I_Love_Jeff - "Has the Bible been redacted so that YAHWEH can be promoted to EL's position as Almighty God?"
As good a reason as any. 
Has the Bible been redacted so that YAHWEH can be promoted to EL's position as Almighty God?
by I_love_Jeff 47 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Vidiot
-
Vidiot
Seriously, though...
...re. the OP, I've come to suspect something along those lines, too.
And on a semi-related note, I've also come to suspect that historical anti-semitism has its origins in the Church wanting to suppress the fact that the Old Testament writers - and historical Judaism in general - didn't regard the OT - and Genesis in particular - as literal history.
Just my opinion, though.
-
Crazyguy
Let's get back to the subject a bit. One interesting observation that I have found is the name El-shaddai. People have said this means god almighty or god most high. Others have said it means god of the mountain. The first two meanings have stuck with most people and are written that way in the Bible .
Yet when you look at bible verses like in Judah and 2kings we get a clearer understanding. In Judah is says the lord was with him yet he could not beat the nations of the valleys because they had iron chariots. In 2kings the leader of the area we call Syria today gets beat by the Israelites but is told by his advisors to come back with another army and fight them in the valley because thier gods are mountain gods.
There is also a writting about a guy named Balam or Peor , same guy that beats his talking donkey in the Bible. This writting that's not in the Bible again talks about mountains gods and uses the term Shaddai. Both Baal and El were mountains gods. Other clues are in the Bible about thier worship of Baal and El too. There are plenty of descriptions of Yahweh that match that of El and Baal.
El was a god of covenants lived in a tent or tabernacle on a mountain top. Baal flew around on a chariot in the clouds and battled a sea monster as did Yahweh when he defeated Rahab. El had 70 sons or offspring so did Gideon.
Now as far a Judaism goes let's look at just one of their teachings. The sabbath this most holy days is a day their god told them to rest . But when you look at earlier writtings about the idea of a Sabbath in ancient Sumerian writtings this idea was a bit different. In the older writting the gods had just killed off most of mankind with a flood so they took a day of rest called Sabet or Sabit (can't remember the exact spelling) . In this earlier story as they rested they ate meat that had been sacrificed to them by Atrahasas and later Upanishtim and again later by Noah . So the earliest stories the gods were resting for killing off most of mankind and in time it got changed to a day of rest for mankind. So anyway all religion is guilty of taking ideas from previous cultures or religions and changing them to suit thier needs.
-
Vidiot
BTW, every time I read the word "redacted", I have Portal flashbacks.
-
David_Jay
So the earliest stories the gods were resting for killing off most of mankind and in time it got changed to a day of rest for mankind.
The Jews may not have not derived their Shabbat from these precise ideas, though you are correct that Jews ascribe the origins of the day to their pre-Abrahamic Mesopotamian ancestors. There isn't definitive consensus yet from academics, historians, or Jewish theologians, but you are not far off that there was probably Babylonian influence as well, not to forget to mention the Jewish idea ascribing its origin to Egyptian times (though academics have argued that there is no empirical evidence for this coming from actual Egyptians themselves) .
So while Crazyguy has a workable hypothesis, it isn't the final word. But it also isn't new.
What surprises me is that most people don't bother to ask Jews about the historical origins of the Sabbath. They assume, based I can only suppose on their limited exposure to Western thought (which was largely formed by Christianity) that Jews take the Biblical narrative about the Sabbath (and other aspects of our culture/religion) at face value. Those that have this impression and then are surprised at learning something they think is "new" merely belie the fact that they had been informed in the first place.
Case in point, when Cecil B. DeMille filmed his 1956 remake of The Ten Commandments, he includes a scene where Moses, as the Prince of Egypt, gives the Hebrew slaves of Goshen "one day in seven to rest." I recall JWs scoffing at this scene from the film "because the Bible doesn't mention this." But the truth is that Jewish history and tradition do. And that's where DeMille got the idea for this scene from.
DeMille really did his homework when creating this revamped version of his earlier 1923 silent classic. He included this part of Jewish historical tradition that, while may or may not be historically definitive in itself, is an example of one of the Jewish admissions that the Sabbath didn't come about as written in the Bible. The 1956 film is quite famous, and I know of no Jehovah's Witness that failed to see it. Perhaps many here merely "poo-pooed" the scene away as poetic license on behalf of the DeMille when they were Witnesses, but it isn't.
And here's the thing: that film was released back in 1956. The history of DeMille's intense research "to get things right" for this remake are a well-known part of movie history too. How people missed this one example of a Jewish admission that we don't accept the Biblical narrative as the origin of our traditions, I will never understand...especially Witnesses who then go on to act surprised at hearing that the Jews don't use the Bible's narrative as the definitive origin of how Shabbat came about! It is all quite curious from my vantage point. (No insults implied. It's just funny that here is one example that has been staring people in the face for generations.)
This is but one of several ancient traditional explanations too. There is another that claims Sabbath observance actually came from Sarah, the wife of Abraham (the legend of which implies that Sarah's ancestors actually had this traditional practice for generations before). And some Jewish scholars have suggested that it was influenced by assimilation during the Babylonian exile, adapted from the Babylonian lunar calendar (though most academics have doubt it was this late in Jewish history).
