FAITH DEFINED. Heb 11:1 REALLY bad in NWT. Also Richard Dawkins' definition

by Open mind 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Open mind

  I'm STILL slogging through "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, thanks in no small measure to spending too much time on JWD.

  Anyway, at lunch today I read Dawkins, simple, elegant, somewhat embarrasing definition of faith:

  Belief without evidence.

  Now before the faithful get all bent out of shape, I think it's understood that Dawkins means scientific, falsifiable, empirical evidence. It doesn't mean believers have NO logic or reasoning behind their beliefs. JWs and others can provide plenty of "ARGUMENTATION" as to why they have faith.
  And for the record, I currently still cling to a belief in God. Just not Bible God and CERTAINLY not Watchtower God.

  I digress. (As usual.)

  Now, I've still got tons of JW "canned answers" crammed into my skull, and as I read Dawkins "Definition of Faith", what's a well-programmed JW mind supposed to jump to?

  Hebrews 11:1 of course! The Bible's "Definition of Faith" in one nice neat little verse.

  So, as I was mentally reviewing this verse it struck me how truly lousy the NWT's rendering of this is. Please join me in a brief re-read.

  Heb 11:1 (NWT)

  "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities THOUGH NOT BEHELD." (caps added)

  WTF? Let's read it again a little more convincingly shall we? We have (in our loudest used-car salesman voice) an "ASSURED EXPECTATION".

  (Getting even louder now and trying harder to be more convincing) We have an "EVIDENT demonstration of REALITIES".

  (Voice now drops off to an inaudible mutter) though not beheld.

  Am I the only one who reads this verse this way? I mean it comes across like this to me:

  I've got a cool car. It's a REALLY, REALLY cool car. My car is so cool, everyone else wishes they had a car like mine. Well, uh, except for the fact, uh,.........(kicks pebbles around with downcast eyes)....... that........ I, uh, actually........ don't really........ have a car.

  To me it seems like the NWT really oversells what faith is and then throws in "though not beheld".

  Here's the New International Version's take on it:

  "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

  That seems a little more honest to me. How 'bout you?

  Open Mind
• 

  Gopher

  I'm currently reading this book at a snail's pace too.

  I'm already an atheist, so in my case Dawkins is preaching to the choir. I'm glad you're open to reading it. (Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, based on your username here.) The book has been attacked by many believers, so it's touching a nerve and provoking conversation (all good).

  Dawkins was a guest on the inaugural "Atheists Talk" radio hour yesterday here in Minnesota. They'll be putting up their podcast here shortly: feed://www.mnatheists.org/atheist_talk/audio.xml.

  I agree that the NWT translation seems more clunky than the NIV and some other modern-English versions. However, I think they're both saying that faith is belief in what you do not see.
• 

  SickofLies

  The bible definition of faith really isn't all that different from Dawkins.

  You believe things without seeing them is not far off from saying you believe things without evidence.
• 

  bigboi

  In Hebrews faith is redefined as just hope. I think that particular verse and chapter are one of the main reasons why scholars don't believe Paul wrote it. Faith to Paul and the primitive Christians was actaully believeing that Christ had died for your sins and rose from the dead. To me that makes the term pretty concrete, it's an event that you either believed in or didn't.

  I think Fred Franz worded that passage that way because it allows for all the convoluted doctrines that are a part of the JW "faith". Really, how many assured expectations and unbeheld realities have the JW's had to deal with over the decades?
• 

  Narkissos

  You might be interested in the following thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/144969/1.ashx
• 

  Open mind

  Thanks for the link Narkissos.

  I read it. Now my head hurts.

  Thanks everyone else for your comments as well.

  OM
• 

  Shazard

  Problem is that Dawkins is poore phylosopher!
  
  We have epistimology (really good phylosophical discipline) which deals with knowledge! What it menas to "know" and what IS "knowledge".
  
  So basic definition of "knowledge" is "justified belief".
  
  What Dawkins does is redefines belief as negation of knowledge... it is "Unjustified belief".
  But belief by it's very definition is "unjustified" in some framework. More "justification" is not bound to be in the context of methodological-naturalism, that would be special pledging and actually!
  
  So problem with Dawkins is that he starts with "methodologica-naturalism" as justified in itself without applying his own definitions to his own base beliefs.
  
  And epistimology declares that there is no possible justification in general sense, there will be this problem of infinit regression... This is the part which I noticed materialists are just plainly unable to understand and comprehand, coz it flies in the very face of their own doctrine. Each framweork and paradigm at it's very bottom starts with accepting some basic truth on faith, declaring them true without seeking another justification for them. Really materialism starts there too with it's own base core beliefs.
  
  And more... when you mix methodological-naturalism with phylosophical naturalism then you are in deep.. s... eee... Europa :)
• 

  jwfacts

  In other words Heb 11:1 tells us that faith is;

  Believing that what we want to be true is true.

  I always found this scripture disturbing. If I hope something is true does not make it true.
• 

  Caedes

  Shazard,

  I may be misunderstanding you for obvious reasons.

  There is nothing to prove that last thursday-ism is not true so yes at a fundamental level we all take on faith that the world is as our senses describe it to us. This problem is not restricted to materialism we all assume this.

  Problem is that Dawkins is poore phylosopher!

  Starting off with an ad hominem is a poor way to make a serious point.

  The definition of faith is perfectly acceptable if you are talking about religous faith or faith in any form of the supernatural. Faith as a word has multiple meanings, this in no way undermines that definition.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Thank you Narkissos. I found your info on hypostasis extremely interesting and informative.