How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda 63 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  kepler

  Caleb,

  Been interested in this subject for a while myself. When I was confronted by JW-beliefs as a non, I often found myself wondering what the early Hebrew or current Jewish perspective was on Scriptures. Even though I wasn't getting far in reading commentary, it was an eye opener.

  The tip of the iceberg appeared to be the notion that there were such divisions as implied by the TaNaKh: law, prophets and writings, plus the pigeon-holing of the books therein. Ask various Christian which one is which (e.g., Daniel) and consider the implications.

  But then considering the JW position is that a Scripture is inerrant, including I suppose Jeremiah 8:8 - while a Rabbinical or even Catholic position these days might be: "Some say, 'Yes', some say, 'No..."

  I know that another topic has now been reserved for questions, but there seems to be a lot of cross fire on that channel right now. So, I'll ask you for your taken on what of the books in the Kethuvim, and that is Job.

  Admittedly, Job is written in Hebrew, but is it originally a Hebrew story? Does it have any context? What does it mean to Jews? You said elsewhere that the purpose of life is to try to make the campsite better than when you arrived. Does Job address that? Saw the Coen brothers "A Serious Man" a few years ago. Maybe more than coincidental resemblances in the film, but the narrator didn't say at the end that protagonist got everything back in double. There was just a tornado warning.
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  Is the story of Job originally from and/or about someone in our culture? No definitive answer there. The book seems to describe Job as a Gentile, but some Jews point out that the same language used to identify Job is applicable to Hebrews.

  Basically the book is seen as telling us that some answers lie beyond our grasp. Jews often see the book as paralleling the experience of the Holocaust and the WHY? that still lingers.

  The book is not known for directly promoting Tikkun Olam, or making the world better, but it seems to do so indirectly. After the drama is complete and Job gets to hear from Heaven, Job's situation turns around. Job is either helped and helps himself to move on after asking "why," and sometimes we need to stop, realize there may be no answer to our questions and move on ourselves, learning to accept life on its own terms.

  As for the Cohen brother's film, it is suggested by many that it is to be paralleled with the book of Job, but the filmmakers said it was really a look into the fears and paranoia of what it is like to be Jewish: Is G-d talking to me? Is G-d not talking to me? Does it really matter if I do something bad? Will G-d punish me if do? Nah, he is not like that...is he? Do I have my answers? Is this tornado my answer? Or is this just coincidental?

  True, like Job there is no answer, but that's a lot like all of Jewry. Jews are known for answering questions with a question, didn't you know that?
• 

  Diogenesister

  Calebinflorida, thank you so much for this. Coming from a 'hebrist' religon , one happy hangover of my departure was my deep interest in Judaism. Whilst the little I know has made me realize the little I know, if you look at my posts I always recommend confused Christians study up on Judaism as it staggers me how ignorant we are on the belief system Jesus of Nazereth himself adhered to.

  You mention the public nature (or theophany)in judaism ie Jews dont have to take the word of another, that God reveiled himself to the whole nation who stood at the ft. of Mt.Sinai. I am aware of this tenet in Jusaism. However, whether it is the translation of the scriptures Christians' use, this event never seemed obvious to me. Is it indeed a different scripture ( the Septiguint ??) Or am I too much of a bozo to find it?
• 

  Diogenesister

  Re the name of God thing, isn't davening incredibly repetative ?
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  The Great Theophany is not spelled out in Scripture as much as it is repeated in Hebrew writ.

  For instance, though Abraham has personal theophanies, this is followed up by the angel visitors that both Abraham and Sarah and their servants see and wait upon. Though Moses has a personal theophany at the burning bush, he leaves with signs to show the people and wonders to work upon Egypt before the exodus leads to the Great Theophany at Sinai. All the other prophets of Jewish history either work their wonders or give their oracles in public. This pattern is that of public theophany vs. the type of hidden wonders performed by Jesus (who tells people not to spread reports of him or chooses only a few people to perform miracles in front of) or private visions like claimed by Joseph Smith of the Mormons. The tenet is not a command from Scripture but was learned by the Jews' contact with YHWH over the centuries and is one of the reasons Jesus is not acceptable as the Messiah.

  Davening can be repetitive, at least the form Orthodox Jews engage in. However the Name is not repeated or used in liturgy, and Davening is an official liturgical action so there is not even use of the Name in this practice. It is also not the "babbling like the Gentiles," although Protestants who abhor Catholic forms of prayer (simply due to anti-Catholicism) tend to ignore the "like the Gentiles" part and just concentrate on forbidding all use of repetition.
• 

  kepler

  Thanks, Caleb. What I see here in your replies are homilies about scriptural texts that we of other persuasions would not likely ever hear, but would find that there is much to contemplate.

  Which is a matter that leads back to something you mentioned earlier: the term Gentiles in Matthew 6:7-9 where Jesus gives disciples guidelines on how to pray, followed by introduction of the Lord's Prayer.

