Posts by CalebInFloroda

19

As a Work of Literature The Bible is Just Dreadful

by cofty in

of course it's easy to criticise the bible for all manner of serious flaws, but it fails on a more basic level.. it is just a terrible piece of literature.. this piece on "southern skeptic" is well worth a read.. god is a terrible writer....

CalebInFloroda

@TheWomderofYou

The reason why the Catholic Church did not place strong emphasis on reading Scripture is that they viewed it as Jews do, mainly a liturgical text and not as Marcion of Sinope did, who started the whole canon controversy. Marcion upheld the Gnostic teachings that Scriptures were to be used as "proof" texts. In a liturgical religion Scripture is not so much read individually as proclaimed to you and used for your prayer.

It was one of those things that shocked me greatly upon leaving the Watchtower and I began studying to become a philologist: I had no idea what "liturgy" was and why it was so important. It instantly made me realize how stupid and unprepared for Biblical academia I was upon leaving the JWs, and more determined than ever to learn.

JWs don't have a liturgy like the Jews or first century Christians, and of course there is no liturgical calendar. Texts began to be saved and included in the various canons not so much due to Jews or Christians reading straight through them, but because the texts had portions used in proclamation during liturgical acts. If it were not for the Christians copying the liturgical paradigm for their services, the New Testament would have mainly been up in the air for it was largely decided by what was used for the liturgical readings.

You also cannot judge these texts as if they were meant to live in the vacuum that the Witnesses place them in. The Scriptures were meant to be read as liturgy, prayed as liturgy, and never meant to be used divided from liturgy or its liturgical settings.

55

What is the "sign" of "Christ's Invisible Presence?"

by Fisherman in

the wts teaches, that from 1914 onward, a sign has been evident, which is proof of god's kingdom.

jw profess to see that sign.

a "sign" means evidence from god.

CalebInFloroda

E

The hope of the Israelite people was that when the Messianic Age or kingdom began to rule, people would not have to ask one another if it was truly here. The Jewish prophets predict a time of prosperity for the Jews and for the Gentile. Not only would Israel be on its land again but a third Temple would stand in Jerusalem (this last part being the only "sign," if you want to call it that, which would mark the arrival of the Messianic Age as unmistakable).

The so-called "sign of Christ's presence" as taught be JWs is significantly flawed. First they claim a Messianic rule that is invisible and entails a series of events contrary to the prosperity foretold and hoped for by the Jewish people since antiquity.

Next it is problematic as the JW eschatology is overrun with mistakes. The Parousia is interpreted as an "insivible" presence instead of a "state" presence or "royal tour of one's kingdom," which is what a "parousia" was in the Hellenistic and Roman world in the first century.

To make matters worse, the Witness make a "sign" out of events which Jesus states are not indicative of his arrival. The discourse regarding the destruction of the Second Temple is used as an eschatological sounding board for events leading to the Second Coming, but each recording of it (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) states that wars, earthquakes, famines and plagues are NOT signs that the end is upon them and thus no reason to panic. The JWs mistakenly claim otherwise.

There is a peculiar mention of false preachers associated with the "end of the world" who get it wrong in Luke 21. The text reads:

"Beware that you are not lead astray; for many will come in my name and say: I AM and, 'The time is near!' Do not go after them."-- Luke 21.8, NRSV with footnote reading inserted into text.*

In other words Jesus may here be warning that a group claiming to be Christians will go about using the Divine Name (or a form of it) and proclaim that the time of the end is near. Jesus says about them: "Do not go after them."

*--Generally rendered "I am he!", Luke uses the Greek term EGO EIMI, a euphemistic abbreviation of the Divine Name which literally reads: I AM. The NRSV has "I am" as the alternate reading here due to the fact that the NRSV translation committee felt an equal amount of evidence existed to support a reading that suggested that this false group would be using the Divine Name as part of their attempt to get people to believe their incorrect interpretation. I have placed it here within the text to draw an interesting parallel with the JWs. Regardless of this, even with the original reading intact the text shows that any people proclaiming that the time of the end is near are not to be followed by Christ's disciples.

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

I am not sure that we are saying anything different from one another, at least not at the beginning.

I wasn't saying that the word came from Jerome's translation but from a Latin word. The term was used in Catholic catechesis and liturgy, and it became Anglicized as "Gentile." I was talking more specifically about the etymological history of the term. I wasn't referencing the Vulgate or current Neo-Vulgate and claiming either Jerome's or the current Holy See's text used "gentilis."

But it is also a falsehood that a word-for-word translation is more precise or correct than a dynamic approach. I speak several languages, including Bibilical Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Ecclesiatical Latin. No one translates or can translate one language into another in a true word-for-word manner, not even the NASB or NWT. All words have to be rendered contextually to at least some degree because of restrictions due to differences of idiom. There is no such thing as a true word-for-word version, and those that attempt to produce translations like this often give the worst renditions.

The LXX is not a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew, the Vulgate is not a word-for-word translation of the Greek, the KJV and the NASB are not word-for-word either. Only interlinear readings offer true word-for-word renditions, and if that type of translation was all we had to go by, we (or more accurately you) would understand even less than what current versions give you today.

