Posts by CalebInFloroda

20

Futility of being right

by JWdaughter in

so, on another thread, about pluto, grreat teacher said something that speaks to my feelings about religon.

"i've kinda been sad since pluto has been demoted to dwarf planet.. you talk about 9 planets and all the little kids at school will correct you real quick and tell you that now there are only 8 planets in the solar system!".

nothing in the universe has changed but the opinion of men.

CalebInFloroda

No you're not, Vidiot. You're not wrong. It's me who's wrong right now.

Wait...hmmm....

32

Jesus Christ explains the particle used in my cosmology theory using parables in the bible.

by Aleon in

i wrote a cosmology theory using an expanding particle shaped as a perfect sphere.

in the bible jesus christ speaks of this particle in his parables.

this is good news!.

CalebInFloroda

I’m not sure how you got a support for expansion theory from these accounts because the parables are ironic parodies, the first two describing “expansions” that normally wouldn’t occur. The last illustration you point to has nothing to do with expansion at all, not even shape.

Matthew 13.31 is a parody of Ezekiel 17.23; 31.5 and Daniel 4.7-9, 17-19. It’s an ironic comment because mustard seeds are tiny but can sometimes grow into trees due to their destructive nature of killing all other vegetation in their vicinity and sucking all the nutrients from the surrounding area that would keep the other vegetation alive. (Compare Daniel 2.44.) Because of this Jewish law during the Second Temple era regulated the planting of mustard to avoid the results seen in this parable from ever happening.

Verse 33 is also a parable of irony because it is an exaggeration. Though a leavening agent, yeast has its limits. You have to have enough for your job or it won’t work. The woman in the parable is working with “three measures” of flour, which is approximately 60 lbs. The result is unexpected because the dough should not rise under these circumstances if the woman used the small amount of yeast most households had on hand. If you applied the Baker’s percentage (which tells us how much yeast is required to make that much flour rise), that would require 2.4 lbs of yeast. That’s a monstrous amount, and likely not the idea Jesus had in mind due to the genre of the illustration. Jesus was contrasting this parable with the mustard seed one, tiny beginnings causing great expansion. 2.4 lbs is not small. Scientifically this parable is impossible with normal household amounts people even keep on hand today, and Jewish men and women who baked in Jesus’ day would have recognized this absurdity--which is the point of irony.

Verse 45 is using an old Jewish illustration common to Hebrew culture which relates pearls to piety and study of Torah, such as appears in the Acts of Peter 20; Avot of Rabbi Natan 18A; and Peskita Rabbati 23.6. The shape of the pearl is not the issue in Jewish culture. It is the value of such a rare find, like that of a precious stone such as a ruby or emerald. To see value in the shape would be introducing into the reading of a text an anachronism foreign to the writer and audience that commonly used the item with a different definition.

In the end, I am sure you have answers for these points I raised developed from those who validated your conclusions (no scientific theory can be called a “theory” without independent confirmation from disinterested parties according to the method).

While I don’t believe in Jesus Christ, as a Jewish philologist I am quite familiar with the parables of Jesus and the different type of parable genres used in ancient rabbinical and early Christian cultures. The “parables” of Jesus are actually “mashal,” a literary form which included not only irony like the first two parables discussed above, but allegories, axioms, proverbs, and similitudes. Does the type of parable (genre) affect how they relate to your conclusions? Do they figure in at all?

And how did you get a theory of expansion from the first two ironic parables, since they are discussing things that generally never if ever happened?

20

Futility of being right

by JWdaughter in

so, on another thread, about pluto, grreat teacher said something that speaks to my feelings about religon.

"i've kinda been sad since pluto has been demoted to dwarf planet.. you talk about 9 planets and all the little kids at school will correct you real quick and tell you that now there are only 8 planets in the solar system!".

nothing in the universe has changed but the opinion of men.

CalebInFloroda

@LisaRose

Your words resonate with actually psychology on the matter.

The reason people often get into flame wars on the Internet or debates about religion in real life is because we are what we believe.

Our identity is wrapped up and supported by what we believe about the universe and our place in it. Any attack on this belief system is actually an attack on the individual's self (or at least their concept of what it means to be who they are). Naturally we would defend this, so part of the arguing in response is normal.

But more than often when people are taught to believe things about themselves that are not true or they do not truly believe, the individual may seek out opportunities to debate and engage in flame wars. This is actually arguing with one's self to convince the psyche that their new or current convictions about the universe and themselves in it are accurate (if I can argue them and "prove" them, then they are true).

The person who engages in this type of self-convicting arguemtation often doesn't know it. The signs that one is engaged in self-deception regarding their true motives in discussions can include some of the following:

1. Asking "innocent questions" only to attack and debate any comments that come from others as a result instead of showing a willingness to at least consider opposing views.

2. Claiming to engage in flame wars for fun or sport and nothing more.

3. Offering hateful and/or disrespectful speech instead of logic in replies (and being unable to tell the or admit that there is a difference).

4. Lengthy posts that consist of lengthy quotes from other sources in support of their views. (The type of lengthy post that does not draw you in and keep your attention, and is so lengthy only the author probably wants to read it.)

5. Believing other people really are interested in, care, and keeping up with what you are writing when in reality they are not.

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.