  I went back to look at the text - and it is as you said. Chapter 6 begins with a discussion of alms giving and objections to public displays which refer to local practices (e.g., in synagogues - verse 5), but in English, "Gentiles" are called out as the ones who think they will be heard because of their many words. Like many people who retain the scriptures as a composite, I had assumed that Christ was again attacking Pharisees - and perhaps I had even heard as much from the pulpit at one time or another. At the very least this verse is directed elsewhere. Yet it still seems odd, perhaps even anachronistic. Who were these audibly praying Gentiles of which Jesus spoke?

  I referred to a Greek English New Testament with the Concordance - and the Greek word used in this case was ETHNIKOS. In the text by Paul Reynolds the Concordance ( Strong number 1482) defines the word as NATION, but in all its applications and in the majority of its variant ( ETHNOS - Nation), the translation is assumed to be Gentiles. Since there are 162 uses of the latter, the context probably decides which is more appropriate, I suspect the rules are not iron-clad. But there are patterns: In Matthew, the early chapters speak of Gentiles up to chapter 20:19 (" the rulers of the Gentiles"), and thereafter we start seeing phrases like 29:19 "make disciples of all nations." And Paul in Romans is translated in speaking of Abraham as "the father of many nations", significantly not "Gentiles". ...Yet it is still the interpretation of the same Greek word.

  If I were a raccoon treating translation as a lump of sugar being washed in a stream, I think I could eliminate the use of "Gentiles" altogether. For unless I was there listening to the intonation of the speaker, I could hardly tell which version of the word its evocation is supposed to convey.
• 

  kepler

  Just another note on Matt chapter 6. This is not so much a matter of distinctions between Jews and the Christian community but among Christians themselves. In the reform movements of the 16th and 17th centuries, great emphasis was placed on the value of "faith" over acts, especially by followers of Luther and Calvin. When I look at these passages in Matthew, I see holes in their arguments. And I have to wonder how they missed them as well.

  Their arguments were based on the humans after Original Sin being all of a kind, a very low form of low life. Nothing that they could in acts could be seen as favorable in the eyes of the Lord. And granted that these passages show the ways in which alms and prayers would not be seen as worthy - and how they can result in rewards here on Earth rather than heaven. But there are also recommendations on how to make these ACTS of value.

  As I have been reading this summer in a historical account of those times, it would be possible to lose your life circa 1560 or so for making the same argument in various parts of Europe (just as there was for upholding its counter in other parts).
• 

  Vidiot

  CalebInFlorida - "...the Watchtower screws up your view of scripture..."

  Just scripture? :wink:

  CalebInFlorida - "The scriptures are not the basis of religion, they are its product."

  I think this is damn near the most perceptive and profound thing I've read in years.

  Well done.
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  @Vidiot

  Thanks for the thumbs up. And yes, they do more than just screw up one's view of Scripture.

  @Kepler

  The English word "Gentile" comes from the Latin translation of the Greek word ETHNIKOS/ETHNOS, namely "gentilis." The English word "ethnicity" comes from ETHNOS, and the English word "genus" comes from the Latin word which itself generally means "tribe."

  In Hebrew the word for a non-Jew is "goy." And often the word ETHNOS is used to mean "goy," or Gentile. But sometimes it just means "people."

  So you are right, you have to let the context guide you. But in modern versions like the one I was quoting from, the NRSV, they are often very careful to only use "Gentiles" when "goy" or non-Jew is meant. The NRSV renders it "people" or "nations" depending on the context too. To illustrate, the NRSV uses "Gentiles" at Matthew 6.7 but is careful to translate it as "nations" at Matthew 25.32.
• 

  kepler

  Caleb,

  Your reference to the Latin roots for the word Gentile (above) inspired me to take at look at Jerome's Vulgate Latin translation of the same chapter some time in the 5th century present era. Jerome does not use any form o f "gens, gentes, gentilis... but the original Greek word. See below:

  6:7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the HEATHENS. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.

  
  

  Orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ETHNICI putant enim quia in multiloquio suo exaudiantur

  
  

  6:8 Be not you therefore like to them for your Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him.

  
  

  Nolite ergo adsimilari eis scit enim Pater vester quibus opus sit vobis antequam petatis eum

  Elsewhere, Jerome uses gentilis in John (once), frequently in the Acts and Maccabees.

  Beside what you noted above, the Wikipedia discussion of Gentiles describes the term as follows:

  The term is used by English translators for the Hebrew גוי (goy) and נכרי (nokhri) in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek word ἔθνη (éthnē) in the New Testament. The term "gentiles" is derived from Latin, used for contextual translation, and not an original Hebrew or Greek word from the Bible. The original words goy and ethnos refer to "peoples" or "nations". Latin and later English translators selectively used the term "gentiles" when the context for the base term "peoples" or "nations" referred to non-Israelite peoples or nations in English translations of the Bible.

  Consequently, it seems that context was shaky here. And overall, the term was invented for English translation. for a conjecture.

  This will probably one of the few times I will fall on the side of the New World Translation, which happened to observe the same thing.