It would be absurd for God to give mankind a book or books which explain what God expects of us. Unless God at all times remained personally responsible for making sure his "book for all mankind" remained in its pure, original form, it would end up being currupted. As time passes, language evolves. The meaning of words change, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically. Try reading and understanding Beowulf, for example. It was written in English, but much of it is incomprehensible today. But that's only the beginning of the problem. Some languages have words and phrases which express something that cannot be translated into other languages without altering the original meaning. Therefore, even if all of those humans entrusted with the original and pure word of God in written form were themselves persons of spotless integrity, over the decades, centuries and millenia the book would change, become confusing and lose its original clarity.
Even more serious is the human tendency to succumb to unethical temptations if one can gain wealth or power by doing so. Or one can avoid losing wealth or power by doing so. If undeniable evidence was found that Jesus was not crucified, but married and hand children and this evidence came into the possession of the leaders of the Catholic Church, would they rejoice at finding such absolute and unquestionable TRUTH? NO! They would quash it, for it undermines their entire reason for existence. If Jehovah God himself appeared in a Wednesday Governing Body meeting and told those members their religion was a sham and a disgrace and an apostasy, and he ordered them to sell all their properties and distribute all their wealth to the needy, then go live in poverty in rest homes and shut their mouths, would they do so? I doubt it.
How unreasonable then would it be to assume that people over the centures would alter, add to, or delete from a genuinely holy book if they could benefit by so doing?
We all know how many different and conflicting versions of the Bible that now exist. Some Bibles have books and passages not found in other Bibles, ad nauseum. How many innocents have brutally been murdered because of disagreements over the meanings in the SAME BOOK? Is this what God wants? Was God not able to foresee the possibility of this occurring before he allegedly gave us this book?
These are all reasons why it would be foolish for God to use a book as his means of communicating his Will to humans unless he personally intervened when people tried to corrupt it.
It would also be foolish of God to use revelation or even "spirit directing" to reveal his will to man, UNLESS he gave all persons on earth the same revelation at the same time. Why? If God appeared to me personally and told me something, it would be a revelation. But, if I told the exact same thing to you, it would not be a revelation. It would be a STORY or a relating of a revelation. You would have no way of knowing to a certainty that God told me what I said He told me. A wise God would know this, and not use one-on-one revelation. Given our own life experiences, which is more likely: God would personally appear to me (or anyone else), or God would not personally appear to me? Therefore, a hearer of any personal revelation would be skeptical and for good reason. At the very best, personal revelation would not be an effective way for God to get out his message. Far more people would not believe it than those who would.
The same thing is true of miracles. A true miracle is contrary to the operation of natural laws. If I came to you and told you I saw God make a mouse eat an elephant and indeed I saw this, how likely are you to believe me? In fact, the grander the miracle, the more skepticism it would engender. Miracles, then are also counter-productive or at the least very ineffective.
Given all of this, why should I believe that an infinitely superior God cannot communicate with his Creation (using "holy" books and miracles) even as well as we can communicate with each other in our normal daily activities?
Farkel
No Bibles or Miracles for Me!
by Farkel 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Farkel
-
RunningMan
What I don't understand is if God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, and every other "all" that you can think of, then why is his presence debatable? Shouldn't his existance be the most indisputable fact in the universe? Yet, many people (myself included) have no problem denying his existance because his absence makes more sense out of the universe than his presence.
-
Netty
Wow Farkel, you really just opened up my mind to something I had never ever thought to think about or question. But you really do make alot of sense, everything you said, I am still just soaking it in, and the more I think about it, it seems logical. Guess we were not taught to be logical being witnesses, just to blindly accept and obey. On the Jesus marrying point, I saw a 48 hours or some progam like it, that talked about how there is a whole group of supposed experts who say that he did marry, and that Mary Magdalene was his wife. They also say that in Davincis "the last supper" he actually painted Mary Magldalene sitting to the left of Jesus in the picture, so would be to his right. There is supposed to be some evidence of this that was protected during the inquisition and is supposed to be out there somehwere. Kind of off your subject, but you made me think of that program.
-
lazyslob
At least I expect that God can write his word clear, without any chance to missunderstanding or interpretation. Is that good description of bible?
-
Country Girl
The presence of God cannot be proven, nor disproven. For those of us that choose to believe in God in modern terms, we rely on the last half o the Bible, the New Covenant, which just has two laws: Love God, and Love your neighbor as yourself. If that is faulty, it would be a surprise to me! Sounds pretty simple.
For those that choose not to believe in a Divine Being, there is just still the same thing: LOVE YOU and don't do anything to hurt others, right?
Country Grrrrrrlllll
-
Farkel
Country Girl,
The topic of this thread is whether God would communicate to his creation using books and miracles, NOT whether God exists or not.
