Posts by stev

13

ONCE MORE for STEV and others who espouse historical-grammatical method

by Nate Merit in

use that brain of yours stev.

they didnt interpret the bible that way stev.

"i think those are good questions to ask no matter what book is being read.".

stev

Narkissos

Thanks for your reply here to my post.

The expression "allegorical method" is imprecise. Probably the H-G method would explain it as finding a spiritual, additional meaning other than what was intended. The H-G method would distinguish between interpreting an allegorical text intended as allegory (which, although figurative, would be the "literal" sense), and an arbitrary allegorizing of a text not intended as allegory.

The word "allegory" is imprecise. The problem could be that of dividing literature into either allegorical or nonallegorical, when actually it is more of a continuum. This is suggested by Northrup Frye in his "Anatomy of Criticism", pp. 89-92. On one end of the continuum is the continuous allegory, such as Pilgrim's Progress, where every detail has a symbolic meaning. Frye places various types of literature along the continuum, such as the free-style allegory, Milton's epics, Shakespeare, metaphysical poetry, a central emblematic image in a work such as the Melville's "white whale", and then finally the other side of continuum with realistic reportage with minimal symbolism.

Frye also mentions that there are indirect techniques such as "symbolism not intended to be fully understood." C. S. Lewis said that "every metaphor is an allegory in little."

The H-G method might not be complex enough to handle all the types of literature along the continuum. Most likely much of the Bible does have more than one sense. Frye in his books on the Bible, explains how archetypes are repeated throughout the Bible. Some of these archetypes and literary patterns could be found in the text, whether the writer intended it or not, so that there could be several layers of meaning. Some literary criticism of the Bible gives complex chiasmic structures. I wonder whether the writer intended the structure or not. Some claim that is how the ancient writer structured his text. I don't know. There are also many passages that could have been intended to be ambiguous, and suggestive, lending an air of mystery and paradox, so that it is not clear whether there is another meaning or not.

Flexibility needs to be exercised, and hard-fast rules should be avoided.

Steve

9

More On The 'Historical-Grammatical' Method

by Nate Merit in

although protestants, evangelicals and fundamentalists use and defend the historical-grammatical method of bible interpretation, they need to realize it has a fundamental (pun intended) flaw.

matthew 1:22,23 and isaiah 7:14. .

matthew 2:15 and hosea 11:1. .

stev

Narkissos

I have noted your reply to my post, and I am in general agreement.

Steve

13

ONCE MORE for STEV and others who espouse historical-grammatical method

by Nate Merit in

use that brain of yours stev.

they didnt interpret the bible that way stev.

"i think those are good questions to ask no matter what book is being read.".

stev

The historical-grammatical method and the allegorical method are not necessarily contradictory or mutually exclusive. There are interpreters that have used both. In the Middle Ages, it was common to interpret the Bible in multiple senses. The proposition that either the historical-grammatical method is valid or the allegorical method is valid, is a false dilemma. Both could be valid. Proving one valid does not prove the other invalid. It is certainly possible that there are even more methods that are also valid, so these are not necessarily the only alternatives.
Jesus interpreted his own parables as allegories, and the miracles of the Gospel of John were certainly intended to have a symbolic meaning. But assuming that Jesus and the apostles used the allegorical method, this would not prove its universal and exclusive use. In order to establish their use of allegorical method, the H-G method is used to interpret the OT passages to compare with their use, so the H-G method is already presupposed. Jesus and the apostles were already familiar with the text, unlike present-day first-time readers. Those reading the Bible for the first time would not know yet how they used the Bible, so their example would be as yet of little use to them. Not everyone would accept that Jesus and the apostles were necessarily authorities or experts themselves in interpreting the Bible, and could be mistaken, so they would not necessarily accept them as examples to follow. The H-G method, reading as the author and audience would have understood it, is a good way to start, but not necessarily the only way to understand the Bible.
The H-G method is not the unique province of Fundamentalists. Many in the past who practiced it were Rationalists, who wished to read the Bible like they would any other book. The H-G method can also be used to extreme by an overliteralism. Certainly the Bible contains symbols, images, figures, types, allegories. It is true that those that used the H-G method have used it for harm to others, and though regrettable, it is not unique to this method. The allegorical method can be overused and abused also. It has been used to justify power, to justify propaganda, and to justify harmful notions by citing the Bible as an authority. It needs to be used with caution, and the views promoted examined on its own merits.