The original Greek word in question means "nations," true, but are you reading the word "nations" like what the word means today or are you reading it as what it meant in the first century? The "nations" of the past were not secular like they are today. There was no "separation of church and state," so to speak then. Each nation had its national gods and was identified not just by a different culture but one heavily linked to the worship of national gods. So the word did not just mean a group of people under a particular government, but a nation of heathen or pagan people when compared or speaking to an audience of Jews. There were no secular states back then.

In Matthew the context is referring to prayers said by these people. Religion and religious practice is central to the identity of these "nations" in this verse because their repetition in their prayers is the subject matter. So Jesus is speaking not just about secular ethnic groups of people, but religious ethnic groups, heathens or pagans from the standpoint of the Jews. From the view I would say the NWT is not being accurate enough if it just uses "nations" since most today read that word without knowledge of the connection to religion that each ethnic group had in those days.

19

As a Work of Literature The Bible is Just Dreadful

by cofty in

of course it's easy to criticise the bible for all manner of serious flaws, but it fails on a more basic level.. it is just a terrible piece of literature.. this piece on "southern skeptic" is well worth a read.. god is a terrible writer....

CalebInFloroda

Postscript:

My above comments are not meant to discourage Christians or others from accepting their own beliefs or to claim that their approach is definitively incorrect. I am merely attempting to contrast the approaches to revelation in the texts and how they are used.

Some Christians view Scripture as a reference work, as Lorenzo mentioned, instead of also a liturgical text like Jews and Catholics, and though this might be different from the intention behind the Jewish composers of many of the works it does reveal a great respect and high regard for a text they view as worthy of their own in-depth study on their part.

19

As a Work of Literature The Bible is Just Dreadful

by cofty in

of course it's easy to criticise the bible for all manner of serious flaws, but it fails on a more basic level.. it is just a terrible piece of literature.. this piece on "southern skeptic" is well worth a read.. god is a terrible writer....

CalebInFloroda

Lorenzo,

You are speaking of the New Testament.

While Jews never expected their Scriptures to be read independent of their religion, it should be interesting to note the differences on some of the points you mention:

1. The Hebrew Scriotures were written to be understood.

2. Revelations from God are intended to be public, including written ones.

3. Secret codes or hidden meanings in messages violate the intention of public revelation.

One of the most significant reasons Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah was his repeated habit of teaching in parables specifically designed to hide revelations from direct public consumption. According to Jewish Law, prophets had to be like Moses to be authentic who himself never spoke in such riddles. Secondly Jesus' own disciples claimed that the Jewish texts were filled with hidden meanings kept secret from the Jews, and again like Moses' own works, written revelations had to be for general public consumption, not for future generations that would consist of people separated from Israel.

However it is curious that Christians make pledge to a text that is not meant for everybody to understand while Jews, though admitting it often takes a step into our culture to comprehend, believe the underlying message in Scripture can be accessible to anyone, even Gentiles despite the fact that the texts were not prepared for their immediate comprehension.

19

As a Work of Literature The Bible is Just Dreadful

by cofty in

of course it's easy to criticise the bible for all manner of serious flaws, but it fails on a more basic level.. it is just a terrible piece of literature.. this piece on "southern skeptic" is well worth a read.. god is a terrible writer....

CalebInFloroda

As ancient literature there are indeed parts that are highly unique, especially when one considers the monotheism and the way this is reflected in the poetry sections.

I think what most people expect as literature, the Old Testsment can't really be placed in that section because few have read ancient literary works of the same period.

Jonah is actually one of the best pieces of ancient humor I have ever read, but most people don't know it's a comedy. The flood of Noah has comedic gestures in it meant to tease the defeated Babylonians, but many Christians have obscured Jewish research and our claim that there are redactions we added after the time of Cyrus to make fun of the pagan absurdities in their similar tales. And Psalm 23 is universally recognized for its cadence and simplicity, but again how many have read works from the similar period of other cultures to recognize and appreciate why?

Outside of Jewish works, the only piece from the New Testsment I would consider literary is Luke. He writes the infancy narratives in Septuagint Greek and the rest in Koine as if to offer a flashback, and he puts songs in it. He writes the parables with the flavor seen in Aesop and draws the Passion narrative with the best drama the Gospels have to offer. His Prodigal Son and Rich Man and Lazarus parables are colorfully produced. He is Hellenistic but he is often more accurate than Matthew in his Jewish details.

The problem is that these examples were not intentional. The writers weren't trying to win awards in literature but were catechists and seekers. What JWs and Fundamentalists have done is make claims of Scripture being this and that when their claims have done more to discredit the books in the eyes of logical thinkers more than anything.

My personal opinion is that like any writing you have to take these on their own merit, whatever that might be, and not try to build them up as something they aren't. Only when you do that can you appreciate them for what they really are.

19

As a Work of Literature The Bible is Just Dreadful

by cofty in

of course it's easy to criticise the bible for all manner of serious flaws, but it fails on a more basic level.. it is just a terrible piece of literature.. this piece on "southern skeptic" is well worth a read.. god is a terrible writer....

