I didn't mean to comment at first but as there is a default reply box on the page now I hit the "submit" button in Pavlovian reflex...
Another strange thing is that my "box" design changes with every post...
The implications of 'prophecy'
by Simon 50 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Leolaia
I think that's because you have a dynamic IP address.
-
slimboyfat
Hey Leolaia thanks for all the info. Surely Jonah, as you already mentioned, is also an instance where the Bible presents Jehovah as having less than perfect foreknowledge since in that book he actually makes a prophecy and has to backtrack because of events.
Furuli argues that the biblical phrase "before the founding of the world" refers to Abel and the start of the "human family", to avoid a predestinarian reading. I think his discussion of this is quite good.
I think like me you are someone who would not call yourself a believer. So aside from lining up the scriptures either in the predestination or in the selective foreknowledge camps, don't you agree with me that on a basic human level the JW God, who created Adam and Eve and gave them a fair shot at everlasting life, choosing not to know what the outcome would be, is more appealing somehow? It also seems to make better sense of the biblical narrative, if it is taken as a whole, because a God who created humans knowing full well all the suffering that was definitely in store seems unavoidably callous. You have to resort to the idea that suffering is part of God's plan somehow and that we simply can't understand it.
I wish Simon would also make it so we could search threads by number of posts and views like on the old board. Maybe that is to come too.
-
booby
I find it interesting how this God who becomes so prophetic as time goes on, at the very beginning seems to be lacking the ability to even think ahead. Think about his apparent lack of forethought in the very beginning, in the Genisis account. He creates the animal kingdom with the male-female component allowing for self perpetuation but for some reason doesn't provide the same logic to man. Then shortly after the creation of man God notices something. He did not foresee that Adam would feel a lack, not feel fulfilled without a mate. His looking down on the situation is when He becomes aware that there is a problem, that he has overlooked something. Adam is not fulfilled. He gets to examine the animal kingdom but finds no suitable companion (thank goodness). So the prophetic God missed an important aspect of his most important creative work (at least I think we all see it that way), that he would not want to live forever by himself, with only animals for companionship. So much for his being able to foresee the future. That lack might also explain why He did not foresee that the animal kingdom would prefer to eat one another. rather than stick to a vegetarian diet.
-
purplesofa
I find it interesting how this God who becomes so prophetic as time goes on, at the very beginning seems to be lacking the ability to even think ahead. Think about his apparent lack of forethought in the very beginning, in the Genisis account. He creates the animal kingdom with the male-female component allowing for self perpetuation but for some reason doesn't provide the same logic to man. Then shortly after the creation of man God notices something. He did not foresee that Adam would feel a lack, not feel fulfilled without a mate. His looking down on the situation is when He becomes aware that there is a problem, that he has overlooked something. Adam is not fulfilled. He gets to examine the animal kingdom but finds no suitable companion (thank goodness).So the prophetic God missed an important aspect of his most important creative work (at least I think we all see it that way), that he would not want to live forever by himself, with only animals for companionship. So much for his being able to foresee the future. That lack might also explain why He did not foresee that the animal kingdom would prefer to eat one another. rather than stick to a vegetarian diet.
Never ever thought of that logic
-
Leolaia
I haven't heard of that argument made by Furuli. I personally don't see how it would make any difference in the passages implying predestination -- what difference does it make if, say, Moses was predestined to be the mediator of the covenant at the world's creation or slightly later at the founding of the "human family"? Either would be a long time before Moses was born. Could you explain for me his reasoning on this point? Also usage of the expression is not necessarily consistent with Furuli's interpretation as you have described it. The same phrase apo katabolés kosmou occurs in Barnabas 5:5 to refer to creation: "If the Lord submitted to suffer for our souls, even though he is Lord of the whole world (pantos tou kosmou), to whom God said at the foundation of the world (apo katabolés kosmou), 'Let us make man according to our image and likeness,' how is it then that he submitted to suffer at the hand of men?" Similarly, Hebrews 4:3, in referring to God resting on the seventh day of creation, says that "his work [i.e. God's creative work] has been finished since the founding of the world (apo katabolés kosmou)".