Steve

13

ONCE MORE for STEV and others who espouse historical-grammatical method

by Nate Merit in

use that brain of yours stev.

they didnt interpret the bible that way stev.

"i think those are good questions to ask no matter what book is being read.".

stev

Nate

This is a Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum, and not a Fundamentalist one. The Jehovah's Witness use to great excess the allegorical method that you are espousing. The JWs are not to be confused with the Fundamentalists, for they do not interpret the Bible the same way. Instead they spiritualize many prophecies and stories in the Bible and apply them to the organization, using "types and antitypes", or give it a meaning the original author or audience would not have understood. They spiritualize other scriptures as well. Since the average reader of the Bible would not be able to discern this spiritual meaning for himself/herself, the Watchtower organization justifies its authority to interpret the Bible. Rather than leading to spiritual maturity and independence, it is used to foster spiritual abuse and oppression. Instead of promoting the reading of the Bible and understanding the plain meaning of the text, the Watchtower promotes the reading of its own literature with its esoteric interpretations that could never be discerned without their help. You are attacking groups that are not relevant to the JWs, and at the same time promoting a method of enslavement and confusion from which others are trying to free themselves.

9

More On The 'Historical-Grammatical' Method

by Nate Merit in

although protestants, evangelicals and fundamentalists use and defend the historical-grammatical method of bible interpretation, they need to realize it has a fundamental (pun intended) flaw.

matthew 1:22,23 and isaiah 7:14. .

matthew 2:15 and hosea 11:1. .

stev

I am not able to address how the NT writers use the OT. There are books by authors who are expert in this field, which I am not.
It is apparent that people on this list have different views on religion and the Bible, and therefore it is not likely that there will be agreement on how to interpret the Bible.

But I think the historical-grammatical method is a good place to start for anyone in interpreting the Bible.
What did the author intend to mean,
and what would the original audience have understood?
I think those are good questions to ask no matter what book is being read.

There are dangers to the allegorical method, and it is best to use with caution.
Otherwise it can lead to excess. It can lead to flights of fancy and speculation, idiosyncratic notions, where there is no limit or control on what the interpreter can see in the Bible.
The BIble can become silly puddy in the hands of an allegorist. The Bible can be made to say what ever the interpreter wants it to say.
It is not so bad if the person is honest and knows that this is what they are doing, that they are attaching a private meaning different than the intended meaning of the author.
It can be harmful when a preacher does it frequently, and thinks God intended it to have that meaning, and the his followers think that this intepretation is inspired by God. Then it could lead to spiritual abuse and error.
On the other hand, it is likely that there is more than one sense or meaning to the Bible, and that it can be read at different levels, and has different layers of meaning.
Northrop Frye, who was a literary critic, wrote books on the Bible, and how the Bible has literary archetypes and repeated themes such fall-redemption. Other great works of literature have archetypes and symbols and themes, and it would be surprising if the Bible did not have this as well.
I have a book called "Dictionary of Biblical Imagery" which analyzes and explains these archetypes, and I would recommend to anyone.
C. T. Russell and the early Bible students, to their credit, made much use of imagery, symbols, and types in the Bible. Because of this the early Watch Towers often are written with beautiful prose, often even poetic, and appealing to the emotions. However, they also took this to excess. Russell interpreted prophecies allegorically and expected them to be fulfilled in his own day. They saw the Bible in the Great Pyramid. Stories were interpreted as types and antitypes, and applied to their own group. The JWs have taken this to an extreme where practically the whole BIble is an antitype of the JWs. This is a good example of the allegorical method leading people astray.

Steve

8

Where in Watchtower literature are beards frowned upon?

