Posts by CalebInFloroda

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

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.

CalebInFloroda

@C0ntr013r

To answer your questions:

We usually say various words for G-d, using a combination of names and titles. Since our prayers are in Hebrew and all branches learn them that way or have the Hebrew available as a transliteration, it is easy to find a word, title or substitute for this or that. But to some degree you are going to use one word or name more than others. A lot of Jews say “HaShem” when referring to G-d. “HaShem” is Hebrew for “The Name.” That’s pretty easy.

As for repetition in prayer, I have no more to offer. I only know that the repetition in Matthew is describe by Jesus as the type practiced by Gentiles, so regardless of our personal views it obviously meant something definitive that Jesus could point to. That is up to debate among Christians, for as I said I can only report what scholars say. I have no personal opinions about this, actually.

And for what it is worth, the Jewish texts are products of their time. People viewed conquering of their enemies as signs that they were blessed from Heaven. Ancient Jews attributed this to G-d, and wrongly so. Remember unlike Christians, Jews are not bound to accept the written text as literal or to avoid looking at it critically. We once used to only say that HaShem was the G-d of Abraham, but now we say the G-d of Abraham and Sarah. We recognize our people have been wrong and change things as time moves on. You can’t stick by ancient texts that offer guidance for times long gone. But you can try to find the good in anything and adopt what works for you.

And on Jesus Christ: I think that a few agnostic and atheists that come from a Christian background have a hard time separating the importance of Jesus to the G-d issue in Judaism (not to mention Christians themselves). Just like JWs don’t go around wondering what new publications and pronouncements the Mormons are making or what the latest encyclical of the Pope means, Jews don’t go around thinking about what they don’t believe about Jesus. It’s like that joke where one man from Canada sits across from an American at a truck stop restaurant, and the guy from Canada asks: “What do you Americans really think about us Canadians?” To which the American replies: “We don’t.”

So the fact that Jesus may have been a prophet doesn’t mean that I also have to think he is the Messiah. If he was a true prophet, I can live with that. But I also believe that how the Christians interpreted Jesus of Nazareth was incorrect. So the conclusions about Jesus are different. The other stuff, I don’t think about. I don’t even believe in a personal Messiah as being the fulfillment of Jewish expectations. Many Jews are so past that. So the Jesus-issue doesn't even come up for consideration normally.

And no, the Jewish Annotated New Testament, though available for Kindle as well as in hard copy form from Amazon, is not a light read. It is the entire NRSV New Testament text with footnotes, commentary, and study articles from Jewish sources regarding the material. It is a best seller and often hard to get in hard copy from, so you better get that Kindle app if you want to read it.

Lastly, no. I don’t blame Christians as a whole for the Holocaust. I stated “Christian nations.” The actual expression is “Christendom,” but because JWs have screwed that up as well too so that even ex-JWs use “Christendom” to mean “false Christian religions,” I was forced to use a term that I believe many ex-JWs are still not familiar with. “Christendom” actually refers to the secular bloc of nations in Europe and Asia that once had kings who exercised their rights as such by Church authority. The nations were also legally Christian or considered themselves by law as such. Germany was a member of Christendom until Christendom crumbled with the passing of the two world wars. Christendom no longer exists as these nations all claim to be secular and those that don’t, well the whole idea is over now. My blame was on these so-called members of Christendom, the nations that either did something or failed to do something. But I can’t call to blame people who weren’t alive then or Christians as a whole.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

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.

CalebInFloroda

@Ucantnonme

I believe everyone has the right to the free exercise of freedom of conscience in all things religious, including the rejection of religious notions.

But I don't believe that people should condemn others because of their beliefs or lack thereof. I don't believe the JWs are worthy of condemnation in and of itself because of their theology. No one should be persecuted because of their convictions.

Along with this, no one should be against open discussion and a little debate. It doesn't hurt to approach our beliefs with critical analysis.

@little_Socrates

Nope. I could never say the Deuterocanonicals were removed because they weren't written prior to the Hasmonean era, included in the Tanakh and then subjected to exclusion. They were written after the events that led to what we now call Chanukah, but the Tanakh only includes events of the prior era.

Jews don't really have a canon, so we didn't have a time where some authoritative group started removing or accepting texts to include in the Tanakh (Old Testament). It just is. Remember the rule for the Tanakh: the books have to be written in Hebrew characters and composed prior to the Hasmonean dynasty.

Now some of the Deuterocanonicals appear to have been originally composed in Hebrew, like the Book of Wisdom (which is my favorite of all these books). But it was written after the Hasmonean era began, so it doesn't qualify to be included in the Tanakh.

But you are not far from the truth about these books being used by early Christians; for example, Wisdom chapters 13 and 14 are condensed by the apostle Paul in the opening chapter of the Letter to the Romans. So there is evidence that they were quoted in the New Testament and accepted by the early church. In fact the reason the Catholic Church views them as canon is because the first century Christians accepted the Alexandrian LXX roll of books as inspired, and these books were among them.

However, Jesus did not quote the Septuagint. The Gospel writers did because they wrote in Koine Greek, but Jesus obviously did not because he spoke in Hebrew/Aramaic. Remember the Gospels are a Greek translation of what happened in a Hebrew-speaking society. The actual events happened in the Jewish tongue of the day which was a mishmash of Aramaic and Hebrew.

