Questions ...

by RAF 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

RAF
Ok this is an attempt to make you understand my personal approach of the bible. Why I do think that it makes sense conceptually (like some other beliefs in fact – Lets say as a unique example: the belief of the native Indians in substance – just because it’s simple to compare again conceptually).
I take into consideration that the bible have oriental and African roots as origin, but that its spreading by religions have been most leaded by occidentals – it ‘s very important in the reasoning in the approach of the bible from all religionists, means their probable missinterpretations - imageries and symbolismes and reasons of some principle of it and more over on the long run regarding to the meaning of everything when it have been written) …
What leaded me to post this thread is related to 2 posts (but will only talk about one) I’ve read lately in different threads.
For anything to make sense we have to understand the purpose … (the WHY). Its also true for instance when it’s about forgiving (it makes it easier) and here lays a part of the problem in the matter of interpretation and double standard thinking.
To be clear about the purpose of what is called the bible (a certain numbers of books collected along 16 centuries if I remember well):
at first put the OT in one side (since it’s all about the Jews – but the supposed genesis of the human being - and all about a YHWH of the armies (its not a detail) who said I prepare the arrival of my posterity.
and then here comes the posterity (Christ takes the lead) NT which is supposed to concern everybody.
Before to jump to any conclusion, to answer any question for yourself (you don’t have to post here unless you feel that there is fallacy in my post or any once one on here), pay attention to the details but only conceptually (the bases of the meaning of every information with their interactions but globally in the reasoning).
To get to the point we will only need 1 example to begin with to see from what comes the somehow gnostic approach of the bible. I won’t answer the question, and if I do say something which seems to answer the question, it’s only to go further on this approach, remember that you still have to draw your own conclusions (for yourself)
Don’t get me wrong this is not for you to change your belief (whatever it is) but you’ll see that at the end spiritually talking (not religiously) it doesn’t change a single thing about what is really important (I do insist on what is really important) because that’s where there’s no difference (to make the difference in between what is contextual in the details of the story and conceptual in the meaning).
Also the well known quote of II timtothee 3:16 in JWLand have a different meaning to me and I went to this conclusion in reading a other version of it (in French)
Bible de Jérusalem (French version) : 16. Toute Écriture est inspirée de Dieu et utile pour enseigner, réfuter, redresser, former à la justice : 17. ainsi l'homme de Dieu se trouve-t-il accompli, équipé pour toute œuvre bonne.
TDM (French NWT) : 16 Toute Écriture est inspirée de Dieu et utile pour enseigner, pour reprendre, pour remettre les choses en ordre, pour discipliner dans la justice, 17 pour que l’homme de Dieu soit pleinement qualifié, parfaitement équipé pour toute œuvre bonne.
Here is are 2 English versions
King James (can’t really check enough versions to find one which really talks as much that did the BDJ to me – more over in English) but there are enough difference in this one regarding the NWT at least) : 16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
NWT: 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
Make sure that you’ve got all definitions of each word before to get into it.
But before to check details of the different versions of this quote what does “All scriptures” means here? Is it only : the books (written by who? And could it be that we don’t have them all?) Putted together (by who?) called the bible or could it be everything reported from all time in everything that we can acknowledge and check (which can be approved or reproved contextually in our own time and level of evolution). You decide … (so then what is inspired by God? And then What is YHWH?) … you decide
Now the BDJ is using the word :
to refuteinstead of (for reproof in the KJ or for reproving in the NWT)
to form/train (in the matter of justice) instead of (for instruction in righteousness in the KJ or for disciplining in righteousness in the NWT)
You check everything else if you want to (but I think that’s enough to get the point). We know what "to refute" means exactly but for reproof or for reproving is less obvious in the meaning and we understand clearly what means to form/train (in the matter of justice) when “for instruction in righteousness” is not clear to me in English and “for disciplining in righteousness” (more looks as military way) is not clear; even less clear if you do not have any precise idea about what means “All scriptures” (we don't have any precise idea - some people want to think it's all about the bible and the bibe only - it's an opinion) and by then from eventually who (any is supposed to be disciplined) if any thinks or make you think that we need any human being in particular as leader(s) from any religion for instance.
That’s the first part which lead to go further …
Now to go further
This is a part of a post of a poster (who can name him/herself – here if he wants to) which makes sense in being quiet simply put (but you’ll maybe see later why, it talks more than what you may think at first so that’s why I’ve choose this one):
“Did the Canaanites really need to be exterminated just so the Jews could have prime real estate? The lessons of the~~Bible~~ “ (replaced by :) OT, “are all based on anger, revenge, racism, violence and hatred from a God with insecurity problems.”
Was YHWH of the OT quiet WEIRD? YES or NO ? (I’ve used the word weird on purpose here = in fact using double standard regarding to pure justice?)
(answer this question to yourself honestly)
WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF THINGS WERE UNFAIR IN THE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE – in the OT particularly and now we are even able to see wrong advices from apostles which maybe were right for their time (regarding to their ability/capacitie to evolve socially – without rejecting the whole thing see A) in the matter of justice than we can’t apply today in modern civilisation - that doesn't mean that we've got all right)
(A) I mean if they had told to men that to be fair men and women have to be equal – at this time the majority of men would have reject the doctrine it was easier to say in an other way: you must love your brothers – including sisters- as much as yourself (to resume)
If you answer NO to this question (WAS YHWH unfaire yes or no?) you are using a double standard position in matter of justice - whatever excuse you want to give to YHWH … but now if you look closer: To who, this YHWH looks like? And regarding to the somehow on of the conclusion possible of the poster statement about why? what is your why? (please don't answer this question here - but think about it)
Now put all information (from the start of this thread together) to meditate about it.
We know the excuse that religionists do find to say it’s fair so let go further
Regarding this book and the story, you have of course to keep in mind the purpose – (therefore the need of security) something had to come into the picture and to be acknowledge (as the arrival of his posterity) from prophecies.
So here it’s about “a” reason (supposed to be a good one as result) but to get there YHWH have been sometimes unfair and even mean) … The right of a lot have been ignored and only one caste have been overprotected, over informed and with very precise rules and laws to follow, in knowing (prophetically talking in this story - mean in knowing in advance) that they wouldn’t for most recognise Christ and become real hypocrites when people from other castes where able to recognise him or where already practising the right doctrine regarding the doctrine of Christ without him being there official spiritual leader (just because it was what they want, what was important to them).
What does all this tell you conceptually nor spiritually talking?
It’s all about answering the right question – regarding to the real problem and what is really important.
You make your own conclusion.
This is not a topic which is supposed to get answers / neither to give answers … but that was my way to make you understand how the bible (and actually “all scriptures” from the start – you still have to figured out for yourself what "all scriptures" means) can be read conceptually … and see for yourself what kind of conclusions you can get out of it because it’s all about that … discernment
I’d like to go further occasionally but I’m not sure if it’s interesting (the basis is there anyway). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying here that I do have more discernment … I’m just saying that this was a part of my way to analyse it which leaded to the conclusion that the bible makes sense conceptually.
parakeet