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

.

is there anyone here who can direct me to a publication that specifically discourages witnesses from having beards?

one witness i am debating claims it is not frowned on.

stev

Charles T. Russell had a beard. Many of his pilgrims had beards. I recall reading in Schnell's "Watchtower Slave" book that many of the Bible Students wore beards to emulate Russell, and Rutherford as President didn't like them emulating Russell, and ordered one brother to shave his beard.

Steve

11

CT Russell - No Need to study Bible languages to know the Bible

by VM44 in

charles russell wrote in the sep 15, 1914 issue of the watchtower (pages 286-7):

as respects my education in greek and hebrew: not only do i not claim very special knowledge of either language, but i claim that not one minister in a thousand is either a hebrew or a greek scholar.

to be able to spell out a few greek words is of no earthly value.

stev

Certainly the subject of this thread - no need to study Bible languages to know the Bible - is correct. Anyone can know the Bible by reading a translation. That's true.

It is to Russell's credit that he admitted that he did not know much Hebrew and Greek. BTW, I don't believe he committed perjury in that Rev. Ross trial. I think James Penton somewhere on the internet has answered this well. It is to his credit that he took advantage of lexicons, and concordances, and Bible translations. It seems that he acted responsibly in making up for his lack of knowledge of the original languages. It is true what he said that most ministers were not Hebrew and Greek scholars. Very few would have the knowledge and time to write commentaries, or teach the subjects, or write professional books. Yet they had enough training to use the helps and read the original languages in preparing their sermons. Russell is be commended for doing this to the best of his ability.

However, in my opinion, his lack of knowledge and training was a liability for him, that no matter how much he tried to overcome, was still a handicap for someone who was looked up to as a great Biblical interpreter, even "that servant" and a special messenger of God. There were great preachers that also lacked the training, but they did not preach unusual doctrines. He had only an 8th grade education, and lacked a college education and a seminary education. Perhaps if he had better training, he would have avoided some of the mistakes that he made, such in chronology, with the 607 B.C. date, and date-setting. He might have been exercised better critical thinking and judgment and avoided following the teachings of others, like Barbour and Pyramidists. It is my impression that when he tries to interpret alone from the Hebrew or Greek, he was prone to make mistakes. He drew many ideas from others who were more fluent than him, and was better off then, but went astray when tried to go it alone. This is my opinion, and others might differ.

BTW, he considered "parousia" to mean "presence". He wasn't alone in this. Carl Olaf Jonsson explains somewhere in his books that others, like Rotherham, translated it this way. But they were influenced by the doctrine that Christ would return invisibly and be present to rapture the saints.

Steve

24

Love & Affection Shown Between Charles Taze Russell and Judge JF Rutherford

by West70 in

i am posting this for the consideration of those who "assume" and "rumor" that charles taze russell and j.f.

rutherford were no longer friends in 1916. .

this article by judge j. f. rutherford was published in the december 1, 1916 issue of the watch towe magazine.

stev

This can be interpreted at another level as indicating Russell's relationship with his followers. Rutherford's outpouring of love and affection was not unique, but one expression of many that occurred at Russell's funeral. Russell seemed to have possessed a charismatic personality, piercing eyes, an attractive saintly appearance, was warm and approachable and affectionate, and visionary and inspiring in his oratory. His funeral and the book "The Laodicean Messenger", and the laud and praise he received after his death suggest that there was a "personality cult" dynamics at work here. He was the wise and loving father (guru?) and his followers were his adoring children. He was skilled at drawing people to him, persuading them to willingly do his bidding, and make them appreciate doing it at the same time. I don't understand why he could not convince his own wife, but he told her there were many women that would do his bidding, although she would not.

This charisma is not necessarily evil, and many great leaders have possessed it. I suspect that Russell was at times motivated by geniune love and concern, and other times was manipulative.

Steve

24

Love & Affection Shown Between Charles Taze Russell and Judge JF Rutherford

by West70 in

i am posting this for the consideration of those who "assume" and "rumor" that charles taze russell and j.f.

rutherford were no longer friends in 1916. .

this article by judge j. f. rutherford was published in the december 1, 1916 issue of the watch towe magazine.

stev

This quote is very unusual, and it can be interpreted at different levels.

