Posts by CalebInFloroda

45

People should learn more about the Bible flaws

by opusdei1972 in

i have noted that the main problem for those who are seduced by the watchtower society is their ignorance about the bible itself.

people who believe that the bible is the word of god usually ignore the studies on textual criticism and how scientific criteria forbid absurd stories like that of the global flood.

so, i strongly believe that students in schools need at least an obligatory course on "the bible" through the point of view of science and the textual criticism.

CalebInFloroda

Opusdei,

Actually the type of education and publications you mention already exist. They are the mainstay of basic Bible education in Roman Catholicism, mainstream Protestantism, and branches of Judaism such as Conservative and Reform.

The problem lies in the fact that the religion of the JW sometimes carries over into the lives of those who exit, and therefore ex-JWs live primarily in ignorance of the fact that the critical approach to Scripture is now the popular and generally accepted methodology to Bible study and exegesis. It can seem differently if we pay attention to Fundamentalist voices, but these are now in the minority and viewed even as too extreme to be a part of nominal academia.

The footnote apparatus of most new translations of Scripture since the 1960s has employed a critical approach. This is so of all current Catholic versions, most notably the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles, and the official Catholic translation in the USA, the NABRE. The study editions of the NRSV employ this approach as does the recently released ecumenical CEB study edition. Commentaries also have left behind the literal approach of Fundamentalists and the Watchtower. Collegeville commentaries for Catholicism are but one example.

Outside of Orthodox Judaism, the historical-critical method generally reigns, especially in Conservative and Reform approaches. It has been generations, in fact, since the Scriptures have been approached as literal among many Jews.

A visit to your neighborhood bookstore, signing up for a Bible study class at your nearby URJ temple or Catholic parish or a visit to Amazon.com to purchase one of the volumes mentioned above will suffice to show how dramatic the gap and difference exists between what the common Bible reader is exposed to and what the Watchtower often leaves JWs and some ex-JWs believing about the current state of Biblical study.

8

I was encourage to read the Bible, but the correct Bible

by John Aquila in

i got a brief email of encouragement today.

i was told i need to read the bible, but the correct bible before it's to late.

the sign that the end is close is very obvious-(gay marriage is legal) .

CalebInFloroda

By the way, after reading that Yahoo! Answers thread and such comments that the NWT is "cherry-picked" by scholars for its accuracy...

This is from someone who, as some of you know, has rubbed elbows with professionals in the field and actually worked in Bible translation myself and knows exactly what it is like to go to university and learn the Bible from any perspective, religious and non-religious...

If you take a course anywhere, be it Protestant or Catholic theology or just some course that will touch on the Bible ever so slightly, with very, very few exceptions your text book English Bible translation you will be required to use is the NRSV.

You can actually Google it yourself and see how many scholars, teachers, clergy, religious and non-religious persons recommend it and use it. You can call universities and professors across the country. You can ask your clergy. Again and again the universally preferred version is almost alway the NRSV, never, ever the NWT.

Those aged, over-used paste and cut "recommendations" from "scholars" are not what they seem, but most of you folks already know that. Most of them are not even recognized scholars with any respect in academia.

Here's a test for any JW That starts spouting off "quotes" and blurbs from authorities...Ask them, who are your favorite Bible scholars, past and present? How do they compare with the most respected ones in the field today? Can you name them?

I'll bet they can't. In fact most average people don't even know the name of a single one, let alone JWs! Quotes with names mean nothing. Do you know the difference between a professor, a scholar, and an academic? How about a Bible scholar and a Bible translator? How about a translator, a philologist, an exegete and a catechist? If you can't tell the difference between these people when asked, then you can't tell the value of the quotes you mention to prove the NWT is supported by scholars.

Now the NRSV itself is not considered perfect. The CEB is gaining a little momentum in a few quarters, replacing the NIV in one instance (the NIV is used by academics sponsored mostly by conservatives). I have heard some mention the ESV, but few, and even less the NASB in scholastic situations. But in the end due to its balance of style, tested accuracy, and familiarity with English idiom (not to mention ecumenical board of translators and editors), the NRSV is still the version at the top of the list for scholars. It is starting to be viewed as dated in some quarters, but nevertheless the one that gets used. Why even us Jews used the NRSV New Testsment for the basis of the very first "Anotated Jewish New Testament," which has been on the best-sellers list since its release! That is how trusted and respected the NRSV is.

Reading that Yahoo! Answers thread just screamed out: "I never went to college and couldn't identify a Bible scholar even if they fell on top of me!"

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

Aleon,

I am not doubting your claims. I was merely asking how you developed what you are claiming is "theory."

I didn't invent the term "scientific theory" or the scientific method. You write as if I am making up my own rules as to what can be considered "theory." But I am not.

