Jwfacts, Why Do You Equate Miracles With Magic?

by Recovery 398 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Did Moses learn and practice Egyptian magic?

    Hmmm, maybe Sparlock should be renamed to Moses, and then it's OK for kids to play with him?

    Acts 7:22: And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.

    Moses was reared as the son of Pharaoh's daughter (Heb 11:24) and groomed for leadership; he would be given a thorough initiation into all the most arcane priestly secrets and the mysteries of Egyptian magic knowledge of his time, taught by the Kher Heb (Egyptian high priest) and priesthood in the great universities to those expected to assume positions of authority. This course of study would have included star-knowledge, necromancy, divining, and other aspects of occult lore, appealing to Egyptian dieties.

    Egyptologist E.A. Wallis Budge says:

    Moses was a skilled performer of magical rituals and was deeply learned in the knowledge of the
    accompanying spells, incantations, and magical formulas of every description . . . [Moreover] the miracles
    which he wrought . . . suggest that he was not only a priest, but a magician of the highest order and perhaps
    even a Kher Heb.

    While serving as a commander of the Pharoah's military forces as a young man (as suggested by non-Biblical sources), it is unlikely that he DIDN'T rely on Egyptian magic (appealing to Isis, Adon, etc) to ensure a military victory against the Ethiopians. Moses actually performed the magic tricks he learned FROM Egyptians (where the "staff turned into snake" trick was well-known amongst Egyptians), but the Torah ascribes his more-powerful magic to YHWH. So the same act is performed, but attributed to another source (YHWH vs Adon).

    From:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ema/ema03.htm

    From the Hebrews we receive, incidentally, it is true, considerable information about the powers of the Egyptian magician. Saint Stephen boasts that the great legislator Moses "was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," and declares that he "was mighty in words and in deeds," 1 and there are numerous features in the life of this remarkable man which show that he was acquainted with many of the practices ofEgyptian magic. The phrase "mighty in words" probably means that, like the goddess Isis, he was "strong of tongue" and uttered the words of power which he knew with correct pronunciation, and halted not in his speech, and was perfect both in giving the command and in saying the word. The turning of a serpent into what is apparently an inanimate, wooden stick, 1 and the turning of the stick back into a writhing snake, 2 are feats which have been performed in the East from the most ancient period; and the power to control and direct the movements of such venomous reptiles was one of the things of which the Egyptian was most proud, and in which he was most skilful, already in the time when the pyramids were being built.

    But this was by no means the only proof which Moses gives that he was versed in the magic of the Egyptians, for, like the sage Âba-aner and king Nectanebus, and all the other magicians of Egypt from time immemorial, he and Aaron possessed a wonderful rod 3 by means of which they worked their wonders. At the word of Moses Aaron lifted up his rod and smote the waters and they became blood; he stretched it outover the waters, and frogs innumerable appeared; when the dust was smitten by the rod it became lice; and so on. Moses sprinkled ashes "toward heaven," and it became boils and blains upon man and beast; he stretched out his rod, and there was "hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous," and the "flax and the barley was smitten;" he stretched out his rod and the locusts came, and after them the darkness. Now Moses did all these things, and brought about the death of the firstborn among the Egyptians by the command of his God, and by means of the words which He told him to speak.

    But although we are told by the Hebrew writer that the Egyptian magicians could not imitate all the miracles of Moses, it is quite certain that every Egyptian magician believed that he could perform things equally marvellous by merely uttering the name of one of his gods, or through the words of power which he had learned to recite; and there are many instances on record of Egyptian magicians utterly destroying their enemies by the recital of a few words possessed of magical power, and, by the performance of some, apparently, simple ceremony. 1 But one great distinction must be made between the magic of Moses and that of the Egyptians among whom he lived; the former was wrought by the command of the God of the Hebrews, but the latter by the gods of Egypt at the command of man.

    Later on in the history of Moses' dealings with the Egyptians we find the account of how "he stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left." When the Egyptians had come between the two walls of water, by God's command Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, "and the sea returned to his strength," and the "waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them." 1But the command of the waters of the sea or river was claimed by the Egyptian magician long before the time of Moses, as we may see from an interesting story preserved in the Westcar Papyrus. 2 This document was written in the early part of the XVIIIth dynasty, about B.C. 1550 but it is clear that the stories in it date from the Early Empire, and are in fact as old as the Great Pyramid. The story is related to king Khufu (Cheops) by Baiu-f-Râ as an event which happened in the time of the king's father, and as a proof of the wonderful powers of magic which were possessed by the priest 3 calledTchatcha-em-ânkh.

