Nice chart, never seen that one before.
Twisting Scripture vs A Literal Reading
by AllTimeJeff 64 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
TD
I think Jeff has made a vaid point, but it's a point that unfortunately seems to be difficult for those steeped in the hermeneutics of JW's and kindred groups to grasp.
Taking the Bible literally does not mean ignoring literary devices. When Jesus told Peter to, "..feed my sheep" he obviously was not talking about ungulates in the genus Ovis.
"Sheep" was a familiar metaphor in the teachings of Jesus and as long as you understand that metaphor in the social and historical context in which it was used, you are still taking the Bible literally.
But when that metaphor becomes a "Great crowd" of "Other sheep" that were recognized as the "Jonadabs" in the year 1935, the Bible is no longer being taken literally. To arrive at that interpretation, one must jump around between different works in the Bible, combine and mix the metaphors of different speakers and arrive at an esoteric meaning that no individual writer and/or speaker in the Bible supports.
Similarly, when Jesus said to "Beware of the leaven of the Phrarisees" it's perfectly valid to undestand that as a metaphor for the harsh approach to the Law advocated by the House of Shammai. As a Rabbi in the tradition of Hillel, Jesus soundly condemned the disregard for justice, mercy and faithfulness which resulted from that approach to the Law.
But when the "Leaven of the Pharisees" becomes a metaphor for questionable "Biblical interpretation" in modern Christianity, the Bible is no longer being taken literally. The compiliation of books known today as the "Bible" did not exist at the time and much of it had not even been written. And even if you grant Jesus the prescience of knowing that it someday would be written and compiled, it still reduces his statement to the point of nonsense to anachronistically project that idea back into the context of the conversation. Jesus was talking about factions within Judaism to other Jews who would know exactly what he meant. --A very specific conversation to a specific audience at a specific point in history
-
PSacramento
A very specific conversation to a specific audience at a specific point in history
Wel said and that is how one must truly view the NT and the OT.
-
Ultimate Reality
How to read ancient texts, including the Bible, is the subject of many commentaries. For instance, should we read the Mosaic law internally? In other words, as if we were an Israelite, in order to get the clearest meaning. Or externally, with a close-reading and critical analysis of virtually every word?
What has cleared up the meaning of many Biblical verses for me is to perform more an internal, literal reading and determine (as best we know) who wrote it, when it was written, and to whom. This does not mean ignoring symbolism or metaphors, obviously.
The literal approach means abandoning the Society's favorite interpretive reading: parallel dispensations. The idea that the Bible contains double-meanings and secondary, larger fulfillments is unsupported scripturally and has led to one failed interpretation after another.
As an example of how understanding the historical context can impact a literal reading, Christendom determined that Revelation was written in 96CE. The Society also has adopted this view which is largely based on ambiguous comments made by Ireneaus. However, many scholars feel a pre-70CE dating is more accurate and, when the bulk of Revelation is applied to the events concluding the Jewish system, it presents a much clearer interpretation than the Society's non-sense. The same would be true of Matthew 24; one single application in the 1st century.
Whether or not one puts faith in the Bible is a different matter. But few even attempt to take an exegetical approach and seem to be looking for a hidden message about the near-future, and somehow they always find it because, they think, God has granted them special wisdom.
-
EndofMysteries
Terry -
Can understand that line of thinking, but can you explain this......
First, the dead sea scrolls generally date between 150BCE and 70CE.
The fall of Tyre, and how it would happen was predicted. Even so much as to say it would be underwater. - It happened and today you can still see it!
Then Israel itself, aside from Jesus warning, in many of the books it speaks of the seige on Israel, and how because of the famine they would eat their own children and cannibalism. That happened as well and documented.
The reason I mention the dates of the dead sea scrolls, is because one may say, "well maybe the bible was written hundreds of years after that."
So other then people 'wanting' to believe in it. How is it explained how it's prophecies have a good track record, especially the more specific ones, which leave no doubt as to fulfillment.
-
alfmel
There are several things to consider. First, there is a lot of symbolism in the Bible whose context has been long lost to us, the common folk. Historians, Orthodox Jews and other scholars still know it, so it is very difficult to extract all meaning out of the Bible without some of that cultural foundation. The other aspect is the one given in 1 Cor. 2:14: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
The big question we have to ask is: does a spiritual realm really exist? If there is such a spiritual plane (and most religions will claim there is) then we should find a way to get in touch with it to help us understand the spiritual. I believe I have received guidance from the Holy Spirit from time to time, and that guidance has come a long way to help me understand the Bible.