A scientific theory is an explanation of a certain facet or aspect of the natural world that has been tested, confirmed and well-substantiated through methods of observation and experimentation validated by means of the scientific method. I did not make that up. That rule was in place before I was conceived!

Again, I am not doubting your claims. But now I am doubting that you understand what a theory is.

And when you say "Einstein's theory," do you mean the "theory of relativity"? There is no "Einstein's theory." And there is no scientific theory which is not tested before being considered theory. Again there is no such thing as a scientific theory that is no validated independently and well-substantiated by disinterested parties.

Everyone who advances a theory must subject their hypothesis to the scrutiny of others. People are not haters because they ask intelligent questions. I'm not saying you are lying or stupid or misleading us. Besides, why share something on a forum if you don't expect to have people challenge it? No one publishesd theories on a forum. They publish a scientific paper for a journal.

Am I making that up too? Sigh! Just say what you want to say, I guess. People can see the difference between what you are saying and the reasonableness of others who have replied to your original post.

8

I was encourage to read the Bible, but the correct Bible

by John Aquila in

i got a brief email of encouragement today.

i was told i need to read the bible, but the correct bible before it's to late.

the sign that the end is close is very obvious-(gay marriage is legal) .

CalebInFloroda

You mean I need to trade in my Bible for the NWT because mine (which is written in Hebrew, by the way) isn't correct?

I love Gentile Christian Fundies--they sure know how to teach us Jews! Where would we be without them and their paganization of our own holy texts? Thanks JWs for the New World Translation! The Tanakh is so much clearer and accurate in your English version than in my silly old Hebrew Bible written by Jews. What do we Jews know?

And remember, Jesus saves--but Jews invest wisely! (Oh, and keep the Han Solo in Chanukah!)

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

Aleon,

I wasn't offering conclusions. They were questions (which is why there were question marks).

The other information is the prevailing data of Biblical academia regarding the parables. They are not exegesis (interpretation), they are philology not theology. I didn't invent this data nor is it part of my convictions as a Jew. I don't believe in Jesus, so interpretation is not my goal.

I wasn't judging your work. I believe in the scientific method. I was asking about your formulas. You mentioned expansion particle theory which is a hobby of mine. I never heard of expansion theory connected to my specialty in the field of Biblical linguistics and critical literary methodologies.

And finally the scientific method doesn't allow for "theory correctness" based on 'just taking a look,' as you put it, you know that. The expanding cosmological model does not allow for theory without controls and verification. Like one would do with any scientific theory that one has never heard of, I was asking for the verification findings from the independent study. Only after these concur with yours can one rightly claim they have a theory.

Can you explain your response and how and why you mistook my statements the way you did? I was asking, what I thought, were very important and respectful questions of inquiry.

7

Babylon the Great was the Sadducees & Pharisees

by FusionTheism in

if you closely look at revelation, it may click in your head (like it just did in mine) that "mystery babylon the great, the great harlot" sounds an awful lot like the sadducees and pharisees who killed jesus and persecuted the apostles, and tried to suck up to rome.. .

paul spoke about a *jerusalem below* and a *jerusalem above,* in galatians.

jerusalem below are the freshly and evil jews and jerusalem above is the church made up of christian jews and gentiles, the seed of abraham in christ.. revelation also picks up on this theme by declaring there is a *new jerusalem,* while also declaring that the jerusalem below, which killed jesus, is called *sodom* and *egypt* in a symbolic way.

CalebInFloroda

Because I've noticed most people who share a view and ask for opinions then proceed to debate with those who have merely shared their own views.

Some who have done so, I have learned, are doing so to try to "correct" the current views of some they feel require correction. Others feel that G-d or Jesus wants them to do so.

But instead of saying that their intention is to attempt to convince others that their view is one that should be adopted, they merely ask for opinions. When the opinions don't match those of the OP, the OP then proceeds to argue and debate with fervor.

7

Babylon the Great was the Sadducees & Pharisees

by FusionTheism in

if you closely look at revelation, it may click in your head (like it just did in mine) that "mystery babylon the great, the great harlot" sounds an awful lot like the sadducees and pharisees who killed jesus and persecuted the apostles, and tried to suck up to rome.. .

paul spoke about a *jerusalem below* and a *jerusalem above,* in galatians.

jerusalem below are the freshly and evil jews and jerusalem above is the church made up of christian jews and gentiles, the seed of abraham in christ.. revelation also picks up on this theme by declaring there is a *new jerusalem,* while also declaring that the jerusalem below, which killed jesus, is called *sodom* and *egypt* in a symbolic way.

CalebInFloroda

Do you ask for our thoughts because you want to debate with those who have different views in order to defend your current stand as correct?

Or are you asking because you want to learn from and respectfully appreciate what others may understand about this, even if it is totally contradictory to what you feel is or should be right?

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.