RAF wrote: "You make your own conclusion."

Thank you, I have already done so.
RAF

Parakeet (I understand) : I've tried to explain that this is an attempt to make you understand my personal approach of the bible. Why I do think that it makes sense conceptually. So it is not really about you (to push you in any way) it's about pure information - nothing more nothing less (you want to know or you don't).
About : concerning “all scripture” and this postulate : could it be everything reported from all time in everything that we can acknowledge and check (which can be approved or reproved contextually in our own time and level of evolution.
I’m talking about what we know about history(whatever happened and have been reported not only on historic matters whatever it is about), including the history of sciences including psychology, sociology … including what is today called paranormal along the time (MEANS “EVERYTHING” WE CAN KNOW AT SOME POINT – the period each lived and live in) and which in it’s time have been proven real or imaged or unreal / even right or wrong contextually… related to the level of knowledge of our generation and capacity to understand things better by any new mean along the time.
Which joines : The light get brighter … (proverb)
I mean along the time : ALL SCRIPTURES here could mean human beings history, discovery in fact EVOLUTION regarding all matters.
parakeet

RAF wrote: "...this is an attempt to make you understand my personal approach of the bible. Why I do think that it makes sense conceptually. So it is not really about you (to push you in any way) it's about pure information - nothing more nothing less (you want to know or you don't)."

RAF, Your attempt to make me understand your personal approach of [sic] the bible takes some courage. You threw your conclusions out there for anyone to respond to. I applaud you for that, but I've seen so many different versions of "personal approaches" to the bible that I don't respond any more except to say, "Thank you. I've already come to my own conclusions."

Consider my response as a bttt. Maybe you'll get more and better responses than mine.
reneeisorym

I would love to know what "all scripture" means myself. It sure seems to mean the OT to me.
RAF

for clarification :I am not especting any specific answers (maybe insights - or counterpoints, watever related and productive) ... I've post this to not have to explain in every thread I do participate in, related to that from what comes my point of view - if any wants to know how it is possible (to me - an maybe some others for the same reasons) to agree somehow with it conceptually.
Now everyone have the right to post whatever he/she wants of course ...
Maybe launching questions that we might want to talk about ... You see
RAF

Renee : I would love to know what "all scripture" means myself. It sure seems to mean the OT to me. it is anyway a question to answer to before to interpretating II tim 3:16 for instance and if it means EVERYTHING (as history and and and) ... it changes its all meaning.
Terry