CalebInFloroda

Or beware of the man who steals the book you wrote and then claims it gives him permission to hit you over the head with it.

19

As a Work of Literature The Bible is Just Dreadful

by cofty in

of course it's easy to criticise the bible for all manner of serious flaws, but it fails on a more basic level.. it is just a terrible piece of literature.. this piece on "southern skeptic" is well worth a read.. god is a terrible writer....

CalebInFloroda

Very good points in the article and well though out.

Of course, the author of the article is writing from what appears to be a stand specifically against a Fundamentalist Christian approach of Scripture. Jews acknowledge that these books were never meant to be the basis of a religion or many of the things pointed out in the post.

The Hebrew Scriptures are a product of a religion, not the basis for it or the foundation for its theology. Judaism was alive and well, functioning with a liturgy and even a Temple by the time the Scriptures began to take their shape. This is contrary to Fundamentalists and JWs who claim that true religion should be based on the Scriptures.

At least for the Jewish Scriptures I can say that since the Tanakh was not planned to be an exhaustive source or doctrinal foundation for our religious thought, practices or culture and there was no intended plan for them to ever be that. In fact these books were never written with the thought that Gentiles would ever read them or even handle them, let alone use them to create a religion that would persecute us for 2000 years.

The Hebrew Bible is not the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Live Forever book, or the Book of Mormon. It's definitely NOT the New Testament! Jews already had beliefs and a religion by the time they wrote this book. Unlike many Christians, the book did not come first and the religion second. Jews and Judaism came first, with the Scriptures based upon and not the basis for what we are.

And it wasn't made to be literature like a grand masterpiece of fiction. It's the writings of a tribal people. It's ancient, reflects our beliefs at the time they were composed (not necessarily held today), and not what JWs or Christians claim it is.

It's not that the Tanakh is not what Jews think it should be, it is that too many Gentiles think the Jewish Bible is something we Jews never said it was and that it plainly isn't.

49

this weeks bible highlights: Jehovah slaughters his own people to teach David a lesson

by nowwhat? in

from 2 samuel 24. i am so mad at myself for not making a comment how could anyone explain this away?

then after he slaughters 70,000 he then feels regret?

CalebInFloroda

The Jewish standpoint is that this is a legend used to support the reason why Jews (and other Eastern tribes) have reservations about taking a census.

According to ancient Jewish superstition (yep, we got them in our culture just like others), a census can bring evil upon the people counted. It's not really known why we Jews have this superstition (some other cultures do too). Rabbinical sources and folklore connect the taking of a census to the cause of all types of problems, from national disaster to making a person susceptible to "evil eye"!

Yeah, I know. It's ridiculous, but we Jews used to believe that. Some believe it is because our G-d told Abraham that his children would be "like the sands of the sea, unable to be numbered," and thus holding a census is seen by some as tantamount to challenging the Almighty G-d. Exodus 30.11-16 even declares that in order to avoid "plague" each person enrolled in a census has to pay G-d for his protection from such adverse effects.

Our ancestors saw their fears and superstitions as intertwined with their religion, so it takes some knowledge of the culture, its quirks and its failings, to tell what the Jews were sometimes saying in the Scriotures...and sometimes even that helps but little.

Unlike the JWs we Jews don't claim we know for sure what is happening here, but like many things about Hebrew (like reading right to left), you need to read the story differently than with the approach many Christians take with it. Apparently there was a national tragedy which the Jews couldn't explain due to the ancient belief that G-d protects his people from all adversity no matter what. Yet when disaster did strike it left people looking for a reason.

What caused it? Hmm, nothing...the people were being faithful, they were showing allegiance to the King, and the King had just finished his census, and--

WAIT! The census!

So, according to genre, a narrative was devised that states how God sent a plague due to David's census, for as you know 'taking a census causes all kinds of evil!'

There's a lot in Hebrew writings of all types that you have to approach this way. There are genre earmarks that are common to legend, myth, or parable. Because the Jews never expected their writings to be read by Gentiles, they didn't write with other cultures in mind. Superficial readings caused by religions like the JW remove the texts from their intended audience and paradigm, and read in a vacuum where the demand is that everything written has to be fact causes nonsense.

Not that it makes too much sense to the modern Jew either, but at least we don't run around saying this is factual history and condemning others if they don't believe in our interpretation.

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

@Vidiot

Thanks for the thumbs up. And yes, they do more than just screw up one's view of Scripture.

@Kepler

The English word "Gentile" comes from the Latin translation of the Greek word ETHNIKOS/ETHNOS, namely "gentilis." The English word "ethnicity" comes from ETHNOS, and the English word "genus" comes from the Latin word which itself generally means "tribe."

In Hebrew the word for a non-Jew is "goy." And often the word ETHNOS is used to mean "goy," or Gentile. But sometimes it just means "people."

So you are right, you have to let the context guide you. But in modern versions like the one I was quoting from, the NRSV, they are often very careful to only use "Gentiles" when "goy" or non-Jew is meant. The NRSV renders it "people" or "nations" depending on the context too. To illustrate, the NRSV uses "Gentiles" at Matthew 6.7 but is careful to translate it as "nations" at Matthew 25.32.