  • perfect1
    perfect1

    From an anthropologic, athiestic point of view I would say miracles happen without any effort of the involved party, whereas magic involved a series of exhanges with real or imagined other beings or forces to produce a desired outcome. Magic has structure, costs, returns, and etiquette all activated by participants, while miracles maybe prayed for, they do not have the same economy as magic. A miracle is a free lunch.

  • J. Hofer
    J. Hofer

    moses did quite a few magic tricks, like turning his stick into a schlong, parting the red seas, striking a rock until it released enough water for a few million souls, scaring snakes away etc.

    the talking bush was a miracle though.

  • Etude
    Etude

    Wow, I considered the discussion (not the subject matter) interesting enough to read all posts from beginning to end. Even though, I've been on this board for over 10 years now, I'm still discovering how many really smart people participate here.

    Naturally, I have a few choice comments for Recovery and hope that I'm not repeating what others have said, what others have said. Even if I do, even if I do, it may be good so that you, Recovery, can start thinking on what others are trying to say, while I put it differently, and start to prick your way out of that self-referent bubble that surrounds you.

    Your analogy about the red cars floored me. You say they're identical in every way except that one runs on gas and the other on a battery. Then faced with the idea that the only difference is their power source, you object to someone else's comment by saying: "But they are not the same car"! (post 133) Huh? You do realize that they can't be the "same" car, otherwise they would occupy the exact same space at the exact same time? I don't think anyone was trying to suggest that. Obviously you obfuscate the corresponding parts of your analogy. I think cognisonance pointed that out more than once.

    If you'd thought a little deeper you'd realize that what powers them is the same: energy. The difference is that (to shorten the parallel) one is "magic-gas" and the other "miraculous-electricity". They can't be the same car simply by virtue of their appearance if one car was the "magic" model and the other car the "miracle" model. But I hope I'm not taxing your imagination if I say that for all practical purposes the cars are the same in the sense that they both appear and function (ride) the same. You can equate one car to Pharaoh's priests summoning frogs out of the river and the other car to Aaron summoning frogs out of the river: one is powered by gas and the other by electricity and yet both acts (cars) accomplish the exact same thing. See where I'm going?

    Your definitions of one or the other, magic and miracle, are but corollaries (in the parallel you posed) for the definition of gas and electricity. The definitions you referenced for each term -- magic and miracle -- are only different ways to describe things that are both supernatural and not readily available for purchase at your local 7-Eleven. Granted, one for the most part is associated with negative or nefarious sources while the other is more positive and apparently good. But that's just one source. Other's here have made the connection in the supernaturalism of the two.

    But if you really put yourself in the place of someone neutral, as some sort of third-party observer, as a visitor to Egypt when the frogs came out of the river or when everyone's staffs (staves) became flaccid and turned to snakes, as an independent observer, you would not have known the nature or the source of the event but for the fact that someone told you. If you are so inclined, you'll believe the Hebrews if they tell you. If not, you'll believe the Egyptians because they were also successful. The real point is that the source is arbitrary, while the events are indistinguishable. I realize that for you they are not and the whole thing is quite simple. But for a critically thinking and impartial individual, if we can't be sure, it's OK to say "I don't know" and leave it at that.

    Let's face it, since you're taking the word of a tome with many assailable accounts, unless you can explain them all away, you may finally conclude with respect to miraculous or magical events that if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. You do realize that I'm not giving you an answer to the JWfacts reliability issue (I've never been there) or am even arguing about the veracity of Jehovah or am talking about whether Godzilla really stomped all over Tokyo. But one thing is clear: that even if this one issue in which you are clearly fallible were in a Bizarro world to be found valid, you cannot ignore all the other problems that exist with the teachings of the WTBTS and it would be very difficult to explain the changing stances that the JWs present in their literature. Hence, I'm not sure why you're hung up on this one particular issue.

    If you're going to make a distinction between a miracle and magic by what is accomplished, then you need to state what point turning staffs into snakes and summoning frogs from the river make. If God wanted to make a point and give people chances to show their colors, I would think that He's one manipulating dude for putting people through the ringer when He knows exactly what they're going to do. Otherwise, God is just showing off. That does not speak well of good intent to create a miracle as opposed to the poor Egyptian priests using magic to simply keep up with Moses and Aaron and prevent their land from being devastated. Sure, I'm going to the other extreme just to prove a point.

    Christ Alone, you said something interesting about evil that caught my attention: "The way I look at it is evil is not a thing, it's a mere [degradation] of what is good." (post 286) Then by the same reasoning, "good" is not a thing either. I think you're right in the sense that they are not so tangible or even quantifiable at times. But I disagree in the sense that they, good and evil, are not entities as much as I consider them "states" of things or of acts as much as we can say something is good or bad. I could say that the water temperature in my tub is bad (evil) because it's so hot it will peel the skin off my ass if sit in it, not mention other more important parts. The same water temperature is good if I use it to wash and sterilize my dishes.