Regarding your other more philosophical comment, I agree that there is something genuinely unnerving in the notion that God has a complete mastery over destiny -- although that is a corollary of a fully-developed belief of omnipotence and omniscience. The thought of the Qumran psalmist that God foreordains the wicked in the womb for the day of slaughter is particularly repugnant to our sensibilities. This God, who has planned every thought and deed of everyone who has ever lived, is so beyond human experience and morality that the only normal response would be one of fear and humility. OTOH it is not very reassuring to perceive of God in the terms of J, who is so human that he may act irrationally and with the full range of human emotions. What the Watchtower Society has conceived is somewhere between these two extremes and constructs a God that is understandable by man and agreeable (somewhat) to our moral tastes. In a sense, the more God is perceived as self-limiting, the more humankind can be perceived as having control over his/her own destiny. As attractive as that is, how much does that square with the religious impulse that God is beyond human comprehension beyond what has been revealed? And the question I was pursuing is: How representative is that synthetic concept of the Bible as a whole?
-
slimboyfat
I haven't heard of that argument made by Furuli. I personally don't see how it would make any difference in the passages implying predestination -- what difference does it make if, say, Moses was predestined to be the mediator of the covenant at the world's creation or slightly later at the founding of the "human family"? Either would be a long time before Moses was born. Could you explain for me his reasoning on this point?
Well if God predicted the need for a mediator before the creation of the physical world that would imply God knew that Adam would rebel before he created him. If on the other hand the phrase "founding of the world" refers to the arrival of Abel and the start of the human family, that places God's prediction for the need of a mediator after man's rebellion, and thus preserves the JW teaching that God chose not to know whether humans would rebel or ramain faithful when he created them. When Adam sinned, and together with Eve produced imperfect offspring, that is when God could predict the need for a mediator to put things right, not as early as the creation of the physical universe. Do you have a copy, or have access to Furuli's The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation? You can still get copies for $20 from Greg Stafford based in California:
http://www.elihubooks.com/content/books_media.php
Also usage of the expression is not necessarily consistent with Furuli's interpretation as you have described it. The same phrase apo katabolés kosmou occurs in Barnabas 5:5 to refer to creation: "If the Lord submitted to suffer for our souls, even though he is Lord of the whole world (pantos tou kosmou), to whom God said at the foundation of the world (apo katabolés kosmou), 'Let us make man according to our image and likeness,' how is it then that he submitted to suffer at the hand of men?" Similarly, Hebrews 4:3, in referring to God resting on the seventh day of creation, says that "his work [i.e. God's creative work] has been finished since the founding of the world (apo katabolés kosmou)".
The quote from Barnabas puts "the foundation of the world" a bit earlier than Abel, but it does still seem linked with the arrival of humans rather than the physical creation. Furuli says that the "world" meant in the phrase is not the physical world but humans or "the human family". And he links the phrase with Abel and the moment when Adam and Eve begat children:
Luke 11: 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
And Furuli points to Heb 11:11 as an instance where the Greek word translated "foundation" is used of conception. Furuli explains the implication of taking the phrase as referring to physical creation or humans in a footnote:
The rendering "foundation of the world" versus "creation of the world" may also have serious doctrinal implications. According to Ephesians 1:4 the Christians were "chosen" before the foundation of the world, and 1 Peter 1:20 seems to imply that Christ was known as redeemer before this point of time. If the point of reference is the creation of the earth, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that God knew about and had predestined the fall of man into sin. If the point of reference is Eve's conceiving of children then there is no such meaning. (page 41, note 46.)
You further write:
Regarding your other more philosophical comment, I agree that there is something genuinely unnerving in the notion that God has a complete mastery over destiny -- although that is a corollary of a fully-developed belief of omnipotence and omniscience. The thought of the Qumran psalmist that God foreordains the wicked in the womb for the day of slaughter is particularly repugnant to our sensibilities. This God, who has planned every thought and deed of everyone who has ever lived, is so beyond human experience and morality that the only normal response would be one of fear and humility. OTOH it is not very reassuring to perceive of God in the terms of J, who is so human that he may act irrationally and with the full range of human emotions. What the Watchtower Society has conceived is somewhere between these two extremes and constructs a God that is understandable by man and agreeable (somewhat) to our moral tastes. In a sense, the more God is perceived as self-limiting, the more humankind can be perceived as having control over his/her own destiny. As attractive as that is, how much does that square with the religious impulse that God is beyond human comprehension beyond what has been revealed? And the question I was pursuing is: How representative is that synthetic concept of the Bible as a whole?
