A Really Dumb Error in New Study Book

by proplog2 50 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  proplog2

  Eduardo:

  How refreshing to find someone who wants to defend the Watchtower.

  You said: "your reasoning is ALL wrong". You failed to provide a rebuttal for my basic premise.

  My premise is that SINCE the Watchtower claim that Moses "did not ask about himself" is contradicted by Exodus 3:11 "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and that I have to bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt? THEREFORE the Watchtower made a mistake.

  I add the adjective DUMB to MISTAKE because the only reason that they would set this whole thing up the way they did is because they failed to use their SENSES much like a "dumb" person is used loosely to describe someone who has a sensory impairment.

  As to whether Moses was concerned about himself or not. . "Concern" has to do with "focus of attention". Moses was expressing his "feeling". He felt inadequate. His focus of attention was on his perceived lack of resources to accomplish the task of delivering a whole Nation out of the greatest world power on Earth - Egypt.

  Now as to your claim that SINCE this was a "rhetorical" question it really isn’t a question at all. This is special pleading on your part. A rhetorical question IS a question. That’s why there is a question mark. Not all statements that begin with an interrogatory are questions. But ALL statements that end with a "?" are indeed "questions".

  At any rate the entity responded to Moses AS IF he had requested more data. And the information that was given to Moses indicates the entity believed Moses needed some evidence that he wouldn’t be peforming such a huge task without help.

  You then say: The Society does not say that Moses asked this question FIRST as your post seems to wrongly suggest.

  No the Watchtower (The Society doesn’t like the word "Society") doesn’t say the Question about God’s name was first or second. It doesn’t even suggest that there were any other questions asked. It refers to it as THE question. The suggestion is that there was only one question. This would be understandable if the question under discussion was at least the FIRST of a series. Even the question on that paragraph supports the idea that there was only one question.

  "What did Moses ask God?" Now then if you were to answer that question from the Bible you would say "The first question Moses asked was - quote Exodus 3:11 and THEN he asked quote Exodus 3:13

  As to your defense of the Watchtower writing style. I never objected to the style. I prefer simple writing myself. Thanks to the Watchtowers "enlightened" guidance I never went to college. But I DO know that a rhetorical question IS a question.
• 

  proplog2

  Scholar:

  Do you understand my point at all?

  I can think of a few letters to put after your name. How about PA for Pompous Ass.

  How dare you parade your credentials in front of people who have struggled their whole goddamned lives because they were told NOT to get a college education.

  I am almost 60 years old and continue to do menial labor. I don't even have time to participate on this forum because I have to work so much.
• 

  Sunspot

  # How dare you parade your credentials in front of people who have struggled their whole goddamned lives because they were told NOT to get a college education.#

  TOUCHE'
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Scholar,

  proplog2

  You are the dumb one because you have failed to understand what our dear brothers are teaching us. The fact of the matter is that Moses asked Jehovah two questions. The first is asked in verse 11 followed by a second question in verse 13 and it is the last question that is referred to in paragraph 2. Further, the Society's comments are well supported by commentary on verse 13 as discussed in pp.37-38 in EXODUS- Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.3, by John I Durham, 1987, Word Books, Waco, Texas.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion

  Sorry no, you are the dumb one because you fail to see that your dear brothers have hurt many of Jehovah's people to the point of causing some to in effect vomit up blood because of the pain they have endured from many of your dear brothers who neither follow Christ's example of love nor even Paul's.

  I don't mean to be insulting as I am sure you did not mean your words to Proplog2 to be insulting. Have a nice day.

  Sabrina
• 

  True North

  Oroborus21,

  I think proplog2's point still stands although it more likely reveals a case of being somewhat disengenous rather than dumb. I don't have the given publication at hand and don't know how the WT authors developed their thought in subsequent paragraphs; perhaps their overall point was more reasonable or at least defensible from their point of view. However, that's not the case with these introductory paragraphs and that does not give me much hope for the balance for their presentation.

  The first paragraph paints an intimate, warm and fuzzy scene -- just you and God shootin' the breeze. God's like, "Hey, relax; don't be shy. Ask me anything you want, any question at all."

  The second paragraph then states that Moses was once in that position. Hardly! As the story goes, Moses sees a burning bush that's not being consumed so he goes to check it out and then a voice comes out of it, tells Moses it's God, orders Moses to take off his sandals because he's on holy ground, and then proceeds to tell him he's got to go back to Egypt -- where they had tried to kill him (Ex. 2:15) and, as far as Moses knew, still wanted to -- and deliver his people (with whom he'd already had a bad experience trying to help them -- Ex. 2:14, "Who made you a prince or a judge over us? Are you intending to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?"). There is no open-ended questioning being invited here; God has definitely established the subject of their conversation.

