while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.
jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.
1. no scriptural concept of original sin.
@Cofty
Not as presented in the book of Exodus, but there was a period in Egyptian history where there were mass exits of slave tribes after the Hyskos dynasties fell from power. This appears to be the foundation of what became the story of the Exodus for the Jews. That is what I am saying.
And I have no problem with people who find that a far-fetched assertion. You are okay in my book.
while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.
jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.
1. no scriptural concept of original sin.
while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.
jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.
1. no scriptural concept of original sin.
From John Aquila:
Caleb,
Why were the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther accepted by Jewish believers as part of the Hebrew Bible?
John, you actually answered your own question. They are not accepted as part of the Hebrew Bible because they were not composed in the Hebrew language. These are Jewish writings that were composed in Greek.
You see Jews divide their sacred texts by different categories, and we also don't view "canonization" in the same light that Christians do. (In fact, the Scripture "canon" was invented by the Christian Gnostic heretic Marcion of Sinope, and even the word "canon" is Greek, not Hebrew.) The Hebrew Bible, or the Tanakh contains texts written in Hebrew (or Hebrew characters) and composed before the Hasmonean Dynasty Era. Anything written after that or in another language doesn't qualify. Simple.
Just because something is not part of the Tanakh does not mean that it is not sacred or inspired. The question over these books is not totally closed or finished like Christians claim it is. Jews never officially defined a "canon" because it (the "rule" or "canon") was a device raised in a dispute in the Catholic Church. We don't have a central hierarchy to decide which books are this or that (unlike what Protestants want to admit, the New Testament was decided and closed by Catholic Church authority, and its canon is part of Apostolic Tradition, the same Tradition that sola scriptura Protestants say has no authority...hmmm.)
And no, there was no council of Jews at Jamnia in 90 CE that decided it all and closed the canon. That is a hypothetical formula that is used to discuss how the shaping of the Tanakh could have come about, but it is generally rejected as a historical event.
To be honest, the books you mention are part of Jewish Scripture, but what we call the Greek Scriptures or the Septuagint. And books like Maccabees contain readings that are reviewed each Chanukah by some Jews (because those are the books that mention the origin of this observance).
Jews also have the Talmud, the Mishnah, the Kabbalah too. The most sacred and important is the Torah, the five books of Moses. Just because it ain't Torah doesn't mean it isn't important or not from G-d. And there is question whether or not a "Jewish canon" was ever officially decided or "closed," so to speak. For all genuine purposes, however, never think of the Jewish canon as being anything like or settled by the same points Christians use for their canonization purposes.
while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.
jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.
1. no scriptural concept of original sin.
@LorenzoSmithXVII
It appears you made a mistake based on what I can only guess was a very superficial reading of my comments.
I’m Jewish. I’m not just a convert to Judaism. I’m one of those people you can take a sample from by swabbing the inside of my mouth and use the results to see some genuine Jewish DNA. I practice Judaism, and I am a philologist.
This is why I find your comments odd, such as: “But since you apparently MISSED that, you presume the idea of the original sin is not part of Jewish culture.” I know for a fact that the doctrine of Original Sin is not a part of Jewish culture because I am not just ethnically Jewish, I actually practice Judaism.
You obviously don’t know this, but Christians and especially Catholicism teaches that Christ was the one who “enlightened” humanity about Original Sin. Before Christ and without Christ there was no knowledge of this doctrine, at least according to Christians. So therefore to claim that I am mistaken that Judaism doesn’t believe or teach the doctrine of Original Sin is to disagree with this teaching that Jesus is the one who brought this “truth” to light. In fact one of the main reasons Christians claim that Jews are “spiritually blind” is because none of us believe in the concept of Original Sin.
The word “firmament” is not a water canopy. I told you to look up the word (which apparently you did not). Wikipedia states under “Firmament”: “The firmament is the sky, conceived as a vast solid dome. According to the Genesis creation narrative, God created the firmament to separate the "waters above" the earth from those below. The word is anglicized from Latin firmamentum, which appears in the Vulgate, a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible.”
The Hebrew concept of the universe was as seen in this diagram below. The "circle" that G-d dwells over is this "dome" not a full sphere.