I have never been convinced by the argument that the JW God is somehow weaker than Calvin's God because he does not know the everything in advance. Remember Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach merely that Jehovah does not see certain aspects of the future. What they teach is that Jehovah chooses not to know how some things will turn out. This teaching preserves both the idea of free will and God's omnipotence and omniscience in a way that Calvinism fails to do. Some Christian opponents of the Witnesses claim that Witnesses worship a God who is not fully omniscient or omnipotent because he does not know all of the future. But that does not make sense because Jehovah's Witnesses actually say that God would certainly be capable of seeing all of the future, but he chose not to know if humans would remain faithful in order to give them a fair chance. If Calvinists say that it is impossible for God to choose not to know about the future then in effect they are limiting the power of God in claiming that he is not able to choose not to know the future if he so wishes. So ironically it is Calvin's God who is weaker than the JW God.
The JW teaching makes more sense of a wider range of Bible passages because the early sections of scripture where God does not know the future are explained on the basis that God chose not to know the outcome of certain events. Other passages where God makes general predictions or even detailed predictions for the future are explained as being instances either where God has looked into the future and foreseen what would happen, or where he has purposed certain events to take place and when he makes the prediction with his mouth then he will fulfill it by his hand as Narkissos was talking about above.
So the result is a reading that accepts on face value the passages of scripture that seem to imply incomplete future knowledge on the part of Jehovah, while explaining it on the basis that this is not a sign of weakness, but, in the context of later scripture where God demonstrates his ability to see into the future, actually a sign of Jehovah's tremendous power in being able to exercise even his knoweldge to the precise degree he chooses.
We would not say Jehovah is not omnipotent because he fails to use his power at every single opportunity. In the same way God's omniscience is not compromised by his being able to choose when to know the future and when not. In fact this ability preserves God's omnipotence.
-
Witness 007
My prophecy is in these last days the love of a greater number will cool off.......my God! You people are the furfillment!
-
quietlyleaving
very interesting reasoning slim. I've always believed that JWs are very rational in their approach to the bible.
This point of yours also caught my eye
So the result is a reading that accepts on face value the passages of scripture that seem to imply incomplete future knowledge on the part of Jehovah, while explaining it on the basis that this is not a sign of weakness, but, in the context of later scripture where God demonstrates his ability to see into the future, actually a sign of Jehovah's tremendous power in being able to exercise even his knoweldge to the precise degree he chooses.
We would not say Jehovah is not omnipotent because he fails to use his power at every single opportunity. In the same way God's omniscience is not compromised by his being able to choose when to know the future and when not. In fact this ability preserves God's omnipotence.
But their rationalism is also selfserving because it allows the governing body more freedom in interpreting the scriptures to keep themselves in power.
The Calvinist point of view, imo, allows greater individual freedom from human authority but suggests more of a sense of conformity between the indivdual and his predestining God.
-
Narkissos
It seems that Furuli has shamelessly plagiarised a very old Watchtower argument ("prooftexts" included) which I still remember (from about 30 years ago!) as particularly moot, involving (1) a reductionist analysis of the usage of the same phrase in completely unrelated contexts ("all the blood shed since creation" by no means implies that "creation" coincides with the first bloodshed!), (2) the endocentric analysis of this stereotyped phrase by separation of its components (a beginner's mistake in semantics), (3) the unwarranted extrapolation of a contextually defined use of katabolè (spermatos, not kosmos, in Hebrews!), and (4) a preposterous definition of kosmos as meaning only "the world of mankind" (from a reductionist interpretation of Johannine writings)... of course what he may have added to the argument to make it look a bit more "scholarly" I have no idea, but what slimboyfat has posted about it so far is 100 % pre-Furuli Watchtower stuff.
Just for the sake of fairness, Calvin has certainly no regard for human "free will" but zealously preserves God's freedom. The "naked God" (as he sometimes put it) is completely unknowable and undetermined (cf. the Sermons on Job, as recently analysed by Susan E. Schreiner). Double predestination is a free decree (another type of willful self-limitation), and all the more so as it precedes, not only the actual creation and fall chronologically, but even the decrees of creation and fall logically (supralapsarianism). It is decision and action, not response or reaction.