The first archeological mention of the Sabbath is found inscribed upon the Mesad Hashavyahu ostracon from the 7th century B.C.E. The Hebrew etymology of the word doesn't seem linked to other languages (though again there isn't anything to outright contradict Crazyguy's views). The word in Hebrew means "cessation" as in cessation of the act of labor.
So while it may be new to others who were once Jehovah's Witnesses that the origins of Hebrew customs didn't come about as written in the Bible, it only shows the ignorance the Governing Body keeps the people under their control in. Jews don't accept the Biblical narrative as the historical origins of their culture/religion, as Vidiot has mentioned, and this isn't "revisionist" Judaism either.
I guess it just shows that nobody bothers to ask Jews or look it up from a Jewish source. Some people seem to do anything and everything but that, which is really illogical to me. Apparently some of these have their minds made up that Jews are going to say what they have been taught by second-hand information. It is never the sign of critical thinking to avoid the source.
-
Vidiot
David_Jay - "...I recall JWs scoffing at this scene from the film 'because the Bible doesn't mention this'..."
* facepalm *
Personally, I've long suspected (even back when I was still in) that these guys were loyalists who resented the hell out of anything in pop culture that called their worldview into question instead of echoing WT ideology...
...that sentiment has always been expressed whenever some poor stupid JW schmuck was faced with something he couldn't reconcile with Biblical literalism.
I'd always want to retort, "the Bible doesn't mention germs, Mt. Everest, or the moons of Saturn either, dumbass!"
-
Crazyguy
I think there's one thing that David and I can agree on and that is religious writtings go back thousands and thousands of years and have been changed redacted changed and changed again to suit the purposes of the people in their area of the world and in their time and belief system. What we have today is just a melding of these beliefs and thier writings.
-
David_Jay
I think there's one thing that David and I can agree on and that is religious writtings go back thousands and thousands of years and have been changed redacted changed and changed again to suit the purposes of the people in their area of the world and in their time and belief system.
Actually I have not revealed my personal views on the matter here. I have been giving a very detached, objective view based on a combination of others, from Orthodox to Conservative, Reform and Chabad, including critical analysis.
Jews don't hold the view that the Scriptures "have been changed redacted changed and changed again to suit" purposes that don't agree with their original intent, and this isn't my personal view either. We understand the end product has developed by means of "redaction," meaning an editing process, mostly of interpolating various narratives with similar ones and fitting them together into what we have now. This does not, however, imply that even the view of critical analysis among Jews is that the texts have been merely transposed from other religious texts and fitted to Jewish needs. I haven't said that either.
I have come to the conclusion that some people don't change much in the way they process information, discuss matters, and hold on to their convictions after they leave the Watchtower. This might be because the way Jehovah's Witnesses stand in their belief system differs little in some respects with many others.
Once some believe that they have made sense of something, they discontinue efforts for searching for the answer. People become satisfied that they have made "all the pieces of the puzzle fit," and begin efforts of debunking anyone else's views while protecting their own. What they should be doing instead of this is to attempt the exact same with their own personal views, subjecting them from the point of continued skepticism. Especially upon coming out of a cult, people should be far more cautious with what they personally decide to accept as valid, reminding themselves: "I was duped before, and this is likely a tendency of mine that I can't ever take for granted."
When ex-JWs come on sites like this, they post their opinions, their views, their understanding of things, their new beliefs. They also make the big mistake that everyone else is doing the same. Maybe they are, just about. But I am not.
These are not my personal convictions I am writing. I am merely stating things based on material I've learned, like producing an encyclopedia entry with facts I may have some or no investment in. Some points I might accept fully, others I don't. My job however is to merely give the information, not express my personal view.
In an attempt to "make sense" of the world once outside the Watchtower we must all find our own way. But we are subject to make the same mistakes we did when we were in the JW religion, born-in or not. We can be just as guilty of confirmation bias and motivated skepticism as we were when Witnesses, maybe more so. Now we don't have a cult behind us to tell us we're right. Now we are on our own. So now we might be even more determined to cherish what we have, to feel relief that "the pieces finally fit" or "make sense."
The truth is, there is no guarantee any of us are seeing things correctly even now that we are out of a cult. What is happening here is that many are looking for people to encourage their new set of convictions, to which they will offer no argument. The moment they get no confirmation from another, they argue and fight and even insult. I have had people PM me to apologize for lying to me in their comments during such an exchange on here due to getting "heated" and suddenly "losing control" when I did not write something they found agreeable.
No, Crazyguy. We do not agree. You cannot say we do because I never told you what I personally conclude from all this information. Your points are comparable to Jewish critical analysis and even some traditions, but they don't match it. You are not incorrect or wrong, but you are definitively not precise either. You views also do not match with the academic conclusions that employ the historical critical method.
But you are a very good thinker, and at least you have your eyes open and the courage to try to find ways of making the puzzle fit. In my opinion (yes, here it is), you need to subject yourself to twice the skepticism you give others, and it should come not from fellow ex-JWs, but from others who have no investment in your convictions or stand. You will be even wiser for it (and you are not far from that now, in my opinion).