-law was a former JW who never quite got over the experience. Whenever she would cuss, she'd look around herself in terror and apologize to the Jehovah's Witnesses! Not Joe Hovah mind you, but his Witlesses.
Finally, after 33 years, writing my memoirs concerning my experiences as a Watchtower Drone. I entangled myself in the Org at age 15, and was involved off and on for 4 years. This was back during the 1975 Armageddon Madness. Speaking of which, it's amazing so few Witnesses are even aware of this failed prophecy. It ruined my life...for awhile. Drove my young impressionable mind right over the edge.
I'm not a Theist, by the way.
It's been very interesting reading posts here. The biggest surprise however is just how few people post here, considering the probably several million or so former JayDubs in America.
Nate "Pineapple Pizza is the Meaning of Life" -the Invisible Pink Unicorn -
tetrapod.sapien
hey nate,Speaking of which, it's amazing so few Witnesses are even aware of this failed prophecy.
yes, wasn't it george orwell who wrote: "those who control the past, control the future."?
i think this is why they are a high control group. if they lost control, there would we no religion left.
TS
-
AlmostAtheist
The New Testament writers mainly yank verses wildly out of context and use them willy-nilly as they please!
A tradition the JW's proudly continue today!
-
Nate Merit
A tradition the JW's proudly continue today!
Hello AlmostAtheist!
I laughed out loud because by golly thats true, and I hadn't really thought of the WTBTS in that way. Most details have escaped me, but I recall some astonishingly oddball interpretations of the OT as some sort of Types of the WTBTS and Jehovah's Witnesses. I was quite confusing and 'squirrelly' seeming even then.
Nate -
Nate Merit
yes, wasn't it george orwell who wrote: "those who control the past, control the future."? i think this is why they are a high control group. if they lost control, there would we no religion left.
TS
When I write about Jehovah's Witnesses (and occasionally lecture) 'Orwellian' is quite often how I describe their little world. I read "1984" when I was a JW (a high school Lit assignment), and was struck even the similarities.
To vaying degrees, all organized religion is about control. Power, control, money. The WTBTS Holy Trinity.
Nate -
Narkissos
Hi Nate,
"Spiritual exegesis" (whether allegorical or typological, for instance) is certainly more creative; but I feel an important nuance must be made, at least for the modern reader: "spiritual exegesis" produces possible belief (what you may believe), not authoritative doctrine (what you must believe).
For instance, the fanciful (and highly creative) Pauline interpretation of the Abraham story, which opposes about all former and contemporary tradition, aims at justifying (a Pauline keyword in more than one sense) the Pauline "Gospel" and "churches," in order to confer them a "right to be" in the face of Judaism (including the so-called "Judeo-Christians" around James). It is a minority strategy, and any argument is good enough from this perspective.
Of course when mainstream Christianity became the official religion it was not satisfied anymore with a minority strategy. It had to claim that its stance (including the previous results of "spiritual exegesis") was objective and authoritative truth, something you must believe. Casual dependence on Septuagint renderings, for instance, was felt as intellectually frustrating in Jerome's time, whence the claim to hebraica veritas -- which will unwittingly provide the shaking grounds for the Reformers' methodology.
Claims to objectivity, whether religious or scientific, destroy faith eventually. Faith is what happens in the meantime, when some word makes sense to you and you decide to make your next step by it; provisional, subjective authority at most: no authority at all in a fundy's eye.
-
Evanescence
Hey Nate I got a reply from a Fundi
"Almost never".
That means that "some" do. I'd love to see an actual count here of how many quotes there are and how many don't match up. I can't think of any that don't match up.
Anyway, let's give it a test. Starting right with ---
Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[d]—which means, "God with us."
d. Matthew 1:23 Isaiah 7:14
Okay, here is the first use of a quote from the OT in the NT. It corresponds to this verse (with surrounding verses):
Isaiah 7:1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
2 Now the house of David was told, "Aram has allied itself with [a] Ephraim"; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman's Field. 4 Say to him, 'Be careful, keep calm and don't be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it." 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'It will not take place,
it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.' "
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test."
13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [d] will call him Immanuel. [e] 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria."
18 In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River [f] —the king of Assyria—to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your beards also. 21 In that day, a man will keep alive a young cow and two goats. 22 And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. 23 In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels,
No discrepancy there at all. It is just talking about a "sign" and one of the signs is Immanuel.Evanescence
-
Narkissos
before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread (i.e. Israel/Ephraim and Syria/Aram) will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria."
Doesn't that match up with the Roman empire over 7 centuries later?