No homilies, please. :)
Farkel -
Satanus
Good point about the languages issue. If he did write a book, it seems reasonable that he would have used one language, instaed of 3 or more, as in the bible. This one language would have been god's holy, unchanging language. His people would keep this language pure, and it would be the second language of anyone wanting knowledge of god. Pretty simple for the omnieverything god, eh?
Muslims still have their book in the original form and read it in the original language. While allah is a new god on the block, compared to other gods, he has done fairly well in the language dept, at least.
S
-
frenchbabyface
Yep !
-
frenchbabyface
double post
-
Pole
Farkel,
I generally agree again. I'm just adding some more of a theoretical perspective to your conclusions. Maybe somebody is interested in my deliberations :).
::As time passes, language evolves.
On the cultural timescale it just changes. It becomes different, sometimes less complex ? depending on your definition of complexity. For instance there used to be a complex morphological system (e.g. four basic noun cases, etc.) in all Old Germanic languages including Old English. Now English has very little of its original inflection. Some people say it just becomes more efficient so maybe you are right when you say it evolves.
On the evolutional scale it evolves (becomes gradually more complex).
::The meaning of words change, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically.
Not only that but also ancient metaphorical and idiomatic usage of certain words and expressions becomes highly misleading and impossible to know. And with the scarcity of written records of ancient languages, there is absolutely no 100% dependable way of disambiguating culture-specific metaphors.
::Try reading and understanding Beowulf, for example. It was written in English, but much of it is incomprehensible today.
Yep. Beowulf was originally written in Old English. It?s not even English any more. If it was still used today it would be just another Germanic language. For the average Modern English speaking person it would be much less comprehensible than Dutch. I mean not only would it be slightly more distant in terms of the syntax and morphology, but also in terms of the huge historical/cultural gap between the speakers.
:: But that's only the beginning of the problem. Some languages have words and phrases which express something that cannot be translated into other languages without altering the original meaning.
Now, that?s somewhat complex ? it all depends on what you mean by ?altering the original meanings?, but either way you?ve got a point here. It may just be interesting to know there are two major approaches in translation theory and that in each of them "the original meanings" get altered in a different way. Here is how:
a) Text-oriented translation: stick to the original meaning and the source language-specific grammar. The disadvantage is that the reader of the translation may have to do his/her own research in order to learn more about the culture to understand how the literally translated metaphors work. You can see this approach when you read the NWT Bible. They rendered most of the metaphorical expressions almost literally so that they sound like convoluted and poor-style writing, but they allow
the readersthemselves more freedom for speculation when it comes to ?explaining? prophecies and hidden meanings. They can make an attempt to distinguish between the surface meanings and the "deeper meanings". They can say: this is a metaphor which symbolizes this or that? Sometimes translators provide thousands of footnotes to assist the reader in the process of understanding the source language idioms and metaphors.Compare these two examples:
Psalm 26:4 - NWT
"I have not sat with men of untruth; and with those who hide who they are I do not come in."
Notice how the ancient metaphors are evident in this translation: ?I have not sat with? means what? ?I do not come in? means what? Difficult to guess without the context - and it's meant to be contemporary English.
Here is what the psalmist would have said in plain English:
Psalm 26:4 ? The Contemporary English Version Bible
?I don't spend my time with worthless liars?
b) The former is an example of ?text-oriented translation?, the latter is an example of reader-oriented translation. The ancient metaphors are lost in the latter approach but the ?actual meaning? is preserved and much easier to understand for the contemporary reader.
The problem with reader-oriented translation is that if you take a bible book stuffed with ?hidden prophetic meanings? and you translate it into plain English, using modern English idioms, then it proves that all the potentially hidden messages may have been lost, because you?ve imposed an interpretation. It amy be the safest, most reasonable interpretation, but as a translator you steal the possibility from the readers of doing their own interpretation. SO is the actual meaning preserved or lost?
You never know again! Whichever approach you choose.
Of course I?m presenting the two extreme points of the continuum. In practice the two approaches are often used simultaneaously. I personally think if there was a God-appointed angel to do the translation, he would go for the ?reader-oriented approach?. He'd keep it simple and modern, so that ?the lowliest farmer? can understand the most intricate prophecies. This would mean God would have to send another angel every 100 years or so.
:: Therefore, even if all of those humans entrusted with the original and pure word of God in written form were themselves persons of spotless integrity, over the decades, centuries and millenia the book would change, become confusing and lose its original clarity.
Actually the biblical God is double guilty here. He messed things up at the tower of Babel without thinking much about the linguistic problems with understanding ?his word? that would follow. And he hasn?t done anything definite since to fix it!
Pole of the "Boring Linguists Class"
PS - Is this "class" thing a Farkel-made pun?