Finally, I believe in the historicity of the Exodus. In fact, again I am a Jew. I believe it historically happened. We all do, even secular Jews. Even atheists know that there is archaeological evidence of my people being one of the enslaved tribes in Egypt before the mass slave escapes that, in Judaism, became part of our cultural history. I believe in this so much that every Passover I enact this event at every Passover Seder. At my table you will often find Christians and atheists and agnostics who also celebrate with me because, despite what people think of the religious details or whether they accept them or not, the fact is that this is real history.
The rest of your information falls flat because of these mistakes you have made about me. Go ahead. Ask the other posters on this site and see whether or not you have made some grave errors in your assumptions. Your conclusions are incorrect because of these errors. However I am willing to believe that you made them only because you approached my comments without reading them thoroughly (otherwise you were very insulting).
By the way, you should also look up “philology” or “philologist.”
while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.
jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.
1. no scriptural concept of original sin.
@C0ntr013r
You are close with you assumptions. Here’s the deal. (Forgive the length, but I think this is important to put here and share with the JWs and those under their influence.)
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES ARE ACTING LIKE PAGANS WHEN THEY USE THE DIVINE NAME.
You see, in Jewry, both in the religion of Judaism and if you are secular, there are customs that express how you feel about the world. Some things are considered sacred or holy and some things are just every day mundane objects. These Eastern customs are just part of our society, and they are often the opposite of Western ways of doing things.
To illustrate: you know about the Six-Day War, right? How we Jews recaptured Jerusalem and even our most holy site, the Temple Mount? Why did we not remove the Islamic shrine, the Dome of the Rock, at that point? We had total access to it at that point. Why do we settle for praying at the Western Wall?
Because the Dome of the Rock is built over the foundation of the Holy of Holies. As such Jews avoid it. In fact there are signs outside of the Dome area that forbid Jews by order of Torah to go further. Doing so would be dishonoring our culture, our ancestors, and be a sacrilegious act of the highest form of disrespect (not to mention sinful) because it would expose us to the area meant to be hidden from sight and used rarely. That is how we deal with holy things in our culture. We don’t touch. We don’t handle. We don’t look.
Until the Messiah or Messianic Age arrives, Jews feel we have no direction from G-d on how to rebuild the Temple. We don’t want to desecrate the site by stepping where we shouldn't, and despite the difficulties you often see portrayed between Jews and Muslims on television, both sides actually have a respect for one another to a certain degree because of our shared view of how to handle holy things.
That is how the Name of G-d is handled. Since I can’t avoid using words to describe G-d, but I don’t want to use any of G-d’s names like I would any mundane word, I use substitutes. In Hebrew, “God” is an actual name for the Deity Abraham and Sarah worshipped. So I use it rarely, and more often you will find me using G-d.
Since it is not pronouncing the Name, and in fact not writing it in Hebrew, it is not problematic for me to write YHWH. It is also not a problem to use the term “Jehovah,” although that does irk me for more reasons than just because I am a Jew.
It is a Gentile heathen custom to use the name of a deity, and to use it frequently. It is the Jewish customs to avoid use of holy things, because that is how we show they are holy. We don’t use them much, or we avoid them except for special occasions.
It may be of interest that even Jesus was against using the Divine Name. You can use the following with Jehovah’s Witnesses to get them off your back if they ever try to impress the importance of saying “Jehovah.”
In Matthew 6, right before Jesus teaches the “Our Father” or “Lord’s prayer,” Jesus gives the instruction against repetition of prayers at verse 7, right?
WRONG! What Jesus actually prohibits is repetition “like the pagans” or “heathen” or “Gentiles,” or how ever your particular translation states it. (In academia the NRSV is “the Standard” for English translations, so I will use that when discussing the New Testament.)
Matthew 6.7-9: “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then this way: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name….”
Did you notice? It is not just against using many words repeatedly or “heap up empty phrases.” It’s about not doing this “as the Gentiles do”! This is important to note with the Witnesses because Jews DO REPEAT EXPRESSIONS in prayer as well. Take them to Psalm 118, where the phrase “his steadfast love endures forever” (NRSV) gets repeated between every verse. Jews pray or chant the Psalms to this day, and this is an inspired written prayer! “The Bible doesn’t contradict itself, does it?” you ask the Witness at this point.