  The WT writers then imply that while most people (including some JW readers in need of attitude adjustment?) in Moses's position would be focused on themselves or maybe even human suffering, Moses had his priorities straight and focused on God himself, showing this by asking a question about his name that was fraught with "deeper meaning". That hardly seems a reasonable take on this conversation. Clearly, Moses -- showing a very human and understandable reaction -- is focused on himself and his future in the context of what he is being asked to do. His part in the conversation consists of raising objections as to why he's not the man for the job, which he obviously is trying to get out of. The fact that he subsequently did as he was told without coercion could be taken as a testament to his moral fibre. (In an interesting comparison from another Bible book, Jonah, in a similar situation, just took off running and hopped the first ship out of town that was going as far away as he could get. God had to give him a timeout in the belly of a fish before he came around.)

  You're literally right in stating that "the Society does not say that Moses asked this question FIRST" but proplog2 is also right in observing that "you would think from reading these paragraphs that the very first question Moses asked God was concerning God?s name". That's how the writer's have set this up. It could be argued that the first question Moses asked was rhetorical (though it certainly invited an answer) but even so it would show that Moses is firstly concerned with his personal role in something he doesn't want to be a part of.

  As for castigating proplog2 for "taking the Society's statement literally that 'Moses did not ask about himself'", isn't it reasonable to expect that usually one should be able to take exposition literally? Isn't that one reason that exposition is needed, to provide literal explanations for that which cannot be taken literally or may otherwise be unclear? Isn't this especially important when writing for "the vast majority of the population" who are "below the 8th grade literacy level"? (My question here, BTW, is largely rhetorical but if we were having an actual conversation it also would be an actual question to which I would expect an answer unless I were being rude.) You stated that the Society has "purposely written its materials at an extremely low literacy level" because this "allows good communication of the ideas to large proportions of the population". If that is true, I don't think that is unreasonable of them and I wouldn't fault them for it if they wrote some of their literature at that level. However, I think that given that target audience, they should take especial care to write so as to be taken literally and to not filter or warp things to fit or buttress some point they're trying to make. If they think their viewpoint is truthful and well supported, they shouldn't have to resort to such tactics.

  (BTW, I don't think they always write to that level; at least they didn't in the past. I recall having to explain things to a book study-conducting elder who didn't understand the book being studied. You sound intelligent and literate: have you ever had that experience? Also, one more non-rhetorical question if I may: does your forum username have anything to do with Eddison?s The Worm Ouroboros? Different spelling, I know, but close.)
• 

  Dansk

  proplog2

  I don't even have time to participate on this forum because I have to work so much.

  Thanks for the time you give us when you CAN participate.

  Best wishes,

  Ian
• 

  Nosferatu

  My premise is that SINCE the Watchtower claim that Moses "did not ask about himself" is contradicted by Exodus 3:11 "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and that I have to bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt? THEREFORE the Watchtower made a mistake.

  Maybe Moses was asking this question in a spiritual sense. Maybe He asked, "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and that I have to bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?" and maybe, through holy spirit, the word "Jehovah" entered Moses's mind.

  It's pretty ****ing sad when theFaithful & Discreet Slave have to interpret the bible, and the Rank & File have to interpret the Watchtower publications..
• 

  xjw_b12

  It's pretty ****ing sad when theFaithful & Discreet Slave have to interpret the bible, and the Rank & File have to interpret the Watchtower publications..

  Good one Nos.
• 

  Kenneson

  Why should we get all excited that Moses asked what God's name is? And Moses finds out it's Jehovah (why he didn't know the name until now, we are not told). People had been calling upon the name of Jehovah, at least since Seth/ Enosh. Gen. 4:26: "And to Seth also there was born a son and he proceeded to call his name Enosh. At that time a start was made of calling on the name of Jehovah."
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  Why should we get all excited that Moses asked what God's name is? And Moses finds out it's Jehovah (why he didn't know the name until now, we are not told). People had been calling upon the name of Jehovah, at least since Seth/ Enosh. Gen. 4:26: "And to Seth also there was born a son and he proceeded to call his name Enosh. At that time a start was made of calling on the name of Jehovah."

  You could be wrong. Moses may not have known at all. If he did write the pentatuc(sic) he could have just inserted the name God told him when he was writing Genesis (if he did write it). Most likely Moses was more of a pagan sorcerer than Jew until the bush thing.