-
Leolaia
But the book of Enoch WAS canon in some versions of the bible.
It still is canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, along with other Enochic/Essene books like Jubilees.
-
Leolaia
There is a danger to regarding the Bible as one book, it is more like a collection of books, or perhaps a really thick magazine. The works that make up the Bible were written by many people (some were just writing down oral stories) over a period of a thousand years or more. There are historical parts, prophetic parts, poetic parts, collections of sayings, letters etc. These can not be treated equally, they were written to different audiences and with different purposes. A good theologian will recognize these differences and take them into account.
A better theologian will tell you to read it and let your own conscience be your guide.Excellent summary. The Bible is an anthology of many distinct works, a biblia "library", which is where the name comes from. Each book was written in its own cultural and intellectual context, which today no longer exists. To interpret the Bible as containing a unified, single meaning that is shared by all the books and which can be derived entirely from them (as opposed to any external context), and often by prooftexting without regard to the internal context and structure of each book, is to develop an innovative systematic doctrine distinct from whatever the Bible authors had in mind. The development of trinitarian and Arian theologies are BOTH good examples of this process; each developed different solutions towards harmonizing the many different NT statements about Christ and his relationship with God, often by drawing on a newer intellectual context. Modern theologians recognize that such theologies are products of biblical interpretation of NT material, and exegetes are more interested in understanding, for instance, how Paul understood Christ on his own terms, or how the author of the Foruth Gospel understood Christ on his own terms, etc.
-
not a captive
There is a woman I know who was never a Witness. She probably would be lost on this thread. For her, faith runs roughly along the lines of the "Jesus Loves Me" song that kids in those wicked vacation Bible schools would learn to sing after they had their kool-aid break.
After I had known her a while, I mentioned how my husband raised in a messed up sort of foster care had a problem with religion, God, family life and trust. Our friendship hit a deeper level at that point because she said that she understood: She'd been born into a bad situation and had been removed by the state then placed in one foster home after another, sexually abused throughout. By the time she was out of the system it was doubtful if she would be able to become pregnant and bear a child. Yet she felt so fortunate that even with health troubles annd financial woes she has managed to bear four children and see her grandchildren.
I hope for anyone reading this to allow that when I say this woman is kind, warm, simple, appreciative and possesses personal dignity, they can allow that she is as I say. She doesn't have much money but until last month when her husband died of cancer she took in foster children herself because she new how needful a safe haven is when the state gets you. I know I admire her.
I asked her how she had borne up under the misery of her early life and she said that one thing only helped her. An aged aunt had for a brief while taken her to church when she was a child. The gospel message had so moved her that she had given her heart to Jesus. And all through the terrible times of her youth she had known that she belonged to Jesus.
She has no doctrine to teach. I don't discuss Kierkegaard with her. I appreciate her humble gratitude and her frequent comments about not letting the Devil get her to thinking and feeling bad thoughts.
Most theologians would despair of her. The Witnesses would sneer at her faith. She has made me think very deeply about what Jesus brought to us.
-
AllTimeJeff
Good discussion, as always, I think everyones comments speak for themselves.
TD summarized my views on this.
Taking the Bible literally does not mean ignoring literary devices. When Jesus told Peter to, "..feed my sheep" he obviously was not talking about ungulates in the genus Ovis.
There are very clear literary devices in the words attributed to Jesus, but in most cases, they are easily born out in the context or comments. When Jesus spoke of sheep or leaven, then it was clear what he was saying.
Leolaia also makes a great point, and for whatever reason, it is a point that those who WANT to believe that the bible is a unified message will not look at. The simple evidence is, what we call the bible, is actually a collection of letters written at a specific time and about a specific people. There is nothing unified about the book or "the message."
In short being literal doesn't mean ignoring clearly stated allegories and metaphors within the writings.
My point is simple: To me, if you are the least bit intellectually honest, then you have as much ability to make conclusions about the message of the bible as any theologian. Read it literally, ask the obvious questions, and accept the obvious answers.