The repetition “as the Gentiles do” has to do with uttering divine names of deities. Many pagans believed that their gods did not pay attention to their prayers UNLESS they used their name. You didn’t have the attention of your god without uttering their personal name or even if you mistakenly mispronounced it. So they would compose lists of various and possible pronunciations and affiliated titles to make sure their prayers would be heard and accepted by their god. These they made sure to repeat before, during, and after their petitions and praises (sound familiar?).
Jesus is here stating that the G-d of Abraham and Sarah is not like that. Abraham and Sarah’s G-d always has us at the center of attention, and we do not need to worry that G-d’s attention is ever off of us so that we need to do the same like the heathens. G-d knows what we need before we ask because G-d is always with us.
To put the cherry on top of this instruction, Jesus then prays that we hold G-d name as sacred or holy, but he never pronounces it in the prayer. That is because Jesus’ definition of keeping the name holy is the Jewish definition. You don’t use sacred things often. Holy names are not mundane names like that of pagan gods that you can use over and over again or babble from a list to arouse or force the hand of a false god.
But what you see and hear Witnesses do is a carryover from paganism. It is the pagan custom of using a divine name repeatedly with the heathen belief that the G-d of Abraham and Sarah is the same as false idols and requires such babbling before your prayers can be acceptable.
while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.
jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.
1. no scriptural concept of original sin.
While I do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a Jew I find it totally logical and acceptable), I have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about Scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the Bible (at least the Hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the Jewish Scriptures themselves.
So regardless of what you may think of Scripture, whether you believe it is of G-d or not, I thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the Watchtower teaching on Scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the Tanakh. Jews read their texts acknowledging the following:
1. NO SCRIPTURAL CONCEPT OF ORIGINAL SIN. Despite the story of Adam, Eve and the serpent, Jews don't find this story as teaching the origins of sin, or introducing a being Christians call Satan the Devil, or beginning a theological economy wherein the sin of Adam gets spread to all his descendents.
2. NO MASCULINE REFERENCES TO G-D. While the pronoun for G-d is technically masculine, this gender state is merely part of the Hebrew syntax. Much as in the way that Spanish labels a room as masculine and a table as feminine, even though they do not possess gender, the masculine Hebrew pronoun "he" in reference to G-d actually means something closer to "it," if the word "it" could also refer to a person that is.
3. THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT MEANT TO ACT AS EVIDENCE THAT G-D EXISTS. Sorry Christians, but the Bible is not a manifestation of the Divine, at least that is not what Jews see in it. Jews believe that any miracles and prophecies from G-d must follow the example of Moses for them to be accepted. Such revelations were public, performed before believers and unbelievers, and oracles from G-d were publically announced and not hidden in texts. Jews believe in G-d not because of Scripture but because of public manifestations called theophanies. The greatest of these was when the entire nation of Israel stood at the foot of Mt. Sinai after the exodus from Egypt. Events like this proved G-d for the Jews, not the Scriptures that came about generations later.
4. THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT MEANT TO BE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE. Sorry Watchtower, but you mistranslated Isaiah 40.22. It does not read in Hebrew that G-d sits over a spherical earth but that G-d sits over the "dome" of the earth. In the Scritptures the Jews describe the sky as a "firmament," which means a dome made out of beaten metal. (Look up the word "firmament.") You see, instead of the vacuum of space the Jews believed in the Mesopotamian cosmogony where there was just water...no space, but water throughout the cosmos. When YHWH made the earth, G-d made a flat surface of ground on pillars, a basin in the middle of the earth so the "under waters" could come up to form the seas and rivers and springs, and water gates in the metallic dome above so water from the cosmos could fall down upon earth to provide rain. The sun, moon, and stars were luminaries that were affixed to this dome that rotated back and forth to give us day and night. Isaiah 40.22 says that YHWH sits over this metallic dome, not over the earth which is a "circle." And the Scriptures reflect all the other unscientific views of the period in which it was written...because it's not a book of science!
5. THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT THE BASIS OF RELIGION, THEY ARE ITS PRODUCT. The worship of the G-d of Abraham and Sarah began with these two ancestors, before there was written Torah, before there was a Bible. The religion from the G-d of Abraham and Sarah was never based on a book. No, it produced a book. And that book is based on the religion, not the other way around. Pagans had religions based on sacred texts and books, but not the Jews. Ours is based on what Abraham and Sarah believed was contact with an actual G-d, not some book someone wrote. It is pagan to base your beliefs and religion on so-called sacred texts.
6. READING AND STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT A REQUISITE TO PLEASING G-D. Whatever you think about the Hebrew Scriptures, whether you believe they are folly or true, you will also have to admit that it never demands that people must read and study its pages to please the Creator. It can be a good place to start, but not a requisite.
7. THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES ARE OFTEN NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. Ever read Exodus? Did you notice how the Egyptians' animals kept dying again and again? One plague kills all the beasts, then a hail storm kills all the beasts, and then the Egyptians still have animals from somewhere to die in the 10th plague. If they all died in one plague, how can any be left over to die in a hail storm and then any firstborn of beast left to die on Passover night? The answer is that the Exodus is not a literal reselling of the story. A dramatized narrative device is used here as in many places that tells the Jewish reader that the truth is not in the details. By giving descriptions that could not be true, the writer is using a technique that tells the reader that an religious truth is the reason behind the story, not the events themselves. For some reason the Watchtower demands that readers see this story as if it was as true as a news report. Which makes more sense? A factual report where animals die to rise again and die two more times or the Jewish understanding that this is written using an ancient technique common to religious narratives that are not meant to be taken literally?
the new testament specialist daniel wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the new testament, this number is very misleading.
most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like.
a side by side comparison between the two main text families (the majority text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18].
It depends on what you think Scripture really is. We Jews wrote the texts and have been using the texts for thousands of years, and not once have come up with the doctrine of original sin.
No branch of Judaism believes in original sin or a need of salvation because of it. And by the looks of most comments you are judging Scripture by Christian exegesis and not critically by examining it's origins, at least the majority of which wherein our culture's legendary interpretations of our history is found. Judging the Hebrew Scriptures by the few books of the New Testament and reading into Jewish text Christian doctrine is illogical.
..specifically, the suffering of animals.
you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.
i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.
@freemindfade
The Hebrew texts are for Jews an interpretation of their history through the eyes of their theology. It reinterprets our history in ways as to preserve our values but also teaches lessons, much like American history has its George Washington chopping down the cherry tree and the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere. Just like the legendary history of America is not the basis of America, Jews do not view their Scriptures as the foundation of our nation or religion. It is instead a product, with the Torah containing the foundational principles of our first constitution and the laws attached to it. Belief in G-d existed prior to its composition and is based on legends of a national theophany experienced at the foot of Mt. Sinai after the Exodus.
As for the New Testament, most Christians attribute some foundational importance to it. For Catholics it is part of their Deposit of Faith along with what was taught by the original Apostolic college. Since Catholicism existed some three to four centuries before the NT texts were canonized, their Apostolic teachings (referred to as Tradition) are just as important as the texts their religion produced and canonized. Evidence of G-d is independent of the written part of the Deposit of Faith because the religion existed prior to their composition. Instead G-d is seen as explained through the addition of Scripture.
For most Protestants, the NT is the foundation and ultimate form of authority and revelation the church has, second to the incarnation. From it are all doctrines drawn (or so it is claimed) while recognizing some Apostolic tradition as long as it does not contradict Scripture. Proof of G-d is supported and often defined by this approach.
For Fundamentalists the Scriptures are the ultimate and final revelation. All doctrine must be based from the texts, and there is no room for Apostolic tradition. For this group the written revelation is proof of G-d in and of itself.
..specifically, the suffering of animals.
you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.
i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.
@cofty
I didn't mean to apply that all atheists have a condition on their stance. It definitely doesn't apply to you. As you note I said "some atheists."
Finally, you said: "Suffering proves the god of christian theism does not exist. It is a point worth repeating. Please stop trying to change the subject."