    In every sense of the word, the Bible determines us (although via questionable reasons or lack thereof) for what evil is. It's not evil or bad to prevent your 3-year old from going near the top of the stairs in your house. Heck, you do it. But you have determined for him or her that it is bad and wrong because you say so (for good reasons). So, it was OK for Lots daughters to commit incest but then later it was not OK for others. In the O.T. it was not OK to have a wet dream but it's inconsequential in the N.T. That means that there is a context to what is determined as evil or not. If you believe in the Bible, you either perceive it for yourself or you let others interpret that for you. The reality is that when religious organizations spiritually castigate people or cause untold pain for others, as the WTBTS has done, you start to realize that evil (in a religious sense) is relative and very subjective. A society like ours has different rules (or at least different foundations) for what is considered evil.

    Recovery , you said: "Hence, supernatural showings such as a human flying, a talking orge [I think you meant to say ogre], or a princess being turned into a frog are not objectionable from the Bible's viewpoint" and "Dressing up as demons and ghosts and devils for Halloween = Fantasy. Does not attribute power to evil REAL evil spirits." Are you serious? So what are you going to dress up as next Halloween? I dare you to put that princess/frog thing to the test and see how fast you're helped out of the Kingdom Hall if you try to argue it. Pahleeeeze, many of us spent quite a bit of time on the inside and have a good deal of certainty about how it would go down.

    I would love for you to offer more insight into your thinking because its only bound to sharpen mine as well as give me an opportunity to hear what others here have to say that intelligent and thoughtful. That's an admission that in spite of being wrong, you do make a compelling argument. That's what makes it interesting.

  • kurtbethel
    kurtbethel

    The core of the problem is not the semantics of calling a supernatural act magic, or calling it a miracle.

    The problem the Watchtower has with magic is that magic is actually science that is so advanced that you do not understand how it works, The Watchtower has a deep hatred and distrust of science, because it is run by men with poorly developed minds and science has time and again showed them to be dishonest liars. Really advanced science, which is so advanced that it has the appearance of magic, really terrifies them, as it should.

    magic science

  • ziddina
    ziddina
    "Who do we believe, Jehovah or Jwfacts? You decide..." OP

    Hee heee!!

    Well, I stopped believing in "jehovah" when I realized that 'he' didn't even know what a volcano was.... Exodus 19: 16-19

    Zid

  • Etude
    Etude

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke. I imagine what our world would seem like to someone from the first century. Some of the stuff we have and can do today, would make Jesus walking on water like a street side show.

  • Paralipomenon
    Paralipomenon

    I am glad that onlookers can see how ridiculous the members posting in this thread look as they continue to use any diversionary tactic that works (even if it's not funny), because they simply don't have answer for the questions/arguments I presented. They cannot accept the fact that their almighty guru exJW website has been shown to be in serious doctrinal error and they cannot find a plausible way to justify it.

    Noticing that he fled the thread, unable to justify his stance once JWFacts and others crushed his logic. I guess the "onlookers" can now see how ridiculous his assertions were.

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Etude said:

    Some of the stuff we have and can do today, would make Jesus walking on water like a street side show.

    Yup, Etude. The "miraculousness" loses some of it's luster nowadays. Modern men avoid "miraculous" signs like pestilence, crop failures, floods, etc via use of pesticides, drought-/disease-resistant strains of crops, dams/levees, etc. Those were very real fears to ancients, where they represented a very real threat to budding agrarian societies, but are memories to modern men.

    What I find interesting is how JWs decry anything with "pagan roots" (eg Christmas, etc), when historical evidence (including the Bible) indicates Moses learned and practiced pagan Egyptian magic! SAME TECHNIQUES used by Egyptian High Priests, SAME PROPS (staffs, sceptres), SAME MAGICAL INCANTATIONS, only inserting the name of YHWH instead.

    Moses was the first leader in the Bible to use miragic, so by JW logic, all magicles that were practiced by Jesus and early Christians (signs, speaking in tongues, healing, turning water into wine, etc) probably shoud've been banned on the basis of their "pagan" roots.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Recovery said ....

    Well if pointing out that my God, respected dictionaries and thesauruses, and simple logic do not equate miracles with magic then so be it.

    The problem with you Recovery is that you've let the WTS. and the bible help you define what is a miracle and what is magic,

    that being if God or Jesus does something with their super natural powers its called a miracle, when others create miracles with their super natural

    powers its called evil magic.

    In both cases spiritualism doesn't exist but only in the human imagination.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit