I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby 179 Replies latest watchtower bible

Rod P

Thanks Narkissos!
I'm kinda busy working for the next couple of days, so don't know if I can do anything on this site for a bit. But you can be sure "I will be back!"
Regards!
Rod P.
Rod P

To: FlyingToo High:
I promised to get back to you about "Jehovah Unmasked". While I still need to get into it on a more comprehensive basis, here are some preliminary thoughts and reactions. I have read the document twice so far; once to get the gist of it, and twice to examine it somewhat critically with a view to seeing if it had some obvious inconsistencies or "fatal flaws".
Firstly, let me say, that I was pretty impressed with the case he has made for the position that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is really Satan the Devil in disguise. At first blush, though, it looks as though Nathaniel J. Merritt, with a lot of help from the Gnostics which he acknowledges, has managed to de-gut the entire Old Testament, much like has been done with the New Testament. That's kinda serious, in my books! Ouch!!!
The first thing I did, using the King James version of the Bible, was to search for all the places in the Old Testament where the words "Devil" and "Satan" have been used in the Hebrew language. To my surprise, I discovered that nowhere in the Old Testament is the word "Devil" used. My second surprise was that in the whole of the Old Testament, the word for "Satan" has been used in the Hebrew exactly eighteen times in only fifteen verses. Of these 18, thirteen are found in the Book of Job, and the other five are found in 1 Chronicles, Psalms and Zechariah. On the other hand, the word in Hebrew, the tetragammatron YHWH, translated in English as "Jehovah" appears over 6,000 times, but actually appears in the bible as "Lord" because of the superstitious fear of using the name of the Lord in vein by repeating it too often.
One of my "tests" as to whether or not Satan could or could not be understood in O.T. Scriptures as Jehovah, was to find out if there were any verses where Satan and Jehovah are used in the same verse, so that one could argue that here was evidence that these are two separate beings. After all, if we find Jehovah talking to Satan, that would mean Jehovah was talking to himself, and that is absurd, or at least that is how it would look to me.
So now, let's look at 1 Chronicals 21:1:
"And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel."
Nope! I don't see Jehovah and Satan in that verse.
Let's take a peek at Psalms 109:6:
Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right hand.
Okay then, how about the Book of Zechariah:
vs.3:1 And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD (Jehovah, in Hebrew) and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
vs.3:2 And the LORD (Jehovah, in Hebrew) said unto Satan. The LORD (Jehovah) rebuke thee, O Satan even the LORD (Jehovah) that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee; is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
Aha! So here is an example of Jehovah speaking to Satan. How then can they be one and the same?
Let's move on to the Book of Job:
vs.1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God (Elohim in Hebrew) came to present themselves before the LORD (Jehovah) and Satan came also among them.
vs.17 And the LORD (Jehovah) said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD (Jehovah) and said, From going to and fro in the earth and from walking up and down in it.
vs.1:8 And the LORD (Jehovah) said unto Satan; Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and upright man, one that feareth God (Elohim) and excheweth evil?
vs.1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD (Jehovah) and said, Doth Job fear God (Elohim for nought?
vs.1:12 And the LORD (Jehovah) said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power, only upon himself put not thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD (Jehovah).
vs.2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God (Elohim) came to present themselves before the LORD (Jehovah) and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD (Jehovah).
vs.2:2 And the LORD (Jehovah) said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD (Jehovah) and said, From going to and fro in the earth and from walking up and down in it.
vs.2:3 And the LORD (Jehovah) said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God (Elohim) and escheweth evil? And still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
vs.2:4 And Satan answered the LORD (Jehovah) and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.
vs.2:6 And the LORD (Jehovah) said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand, but save his life.
vs.2:7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD (Jehovah) and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his feet unto his crown.
Certainly, it is obvious from the Book of Job, that Jehovah and Satan are not being used as both the same person. They are separate and distinct beings, and they carry on conversations with each other, and Satan come to Jehovah, and he also leaves Jehovah.
At first glance, it would appear that the Book of Job has demolished the thesis that Jehovah is Satan. Until we get into a little background on the Book of Job. And there we find out that the Author of the Book of Job is really unknown. It is believed that it was NOT Moses, since the book dates to around 500 B.C. Some scholars are of the opinion that it was written during the time when Solomon was King over Israel, based on the "strong characters of Wisdom Literature" that are found in the Book. Job himself lived in the 2nd millenium (2000 - 1000 B.C.), but this account, having been written and re-written several times, may not have reached its final form until the 1st millenium (i.e. the Age of Solomon), as that was when the Wisdom Literature was at its height. One more thing, it is quite possible, even probable, that the Book of Job existed outside of Israel, and existed for some time in oral form or tradition. Finally, the Book of Job is very allegorical and must be understood as such, and there are a lot of scholars who hold that view. In other words, it is a story with an object lesson in which the meaning of the message is symbolical. The account should not be seen as real historical events with real "people" or personages. In other words, we must discount the Book of Job as "evidence that proves" Jehovah and Satan are separate personages. Therefore, where does that leave us? It leaves us only with Zecharia 3:1,2. In the whole of the Old Testament, this appears to be all that is left to "prove" that Jehovah and Satan are different beings! At least that's how it is beginning to look to me. Now, I need to go back and examine Zechariah more carefully. I did read some commentary on Zechariah which was explaining that these were messengers of Jehovah, rather than Jehovah himself. If so, even Zechariah becomes a very weak "proof". I will get back to you on that one.
Oh, there were a number of verses where the word God "Elohim" (Eloheem) appeared, which I highlighted above. This is Not Jehovah. It is literally the plural form "gods", which a number of scholars argue against that conclusion, because they believe there is only One God, and they also teach the Trinity doctrine- three Gods in One God; hence Elohim. I personally believe and interpret the use of Elohim as a plurality of Gods, even as a class of Gods. IMO, Jehovah and Elohim are not the same.
In view of all this, I am coming to the view that there is a very strong case to be made that Satan and Jehovah may well be one and the same, espcially in view of all the brutalities that are recorded in the Old Testament as being performed by Jehovah.
At the moment, though, I am not yet totally converted to this conclusion, even though I'm fairly convinced. I need more time to digest all this, and the implications are far-reaching and profound; even scarry!
You asked what I thought, now you know.
Thank you for sharing that amazing document.
Regards,
Rod P.
Narkissos

Rod P,
For a different view of the genealogy of Yhwh -> God -> the satan -> the Devil, see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/67503/1.ashx
Rod P

Narkissos:
I read your thread on the genealogy of YHWH -> God -> the Satan -> the Devil. Interesting.
You know, in my "Mormon days" we often debated the "Necessity of Evil". You see, if there was no Satan, then there would be no evil in the world. And without Evil, how can you possibly know and appreciate and understand Good? Hence, Evil was a necessity, which then made the existence of the Devil a necessity. The duality of Good and Evil were virtually opposite sides of the same coin. The dilemma of this "Theology" is, if the Devil is an eternal necessity for the Plan of Salvation to work, then why does he have to pay the Eternal Punishment that is the consequence for him causing the evil to come into being in the first place? At one point, I almost felt sorry for the poor Devil; he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. It was a rotten thing he did, but someone HAD to do it.
The necessity of Evil and the Devil then led to the question of "Free Will". Do we even have free will, or is it all an illusion? Now from a cosmic perspective, nothing changes unless it lacks something. The Divine, lacking nothing, cannot change. Therefore, any "act" performed by God in Eternity must be done of immutable necessity. Therefore even God does not have "Free Will". And if God doesn't have "free will", then puny man certainly doesn't!
Anyway, that is a subject for another debate on another day.
Rod P.
Narkissos

Rod P,
Reading your post I was thinking that what really began around the 6th century BC is the unchallenged rule of ideas -- the absolute rule of absolute ideas such as "Good," "Evil," "God" and "Satan" -- typographically the age of capitals.
Despite some conspicuous appearances (I won't turn that thread into a political one) we might be slowly waking up from this dream (or nightmare).
Rod P

Hello Narkissos & Gumby,
Just to let you know, my ISP Internet Provider had been down in our area since Monday, and it was on again off again. Still touch and go, but hopefully OK.
Anyway, I will be posting something maybe Friday, but probably Saturday. I have a big post, and it is half-way thru drafting off-line.
Regards,
Rod P.
Rod P

Hello again,
I am very sorry, but something has come up which prevents me from posting today. Will try again tomorrow, but if can't, then it will have to be Monday evening.
Rod P.
Rod P

I do apologize for not completing my post as yet. I am involved in accounting and income tax work, and we are in the middle of tax season. Things come up that throw all your plans and schedules out of whack. Anyway, I am determined to deliver on my promised post shortly, and will try to do so within a day or two.
Thanks for everyone's patience and understanding.
Rod P.
Rod P

Hello Gumby, Hello Narkissos,
It's been a busy week, but anyway, here goes.
It is clear that I have a long road ahead of me when it comes to Gnostic manuscripts and literature, and that therefore, it would be foolishness on my part to draw any firm conclusions one way or the other at the present time.
Having said that, here are some things I have come to accept:
1) There is, without question, a strong connection between quite a number of Egyptian religious concepts and pagan themes as well as a significant number of scriptural passages in the Old and New Testaments that parallel, and even borrow from, the Egyptian. They are quite striking, and the implications for the Bible are very serious and consequential, in my view. I shall be elaborating on this along the way, because there is so much to cover.
2) There is, in fact, a scarcity of information when it comes to accounts about the life of Jesus, other than what is found in the New Testament. There are literally thousands of N.T.manuscripts and fragments of texts in evidence, which show a remarkable comparative consistency, but this does not necessarily support or establish "the existence of extra-biblical accounts" that one would expect to find in circulation.
3) There was a problem between James in Jerusalem and Paul, the preacher to the Hellenist Gentiles. The brethren in Jerusalem were quite partial to Judaism, so that while they accepted Jesus, they still wanted to practise and perpetuate all of the requirements of Judaism. Paul, on the other hand, was arguing that such things were no longer necessary because Jesus Christ had fulfilled the law, and so his Gentile converts should not be required to participate in Judaistic requirements, such as circumcision. It also looks to me that Paul was considered as a kind of "Outsider" in the eyes of his Jewish brethren. Maybe they were happy he was spending almost all of his time with his Gentile Churches and missionary travels, away and out of their hair.
If Jesus Christ was really real, then we would have to interpret matters with respect to James and Paul quite differently than if Jesus Christ was simply some made up myth from a later age. If the latter is true, then I would take your point, Narkissos, that Paul may have just developed his version of the story of that Galilean rabbi who was crucifed a few decades ago. Of course, he then had to invent the story of his own miraculous encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, to authenticate his own "Apostleship". I know a few guys today who have tried to start their own religion, and they need a good platform and story to get it started. So was Paul one of these? On the other hand, if this was a story Paul made up, you have also raised the question of whether it might be a "Jewish version of the Hellenistic mystery cults, such as Osiris or Attis", given the amount of "cultic material" that is there. Regardless of which version might be true, it still all depends if Jesus Christ was a real, historical person or not. So....it seems to me that the crux of the matter lies in proving or disproving the existence of Jesus Christ. If he is real, then that changes everything, right? And if it is proven, and I mean PROVEN, that he is a mythical character, then anything goes, and we all ought to have a field day figuring out which is the best explanation in history as to how this whole thing began and evolved down thru the centuries.
On the question of what kind of priority James gave "his relationship to Judaism" vis-a-vis his relationship with Paul's Gentile converts, again, I think this would depend on whether or not Jesus Christ was a real historical person or not. If Jesus was real, then James would have had real live experiences with him, a real relationship with him while he was alive. Then it would be clear that James had accepted him as the Messiah, and so Christianity would have been the priority, albeit in a Judaistic context. It may then have been that he, and the other brethren in Jerusalem had to learn a lesson about the message of Christianity being for the whole world, and not just "God's Chosen People". The New Covenant may have necessitated a new way to look at the Law of Moses, and so they had to make some adjustments to the new situation, since in Christ, the Law had all been fulfilled. On the other hand, if Jesus was NOT a real historical person, then one must look at James in a different light, as steeped in Judaism, and that was all there was to it. In that case, no wonder James and Paul would never get along. And so on.
The real question, then, at least in my mind, is "Was Jesus Christ a real person, an authentic historical personage, and was he who he claimed to be - the Saviour of Mankind?" There is no middle ground on this one.
Notwithstanding the above, and there is much more than this, I am not sold on the notion that Jesus was not an hjistorical person. This has a lot to do with the fact that there is a great debate going on in the higher halls of academia these past several years, in which many different scholars are lined up on both sides of the question. And so, this is one area where I am going to try to suspend judgment until I reach a greater level of knowledge and insight on this whole matter.
To illustrate why I need to give more time to this question (as well as many of the challenges and questions the Gnostic writers also raise in this area):
I have been examining some of the claims of S.Acharya in her book "The Christ Conspiracy, the Greatest Story Ever Sold" (And yes, I know about her later publications, which I also need to review). On her claims respecting the influence of astrology on Judaism, there are some compelling questions as to her accuracy in dating, origin of the zodiac, identification of which constellations were regarded as part of the zodiacal group, and what was known or believed during what time period, etc., etc. She has no problem getting back-up quotes to her assertions from modern authors of like mind. However, when her statements are subjected to review by competent scholars in ancient astronomy and astrology, that's when a lot of errors, inaccuracies and omissions become exposed.
When Achara said that the Christian fish was a symbol of the "coming of the age of Pisces" this has no basis in antiquity because in those days no significance was attached to the idea of the location of the vernal equinox in any particular constellation of the fixed stars. This was simply a modern notion, which most certainly does not go back 2000 years.
On the question of Judaism being essentially "moon worship", there is apparently a problem of little or no surviving Judaistic literature to support this. There are all kinds of volumes of ancient near eastern texts that refer to powerful moon-goddesses in pagan cultures. There are also certain cultures within Judaism that were tainted by pagan influence. This, however, in no way proves that Judaism originated from moon-worship.
In Talmudic literature the moon is supposed to be the emblem of Israel. Again, the problem is that the Talmud belongs to the 2nd Century A.D. and later, so really provides no proof or corroboration with respect to the 1st Century and earlier. It is true that some of the Talmudic data originated in the 1st Century, however the author did not demonstrate that moon-worship belongs to that earlier class of literature.
In short, her work is interesting, but suspect. And I do not presently possess sufficient scholastic competence on this whole subject to be in a position to judge for or against her positions or claims. And she has hundreds and hundreds of them, and she is but one author.
For me to evaluate all this stuff, I would have to spend years getting into history and the sciences, ancient texts, translations, read all of the materials from the whole of the scholarly world. I would have to discover who are the credible authorities and who are the mavericks and the weirdos peddling their pet theories and hidden agendas. And even then, I would probaby need to get out there amongst the ruins and get my hands dirty. I would be up against many writers and researchers who have spent their whole lives devoted to these subjects. So to sit here in judgment on any one of their works at the present time would be ludicrous. And furthermore, for me to take a firm position one way or the other (i.e. skeptic or believer), and then tyr to convert other to it, would be tantmount to starting my own religion with a kind of fixed "world view". I am not about to do that!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You know, the more I look at this Discussion Forum and the thousands of threads it contains, I can't help but notice a few things. It reminds me of when I was sitting in a restaurant one Sunday morning, looking out of the second story window from the incredibly beautiful and picturesque English Bay in downtown West-End Vancouver, British Columbia.
Off in the distance I saw about ten giant ocean-going vessels anchored in the water, each one of them from a different country, with various ethnic crews on board, and each one with their own story, their own history, their own perspective.
Looking closer towards shore, I saw smaller boats and yachts, some leaving to go fishing or whale watching or exploring, while others were returning home to dock. Still closer, there were a couple of kayakers paddling parallel to shore, while others were wind-surfing randomly in the waters, standing on their platforms, trying to control their wind-filled sails under the watchful eye of their instructor.
Some people were swimming and wading in an area marked off with ropes and buoys, with a lifeguard surveying the crowd from his very tall chair.
Right at the shoreline children were walking around in the wet sands, looking for clams and pretty rocks and sea shells. Adults were sunning themselves along the beach, some seated up against giant logs laying in the sand, while others were stretched out on beach towels, reading novels or catching a little shut-eye. And in the midst of this scene, here were two guys with metal detectors, walking along the sand trying to find buried coins or anything of value.
Still closer, I saw the immaculately groomed lawns, shaded by beautiful trees, and sprinkled strategically with lovely flowers and shrubs. The border between the grass and the sand was divided by a giant walkway, along which people moved in both directions on bicycles or roller blades, while others simply walked or jogged. Along the edge were artists painting their scenes on canvass, while displaying their past artwork for sale to passers-by.
And in the midst of it all, walking across the grass and the sand, I saw a mother duck leading her babies into the ocean in single column formation.
This was a feast for the eyes! Wheels within wheels, and worlds within worlds. Such amazing diversity; yet all was contained within a marvelous unity. It was all happening simultaneously on a common turf, which was but a small dot on this planet we call Earth.
Suddenly I saw the streets below, with traffic and lights, and commercial establishments that looked like boxes sitting side by side along an endless line of cement sidewalks and ashphalt roads. In the room I could hear the waiters and waitresses taking orders above the buzz of Sunday brunch conversation pervading the atmosphere. It was a wake-up call to leave the vision, and snap back into the "reality" that man himself had created.
But now, thinking about all that, I couldn't help but notice the overriding unity of life amidst an infinite diversity. We are all these little blobs of consciousness interacting with the Web of Life, in which we are like little rocks being dropped into a still pond, creating waves radiating outward in all directions. Drop two pebbles into the pond at the same time, and we will see two sets of radiating waves, which go out across the water, and then merge into each other. As these waves collide, they create intersecting points that become "standing waves" that stand out from the other waves, which then creates their own peculiar patterns and influences. This is analogous to life interacting with life, with each of our waveforms affecting every other waveform within the fabric of space, time and consciousness. Everything affects everything else; nothing and no-one is separate. We are only aware of this or unaware of this.
I think about all the debates and opposing viewpoints on this website. Aren't we all reaching out to one another, interacting with each other, using our own version or perspective of the "Truth"? And each of our "Truths", in all their infinite forms and variations, could be represented as different points along a giant wheel, all of which are connected by spokes around that wheel, which all lead to the Centre, the Hub, the Source, which holds everything together. The Spokes represent the different pathways we are all on as we seek to find the Centre, the Source, the Whole. Truths, and even Lies, Myths and Illusions, are all integrally connected to the spokes on that wheel, and in the end, they serve as instruments to awaken us to higher realizations and levels of Truth, that ultimately bring us closer to the Source.
Life is a giant conundrum wrapped up in an enigma, surrounded by a paradox. Life is not about all our debates and questions to find the answers. The answer is "There are no answers! It's all about the Search!" That is what matters.
Take three men who are blindfolded. Each one of them has a hold of a giant elephant, and then tries to describe it. This elephant represents the "Whole Truth". One man has a hold of the tail, and describes the elephant as being short, curly and hard. The second man has a hold of the leg, and describes the elephant as tall like a tree, and big and round. The third man has a hold of the elephant's ear, and describes it as flat and thin and big like a giant pancake........And we petty men pratt on about an elephant not one of us has seen. (Even the Atheist has but his hands on only a piece of the elephant.)
There is a story about a boy who grew into a man and then left home, searching for untold wealth. He was looking for diamonds, and he spent his whole life looking for those diamonds. In the end he returned home, tired, broke and disillusioned; and then he died. A short while later, someone was digging in what was the dead man's back yard. There they found one of the richest diamond deposits in the world. The lesson is, we all have our own "Acres of Diamonds" right here in our own back yards, in ourselves, just waiting to be discovered.
Here is a saying I will paraphrase: We shall never cease from searching. And in all our searching and exploring, we shall arrive back at where we started, knowing it for the first time.
A man once heard the statement "You are what you eat!" Then he asked "Why is that so?" He enrolled in several courses, including Cooking Classes, Nutrition and Biochemistry. After about six months, he found he was able to prove the notion that "You are what you eat!" but he had to use a very techinical vocabulary surrounding the chemistry of foods, food groups, food processing, nutritional elements like proteins, sugars, fats, carboydrates, starches, vitamins, minerals, herbs, etc.. After spending another couple of years on these subjects, he found he was able to synthesize all his technical information and jargon into a much reduced but succint explanation that confirmed the same truth "You are what you eat." He started out with a naive belief that "You are what you eat." and in the end, emerged with a much deeper understanding of that Truth. And so he concluded that "The Truth is Profoundly Simple, yet Simply Profound!" You can never come to an end of it or exhaust Truth. Thus becomes our Search!
Over the past couple hundred years, conventional medicine has taken the approach to disease and healing by way of examining pathogens- things that are "not normal" when compared with "the healthy human" or body part. They look at what is wrong in great detail and complexity, even microscopically, diagnose the condition, and then determine the appropirate remedy or treatment. The field of medicine became so vast and complex, no one person could learn it all, and so there emerged the age of specialitst we are now living in. These guys can be referred to as Allopaths, who hold that if you have enought detailed information about a patient and his condition, you can then treat him/her and restore that person back to health. On the other hand, there is a whole other type of medical practitioner that has been around for centuries. These take a "Holistic" approach to patient care and treatment. They look at a person as a "whole" (holistically), rather than worry about the tiny details. Nowadays we call this "Aleternative Medicine", and they include Chiropractors, Naturopaths, Ayurvidic Medicine, Herbologists, Acupuncturists, etc. There have been raging debates between the Allopathic and the Holistic approaches to treatment and cures, but both have their place.
In a way I see many of us becoming "Spiritual Allopaths". We sometimes get all bogged down in proofs and details, appealing to, and relying upon, texts and documents, history, science, archaeolody, paleontology, D.N.A., carbon dating, to supposedly "prove" our positions from an evidenciary perspective. Along the same lines, we tend to interpret scriptures from a much more literal perspective, rather than try to understand them for the symbolical, allegorical or mythological meanings they embody. On the other hand, I think we can play this "Spiritual Game" with a more Holistic approach, by focusing more on overall perspectives, and seeing and interpreting what we read as more symbolic, allegorical, mythological, etc. Allopaths prefer discrete ideas and doctirines, and facts and classifications and titles and comparisons and analysis, and are forever trying to break things down into smaller and smaller pieces. On the other hand, perhaps we should have more of a mind to try to see things as a whole, without labels and differentiations. Yet, this too can result in our concepts becoming highly symbolic and esoteric, even arcane, so as to make their true meaning obscure, and beyond the grasp of most people. We then have to ask the question "Of what use is that to anyone?" Sometimes we can be so "Spiritual" that we become no "Earthly Good".
At this point, I shall leave you with this thought to think about" "Trying to understand God is a bit like the amoeba staring up from the opposite end of the microscope, trying to understand the sex habits of the Scientist."
Rod P.
Valis

"Trying to understand God is a bit like the amoeba staring up from the opposite end of the microscope, trying to understand the sex habits of the Scientist."

yeah when the scientist is doing his own STD test...
Sincerely,
District Overbeer

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

Share this