It can be interpreted in the light of the mixture of religious mysticism and sexuality that can be found in the expressions of Catholic saints of mysticism who practiced celibacy and channeled their sexual energy into their mysticism, or German Pietism, or the interpretations of the Song of Solomon.

Or it can be interpreted favorably that Russell was a physically affectionate man, who was not afraid to show affection toward other men. I know that in France and Poland it is common for men to kiss each other as a greeting.

Or it can interpreted in light of the Rose Ball story and Russell's celibate marriage and his seeming lack of affection toward his wife. This raises more questions to this complicated set of events.

This story is related by Rutherford, and the expressions of love and affection seem quite uncharacteristic of him. Did he ever again express such love toward anyone? If one views him as a liar and plotter, than his words would seem to be calculated toward establishing a personal bond with Russell to stake a claim to succeed him. The geniuneness of his story could be called into question. After all, Russell was died, and Rutherford could say anything.

Or perhaps, Rutherford himself idolized and adored Russell, defended him in court, and wrote a booklet in his defense. He identified with the man of power, the object of love and hero worship, he perhaps identified with him so much that he wanted to follow him and take his role and succeed him.

Steve

27

Was Charles Taze Russell A Drug User, Drug Abuser, or Even An Addict?

by West70 in

in his lengthy address at russell's funeral, menta sturgeon disclosed the following: .

"you know that our dear brother was so considerate of the feelings of others that he never drew much on the sympathy of the friends --so considerate was he, that but few knew that he had been a physical sufferer for thirty years.".

only a few months after sturgeon made the above disclosure at russell's funeral, this "different version" was published on page 57 of the finished mystery book: .

stev

The quote below comes from the book "The Laodicean Messenger", a tribute to Russell. It confirms that he indeed did suffer from physical complications for more than 40 years, yet he claimed to have only spent one day in bed due to sickness. However by 1913, he collapsed, his heart stopped for several seconds, and had to be revived. The doctors were astonished at his "worn out" physical condition. Although it would probably not be expected here, it should be noted that there is no mention of any medications or drugs.

Steve

==================================================================

Enduring Monument

CHAPTER XXVI-PASTOR RUSSELL IS DEAD!

EARTHLY TABERNACLE WORN OUT

LM243

In the summer of 1912 Brother Russell made the statement at the Bethel table that during the forty years just past he had been kept in bed but one day, as a result of sickness; then, after a moment’s pause, he corrected himself by saying it had been forty-five years; yet he had been a constant sufferer from physical complications for more than forty years, before he passed into glory. Futhermore, he said, that during all the years he had been traveling and preaching he had never missed a meeting through inability to serve, though frequently, he stated, it took all the strength he could command for him to get to the platform, but as he argued, it was his business to get upon the platform, if he could, then it was the Lord’s business to give him the strength to speak if he wished him to do so.

In the Fall of 1913 he had made his usual trip to Europe, and there for the first time, he missed, not one, bur many appointments, through, or as a result of, physical collapse, and several of his appointments were filled by others. While in London his collapse was complete for a time. To such an extent was this true that it was told me by his traveling companion of that time, as stated by the specialist in charge, that his heart did not beat for five seconds. He was revived by the use of mechanical contrivances, known to the medical profession. A consultation

LM244

was then held by two of the most noted specialists of London. They pronounced his case the strangest they had ever known, or of which there was any record, saying, "The man’s body was worn out but his mind was clear and vigorous." Brother Russell did not like to have his personal affairs discussed amongst the friends, especially those relating to his physical condition, and for this reason such matters were kept very quiet; hence, these things here related were never mentioned to any one until after Pastor Russell’s death. But the body that was pronounced in 1913, by noted specialists, as "worn out," was forced to serve that "clear and vigorous mind" for three years thereafter. Few indeed knew the inside history of the life of the modest man of God, who literally laid down his life for the brethren.