Two thousand years ago there were many opinions. Today, there are even more.
Opinions about God multiply daily. Worse still; they are at odds with each other.
They can't all be right. Worse still, none HAS to be.
With no way of proving one's opinions about God, the Bible, the meaning of a word in an important scripture we must face the fact we could EASILY choose a wrong opinion.
What is the cost of a wrong opinion?
That is the real question; the PRIMARY question.
What is the actual cost to us in clinging to one orthodoxy and rejecting the others?
Clearly, all honest-hearted people make the very best choice they know how to make. Yet, they can't all be right and could very well all be wrong.
For me, I've narrowed the choices down.
I've read as much as humanly possible about the bible and how it was written, compiled, redacted, "preserved", translated and tampered with.
I can eliminate the bible as a reputable book of integrity and certainly as a divine revelation from a transcendant being.
Others may make different choices.
Since we can never ever know if our religious selection is correct or not (in view of other sincere and intelligent objections) I feel the cost of even trying is futile.
It is far better to concentrate on being honest, being fair, just and charitable and leaving the rest for others to argue.
What fair-minded God of Justice would argue with such an honest choice?
RAF

Terry
Two thousand years ago there were many opinions. Today, there are even more.Opinions about God multiply daily. Worse still; they are at odds with each other.They can't all be right. Worse still, none HAS to be.
The thing is that even the bible says that we don’t have to believe the exact same thing (and that makes sense) it means that we can disagree on the details. I don’t remember the scripture but if someone know it please post it.
With no way of proving one's opinions about God, the Bible, the meaning of a word in an important scripture we must face the fact we could EASILY choose a wrong opinion.
What is the cost of a wrong opinion?
That is the real question; the PRIMARY question.
That’s why whether we believe or not, we still need discernment to not messing up in what is really important = respect (in all matters needed with discernment contextually). While there are very important reasons to not agree with religions (which doesn’t allow to respect what needs to be) there are no reason to not respect anyone's faith or on the reverse someone which doesn’t have faith when it doesn’t it doesn't hurt anybody. (and again there is a difference in between faith and religions)

What is the actual cost to us in clinging to one orthodoxy and rejecting the others?
Clearly, all honest-hearted people make the very best choice they know how to make. Yet, they can't all be right and could very well all be wrong.
Again it is not about being right or wrong in the matter of religious belief (that’s what each religion would like people to think to validate their doctrine/postulates) everything have to be analysed but regarding the main purpose, which shouldn’t be salvation regarging faith for instance (that’s being interested – thinking that our lives depends on it – that’s when people might miss the point and forget about others rights in the matter of respect – just because their religion leads to that but again faith is an other matter) and for the same reason I don't think that anyone needs to not respect anyones faith just because he/she feels the need to be the one who is right on the matter. As long as it doesn't hurt.

For me, I've narrowed the choices down.
I've read as much as humanly possible about the bible and how it was written, compiled, redacted, "preserved", translated and tampered with.
I can eliminate the bible as a reputable book of integrity and certainly as a divine revelation from a transcendant being.
Others may make different choices.
No others just may think differently about the matter and it is related to everyones personnal way (and even reasons) to analyse the matter – it’s stays a matter of mindset – that’s why people needs to stay open minded while analysing to not separate information (as one is ok and the other is not at first – which in this manner and all matters lead to throw all babies with their baths) you have to analyse both sides in details to discern everything both sides and in this matter regarding what is the most important (about what looks respectable and what does not – regarding the respect due to everybody and everything important).

Since we can never ever know if our religious selection is correct or not (in view of other sincere and intelligent objections) I feel the cost of even trying is futile.

It is far better to concentrate on being honest, being fair, just and charitable and leaving the rest for others to argue.

What fair-minded God of Justice would argue with such an honest choice?
Is it because you do not believe that you think that your choice (in fact a personal belief) is more honest than others and feel the need to disrespect in many ways peoples beliefs (the fact that you don’t believe the same thing as others is about your own belief. I mean it is not because you don’t belief that is not a/your belief system)

Whether people do or not have faith, whether they want to talk about it or not it shouldn’t change what is the most important about respect and that is why I’ve said in my first post:
Don’t get me wrong this is not for you to change your belief (whatever it is) but you’ll see that at the end spiritually talking (not religiously) it doesn’t change a single thing about what is really important (I do insist on what is really important) because that’s where there’s no difference (to make the difference in between what is contextual in the details of the story and conceptual in the meaning).
RAF

Also to be clear on my position about religions (all kind of disrecptectull fondamentalisms whether it comes from believers or unbelievers) ... I'm against ... And my feeling is that more and more people will got enough with that (and somehow that's also what the NT is saying) Religions will go DOWN !!!
Because we (or our kids or their kids) will know better and better from the past/experiences where it leads. and maybe we need more catastrophies related to that for a majority to get it.
We have a proverbe here which says: my right stops where the right of the other one begins. and it makes sense in fairness - So it's all about fondamental rights against fondamental bullies and bulls.
I mean discernment is this matter, is more about what is fair or unfair to be able to state what is right or wrong contextually. and here again somehow the NT is saying the same thing - in saying that we do not depends on laws but love/which have something to do with charity which have something to do with respect (even when the other one is wrong - again - as long as it doesn't hurt someone else and spit on any's fondamental right).

Questions ...

Share this