Was I changing the subject? I also don't believe in the god of Christian theism. I also didn't say we can't prevent all disasters. People suffer after disasters, not before. We can prevent some suffering, and aid the suffering of others. Just because we as humans are not able to totally prevent suffering doesn't mean I am wrong to say it is our responsibility to stop suffering whenever and however we can.
And lastly (and you can keep on with your thread for this point without me, I promise), I don't think copying Christian evangelists who adopt an ideology that people's personal convictions should be changed is worth imitating. Atheists are just as capable of doing great and very good things without religion. And not all religious people are evil because they believe in a god. What you mentally believe or make claim to is insignificant. Instead of trying to get people to change their convictions like Christians do, how about acknowledging the good in people whatever they believe, however they self identify, regardless of creed, ethnicity, etc., and try and find ways of building bridges instead of building walls.
Feeling compelled to preach there is no G-d and condemning those (or at least looking down upon those) who do is no different from preaching and trying to convince others there is one. Our mental acknowledgement or denial of a deity doesn't make or break said deity.
the new testament specialist daniel wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the new testament, this number is very misleading.
most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like.
a side by side comparison between the two main text families (the majority text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18].
As some of you know I'm Jewish, but I've been working as a Biblical philologist for some years now (and as such I hold no belief in the New Testament outside my academic interest). The information here in this thread is a little vague because you have not defined your parameters.
For instance, the Catholic Church holds that the Bible was "fixed" in its official state as an inspired document once the canonization process came to an informal end in the 4th century when Eusebius wrote his canon table and it was repeated as part of Athanasius' Easter message. Thus the documents in the final state only are inspired, with retractions and interpolations part of the inspiration process.
Mainstream Protestants hold that the canon was in need of readjustment that began with the Reformation in the 1500s and ended in the late 1800s with the formation of Protestant Bible societies that formally removed the Deuterocanonicals. That settles the canon for them.
Fundamentalist Protestants hold that the official canonization is irrelevant. Some believe that certain retractions and interpolations should be removed and hold that the works were inspired mainly in the original form. Because critical scholarship makes it impossible to reach such a conclusion, this form of analysis is rejected. This leads to such theories as Matthew originally being written basically as we have it today instead of developing from various sources until reaching the current state.
Those Christians that embrace critical scholarship do not believe in the type of Biblical inerrancy promoted by Fundamentalists, in which each and every word is true. Therefore "errors" of various types do not take away from the underlying message. But the literal conservative view demands that each word be essential because of a belief that the NT texts are historical reports. Therefore Fundamentalists explain away errors through complex exegesis in order to hold their theological paradigm in place.
Therefore you need to define what you first view the New Testament as, a book of religious truth or of historical fact. You also need to define whether you are defining error by means of Fundamentalist exegesis or that as embraced by critical scholarship. adopting the conservative definition will require adopting a religious take, but taking the liberal side requires following a methodology.
What is viewed as an error to some may have little significance to others who see variables in the text as insignificant.
Being on the side of critical academia, there are significant errors in claims to being eyewitness reports. Matthew for instance belies being an eyewitness or the apostle Levi (as traditionally believed) in his description of the Triumphal entry. He has Jesus ride on two animals, a donkey and its colt, in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy whereas everyone else has one donkey. The reason is that Matthew mistakenly reads the prophecy of Zechariah 9.9 as prose instead of poetry. The poetry reading is the accepted Jewish understanding, that a "donkey, even a colt" is not mentioning two animals but defining the one animal he rides. Uncharacteristic of an eyewitness, Matthew invents a second animal to lead along with the first because of desperately wanting Jesus to "fulfill" Jewish prophecy due to his misreading of Zechariah as if it was literally speaking of two beasts. All other Gospel accounts make no note of TWO animals.
There are similar "errors," but whether or not they have any effect on the reader depends on their particular approach. This one changes nothing for the one who believes in critical scholarship because this approach uses such data to prove that St. Matthew was not the literal author or an eyewitness to the events reported by Mark and Luke and agreed upon in John, which is actually a review of the canonical reports (often ignorant of Matthew's existence). For the Fundamentalist it produces a crisis that requires an avalanche of explanation and doctrine.
