"So you believe it is perfectly fine to mistranslate Bible verses when they don't mesh with your preconceived theology?
In that case, no problem whatsoever!"
Angry today, are we?
Witness Bible altered text Genisis 3:6 to show the "Tree of knowlege" had no "magical powers' Cover up! Shock!
by Witness 007 30 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
sir82
Angry today, are we?
No not at all. Puzzled at the inability to see the problem, that's all. But thanks for your concern.
-
hamsterbait
The Knox (Catholic translation) says the same as the NWT but in a footnote says that some translations take this to mean what has been said in this thread. So its not just the WTBTS that does this.
The KJ, and the NIV say it was desirable for imparting wisdom too.
What is so corny about this tale is that the first bit of wisdom it imparted was that they were naked!
HB
-
JWoods
but the Watchtower said no, no it's just symbolic.
Rather some insightful irony for a government body who thinks that the 144,000 is "literal" but the "one lamb" is also "symbolic".
Guess it depends on whoes "ox" is getting "gored", eh?
-
Satanus
Here is the quote:
*** lp chap. 5 p. 53 par. 18 Why Has God Allowed Suffering on Earth? ***
18 The tree was, in effect, symbolic of the boundary—the line of demarcation—or the limit of man’s proper domain. It was right and proper, yes, essential, that God inform Adam of that boundary. For a perfect man to eat of that tree would require the deliberate assent of his will. It would indicate the determination made beforehand that he would withdraw himself from subjection to God’s rulership, to go out on his own, doing what was “good” or “bad” according to his own decisions.*** g 6/06 pp. 28-29 What Was the Original Sin? ***
A Grasp at Moral Independence
The tree of knowledge was a literal tree. However, it represented God’s right as Ruler to decide what is good and bad for his human creation. To eat from the tree, therefore, was not just an act of theft—taking that which belonged to God—but also a presumptuous grasp at moral independence, or self-determination. Note that after lyingly telling Eve that if she and her husband ate the fruit, they ‘positively would not die,’ Satan asserted: “For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.”—Genesis 3:4, 5.
When they ate the fruit, however, Adam and Eve did not receive godlike enlightenment on good and bad.S
-
glenster
Leave it to the JWs leaders to feign a distinctive allegorical tree.
-
Narkissos
angel eyes: as a rule of thumb, texts do mean what they say (even in the Bible!) and the less you add to "make sense" of them, the better. Of course sapiential (or "wisdom") tales like this one were told/written to make the hearer/reader think, but it is much more a matter of subsequent reflection or meditation than "reading between the lines" so to say.
Mary: the idea that the man had to (and did) eat from the "tree of life" continuously is not supported by the text, if only for the reason that it is not stated, hence not part of the story (cf. previous remark). Although the tree of life is introduced in 2:9 as an anticipation of the conclusion (in a rather awkward manner, since it is put "in the midst of the garden," where the tree of knowledge is according to 3:3), it plays absolutely no part in the narrative down to the conclusion. And Yhwh's hurried decision to move the man and woman out of the garden is clearly motivated by the fear that they might also take from the tree of life -- something which apparently hadn't happened yet but might well happen anytime now that they "know": "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever." (In the Gilgamesh epic, the serpent takes the plant of life away before Gilgamesh can use it.)
hamsterbait: the humour is even more apparent with the pun in the Hebrew text: they were naked (`arummim), the serpent was wise (`arum), and now they know they are naked...
(Reminds me of a Lubitsch line about partnership: "I had the money, he had the experience. After that he had the money and I had the experience.")
-
Witness 007
I checked the Hebrew Interlinear bible and yes, it mentions the fruit having "wisdom, intelligence"......sorry Watchtower!
-
Borgia
So, when they ate they saw themselves as they really were, as the gods saw them: naked. And that was bad. That's why they sewed figleaves together for covering which was good. The gods did even better and dressed them up in fur. ......
..... connecting the dots: Adam and Eve were hairy mf's. When they ate the fruit, their hair fell out. Leaving them with naked skin. That was bad. So the gods clothed them with fur to give them that deary hairy feeling again ..... (don't mess with the Zohan)
I now understand the controversy: bald or bale, shaven or not. .....
Cheers
Borgia
-
ldrnomo
There has to be more to this. ???
There is. The tree was actually a huge cannabis 30 feet high and when you ate from it, you gained wisdom and open mindedness. They also realized they had no clothes on. In fact they realized that there was no such thing as clothes yet so they, while under the influence of the cannabis invented clothes.
The reason God did not want them to eat the cannabis was because they would become more aware of their surroundings and would realize they were locked in a garden and also God thought that if they ate cannabis they would go on to stronger and more mind opening herbs like mushrooms and cactus.
Satan knew that once they ate from the magical cannabis, they would no longer be happy with just a small garden to live in and they would expand their horizons and move on. That way he could live in the garden by himself without people bothering him because you know how hard it is to be a snake and with kids yet to show up on the seen Satan knew if he didn't get those people out of there, the kids were sure to be a problem when they arrived.
LD's version of the story