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

Lorenzo,

While I can often appreciate where you are coming from, you haven't completely gone in the opposite direction from the JWs. You tend to stick to the belief that the Scriptures were meant to be used like some sort of Magic 8 ball that has all the answers or can foretell the future like a crystal ball.

This is something you need to learn to get rid of. While you can have a personal relationship with G-d, Christians are fooling themselves if they think that Scripture was meant to be understood and read as an individual. At least the Jewish texts were not. A critical approach to their use demonstrates that.

The following applies at least to the purpose of the Jewish Scriptures. But this should give pause to those who believe in the New Testament due its claims of being "cut from the same cloth" as the Tanakh.

1. Interpretation of Scripture is by public consensus, not decided by a hierarchy down. If you come up with a personal interpretation, then it may apply to you if you wish but this is not what Jews do with their Scriptures. This was mainly a Gnostic approach to written texts and adapted by Marcion of Sinope for Christians. But for the Jews and their texts, there is no “enlightened few” or “pope and his cardinals/magisterium” or “governing body.” The correct understanding is the understanding of the people at large (and where there is no universal agreement on points there is generally no recognized definitive truth about them).

2. Prophecies are not visions of the future. Prophecies are “oracles,” pronouncements from G-d for the people of Israel. While once in a while they might include a forecast of events, this is not what a prophet normally does or what a prophecy entails. A prophecy is a statement from Heaven for public consumption (in Jewish society, that is). If a person just gets visions or foresees the future, this is not a prophet in Jewish terms. This is more correctly just a “seer.”

3. The Book of Daniel is a story about a prophet, but not a book of prophecy. If you note in the Jewish “canon” of Scriptures, Daniel is NOT among the Prophets (Nevi’im). The book is found among the Writings instead (Ketuvim). The reason is that Daniel contains stories of visions given to either Daniel or others that Daniel interprets. But there are no public oracles or statements for the people of Israel given in the text. Daniel couldn’t do that since he lived in Babylon, and (to reiterate) a prophecy is a statement or oracle for public consumption for the Jews as a whole. Visions are limited to a single person, and an interpretation of signs and dreams is not a prophecy by the Jewish Scriptural definition.

4. Teaching as truth the individual interpretation of Scriptural visions and prophecies of old is not allowed by Jewish Scripture, Jewish tradition, or Judaism. That is part of the worship of pagans, and Jews religious and secular avoid paganism. The finding of hidden codes or meanings in the Hebrew Scriptures is rejected as in Judaism all revelation is public.

5. Remember the rule of Moses! (Deuteronomy 18.15) If you ever want to know if your Christian beliefs about Scripture and their interpretation about the future are correct, remember that you have to follow the pattern of Moses. Moses was given the ability to perform miracles in full view of the public, believers and non-believers. Lack of faith of the people around you should not be an impediment to working the wonders of G-d. (Compare to Jesus of Nazareth at Matthew 13.58.) Moses’ own vision of G-d was eventually shared on a public scale when the burning bush on the side of Mt. Sinai was paralleled and surpassed by the Great Theophany that the nation as a whole witnessed after the Exodus. Also the message from Moses, though at first disbelieved by many, was eventually accepted by the Jewish nation in consensus. All of these ingredients have to be present for your individual messages to be acceptable according to Jewish Scripture and interpretation.

I'm not saying that all in Scripture is meant to be taken as fact, but I am also not saying it is just a bunch of malarkey either. It's value lies somewhere in between for those to whom it was entrusted.

If you are going to use the book of another religion for your beliefs, then you should at least read it according to the rules of that religion. Sometimes I think Christians are so crazy for how they treat what they call the "Old Testament." It's like claiming that the writings of Dalai Lama are true but not practicing Buddhism, or like using e-meters for "auditing" but not adopting Scientology, or even claiming that a vegetarian diet is what you believe all should be eating but instead consuming bacon-cheeseburgers everyday.

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

Some of you hit the problem right on the head. Basic public educational systems leave what I like to call the "how-to-think-with-your-brain" lessons for later in life, like the university system. Primary education for youths today is more of telling people WHAT to learn instead of teaching them HOW to learn. While I learned the scientific method as a kid and started using it right away as a junior meteorologist by age 10, I can't say that these lessons seemed to have been universal or taught well enough to be remembered or practical enough for others to keep and apply as they grew up. That's how and where critical thinking often needs to start IMHO.

And people need to stop listening to Fundamentalist Christians and JWs about archeology backing up the Bible. While the locations may exist, and some of the people are historical, the same can be argued for "Gone With the Wind!"

If you look closer at the archeological evidence you will see that while King David was real, that it wasn't until he took the throne that the worship of YHWH replaced the worship of family idol-gods. While the general details of Moses and the Mosaic Law appear older than the written record, there are clear redactions and interpolations to the current written code that appear in the Torah.

And it isn't that this makes Jews reject their culture or religion, but it is more that others prefer to reject the empirical evidence. This distorts Torah and the rest of the Tanakh by claiming that only a Christian religious mindset can know the truth about such things when in reality it doesn't take a Jew or a theist to comprehend what is really there.

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

Postscript:

This Jewish boy is NOT recommending that you join up with the Catholic Church or adopt Christianity, by the way. If you are atheist or agnostic, you are beautiful just the way you are! I'm just stating that if you look, you will see that critical methodologies reign even at the most basic levels.

It's probably safer just shopping online, but you can even read some of this material for free online. The NABRE for example is available in full on the USCCB site, along with its critical notes (which while not difficult to understand, are highly complex and may require an introduction to the critical method because it is not provided). The NABRE throws you in without a flinch and it can be like being tossed into a freezing pool of water if you have no experience with critical Bible study.

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,

See? I didn't make up the definition for what a theory is. Viviane has stated exactly the same thing I did, but in different words. Your idea that I make up my own rules for what is the accepted scientific method is absurd!

Applause for Viviane for making the voice of logic heard!

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.