@Phizzy

Thanks! I appreciate your words and where you are coming from.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

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.

CalebInFloroda

@C0jtr013r

So if I understand you correctly, you believe that the "name" Elohim is more holy than the tetragrammaton? Or is it different depending on what language you write it in? Or if you speak it?

No. The Divine Name is the most holy of all, but so is Elohim. Because “God” is used so often when we speak of the Creator, and because when you physically write it down the name “God” might be destroyed as refuse, it became a practice to write it as G-d. The custom is not to expose something holy to the possibility of being mistreated if possible. We live in an electronic world now, so the practice has just followed. But one can also consider that the information can be repeated or reprinted on a material that can equally be treated as mundane, so the reasoning stands.

Why do you think this is referring to repetition? To me it sounds more like we should mean every word when we pray. Not just say a lot of words to make the prayer "impressive".

You are correct that this is also talking about mindless prayers, but look at the text carefully. Jesus has been talking about not being like “the hypocrites” and then suddenly changes to not praying “like the Gentiles.” He is no longer talking about Jewish behavior, but Gentile behavior. What type of Gentile repetition is Jesus speaking of?

Two things to remember: Psalm 118 shows that Jews do repeat phrases in prayer. The Psalms are still our official prayers, and when you see us praying at the Western Wall we are often praying the Psalms. If Jesus was referring to mere repetition, this Psalm (and a few others) would be forbidden to use. Do you think Psalm 118 is bad? It uses repetition. Should we avoid and maybe even remove this Psalm because of this?

Second, I am not giving you my personal interpretation. What I mentioned is actual history about heathen worship. And this is recognized by scholars. Notice from the Catholic NABRE footnote on Matthew 6.7:

The example of what Christian prayer should be like contrasts it now not with the prayer of the hypocrites but with that of the pagans. Their babbling probably means their reciting a long list of divine names, hoping that one of them will force a response from the deity.

Protestants also agree, adding even further possibilities to the mix (it's not just one thing or the other). Wikipedia states the following under “Matthew 6:7”:

France notes that in this era Gentile prayer was portrayed as repeated incantations that had to be perfectly recited, but where the spirit and understanding of the prayer was secondary. Fowler states that the Jews believed the pagans needed to incessantly repeat their prayers, because their false gods would not answer them. The followers of the true God had no need to repeat their prayers as God would hear them the first time. Schweizer presents an alternate view. He does not feel battalogeo is a reference to repetition, but to nonsense. He argues that the Jews of that era felt that the pagans had forgotten the true name of God, and that their prayers were thus filled with long lists of meaningless words in an attempt to ensure the true name of God would at some point be mentioned.

Reading your post I could not help to wonder, do you think that the NT is accurate?
If not, how do you know what Jesus actually said or didn't say and what he actually meant?

I’m Jewish, I can only go by what the evidence and study of scholars reveals. I do believe Jesus was a real person, yes. I think the text reveals the beliefs of those who believed he was the Messiah and tried to make the circumstances fit their preconception.

If you do, how can you not think he was from God? He resurrected dead, rose from the grave himself etc.

Jesus may have been a prophet. But Elijah and Elisha also resurrected people, and one person rose from the grave after touching Elisha bones. None of this makes them the Messiah in Jewish theology anymore than Jesus.

Or do you think only some of it is true? In that case, how do you pick which parts to believe?

If you want a really close view on practically what I think about the New Testament, read The Jewish Annotated New Testament. The commentary there contains the closest to my views.

Or do you simply use the NT to point out problems with the JWs doctrines without believing a word of it yourself?

I don’t believe that it is fair to use the NT as a puppet. And I don’t agree that it is always right to just point out “problems with the JWs doctrines,” either. I can share what I know from scholarship to help people make decisions, but at the same time even though I was once a JW in my youth I don’t hate them or believe they are evil.

I do think they leave people with wrong views of Scripture and Judaism in particular (as well as wrong views about atheists, Catholics, Mormons, tuna fish, the paying of taxes, homosexuality and tight pants, etc.). And I feel I owe it to others to help them see things are not as black and white as the JWs lead people to believe. I think it an injustice not to try to help a little, even if my views may not be fully acceptable by some or may need adjustments themselves.

But the NT was written by Jews (except for Luke and Acts, and then the author was greatly influenced by Judaism), and there is a movement among Jews to study it, learn from it, and accept it as part of their own history. At one time the Christians viewed themselves as nothing more than another sect within Judaism, and at the time they wrote the NT they likely were nothing more. So there is a lot that we as Jews can learn from it ourselves. It is a story of how what some Jews believed about the Messiah.

The fact that this ushered in a 2000-year "Messianic Age " where Jews were persecuted, tortured, expelled from country after country, and then thrown into concentration camps by Christian nations in an attempt to wipe us off the face of the planet kinda makes it hard for me to accept the claims about Jesus in the New Testament...but that's just me.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

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.

CalebInFloroda

@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.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

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.

CalebInFloroda

That's right. The word "firmament" actually comes from a Latin term which means "to hammer out" meaning to hammer out metal and spread the metal like a sheet.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

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.

CalebInFloroda

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.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

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.

CalebInFloroda

@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.”

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

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.

CalebInFloroda

@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.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

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.

CalebInFloroda

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?

49

What kind of errors in the Bible?

by TheWonderofYou in

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].

CalebInFloroda

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.