Posts by Doug Mason

12

Letter To WT By Julius Mantey

by Bangalore in

.

bangalore.

Doug Mason

DS211,

I first saw this in "Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower", Michael Buskirk (CARIS).

I suspect a scan is available; if not, I will have to look for my copy.

Doug

14

Isn`t the scripture at Rev.12: 12,13 Pointless ? " Woe for the earth...because the Devil has come down to you having great anger...."

by smiddy in

doesnt the bible clearly show he has always been on the earth causing trouble and havoc ?

onwards.. then especially with the account in the book of job.. not forgetting his tempting jesus in the wilderness.. being reinforced in 2cor.4:4 "...the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of unbeleivers...".

all of which occurs on earth with humans , so whats the big deal about rev.12:12,13 ?.

Doug Mason

The book of Revelation was written to and for the people at that time, who were suppressed by Rome (Babylon also had suppressed God's people; Rome sat on seven hills - no imagination required).

That's why the apocalypse ends with "I am coming soon". It shows what they were thinking at that time.

Doug

40

Feb 15 study W/T up on jw.org

by konceptual99 in

latest wt is up.. reinforces jesus becoming king in 1914 (no let up on that date).

marriage of the lamb to the 144,000. yawn.... yawn..... celebrates the 100 year anniversary of the photo drama of creation.

it seems to me that every 100 year anniversary shall be celebrated just to try and take the wind from the sails of apostates.. .

Doug Mason

The other issue related to the "70 years" was the date when Jesus was murdered. By cutting Daniel 9 loose from reference to Jesus, the WTS is now able to better align with conventional scholarship. For example, only from the "John" Gospel can one deduce that his ministry lasted 3 years. The Synoptists would indicate it lasted a few months, perhaps as long as 1 year.

I see the WTS's comments at pages 1722-1723 of its 2013 NWT that it has dropped the term "impaled" with reference to Jesus' death. (see also "impale" at pages 660 ftnt and at page 1713). This is another issue I repeatedly had raised here - little doubt that the WTS learns a lot at this site from you guys!

None of these corrections will deter me. I will continue until the WTS drops its practice of "shunning" (and the associated measures) and its inhumane lies about the medical use of blood and its products.

Doug

40

Feb 15 study W/T up on jw.org

by konceptual99 in

latest wt is up.. reinforces jesus becoming king in 1914 (no let up on that date).

marriage of the lamb to the 144,000. yawn.... yawn..... celebrates the 100 year anniversary of the photo drama of creation.

it seems to me that every 100 year anniversary shall be celebrated just to try and take the wind from the sails of apostates.. .

Doug Mason

Most interesting. Thank you, Ann for telling me about this.

The writer of this Watchtower takes a position on the "70 years" that runs counter to the position taken in the July 2012 Awake. I wrote a response to that article, which is available at:

http://www.jwstudies.com/Is_Awake_accurate_about_Messiah_s_anointing.pdf

This latest Watchtower article upholds points that I made in my Study. The other Study I wrote in response to that July 2012 Awake is available at:

http://www.jwstudies.com/Did_Israel_s_ruler_come_from_Bethlehem.pdf

Regarding the birth narratives: the earliest writers, Paul and then Mark, do not mention the birth. Neither does John. That leaves us with Matthew and Luke. When their stories are laid side by side, there are several incompatible contradictions. Were Jesus' parents already living in Bethlehem or did they have to travel there? and so on and on. Would a responsible husband expect his heavily pregnant wife take that journey? Why does history show that the "census" did not take place in the required year?

How did these writers know the details? Luke was neither present nor was he an immediate disciple.

The reality with Matthew is that he invented a story from selected pieces of Hebrew scripture (sound familiar?), distorting it at times, misapplying passages and so on to make them fit his predetermined outcome (familiar story?).

Overall, it is most probable that Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.

Doug

1

Matthew 11:12

by RobCrompton in

a days or so ago, never a jw posted a question about the translation of matthew 11:12. that set me off thinking as a result of which i've posted some notes on my blog:.

http://cromptonsmule.blogspot.com.

thanks, nev, for raising the question!.

Doug Mason

Hi Rob,

I have a few suggestions, but not the solution.

Firstly, I suggest that the whole context be identified and then see whether or how that verse fits into a chiastic structure. That might provide a clue as its meaning and/or legitimacy.

Secondly, and building on from the first point, study scholarship to see whether they consider that verse would have been spoken by Jesus, whether it was created by the writers or whether a later editor (redactor) inserted it as a "clarifying" comment. Always remember that none of the NT writers was personally aquainted with the murdered Leader (Yeshua/Jesus). They wrote from hearsay, and what they finally wrote reflected their biases and personal ambitions. (There were at least 30 Gospels in use by the middle of the 2nd century.)

Further, while inserting our minds into their times, note that they were expecting an imminent manifestation of divine intervention (kingdom of God), not in the heavenly realm but on earth, removing the Roman oppressors. Jesus would be the king, Peter (with his keys) would be the "Secretary of State"/"Foreign Minister", while the others would fight over who would sit at Jesus' right hand. Their idea of kingdom was very literal and earthly, the restoration of David's throne on earth. Jesus too, expected the manifestation during his lifetime, as did Paul.

Doug

21

Christ Jesus vs Jesus Christ in RNWT

by wisdomfrombelow in

i noticed in the bible reading in titus this week that that they changed one instance of christ jesus to jesus christ.

it made me wonder why it was done and what benefit it could have in their doctrines..

Doug Mason

Let us go into the 1st century.

Paul and Jerusalem were operating independently, often adversarily. It is Paul who made much of Jesus as "Christ", using the title as if it were a name. It is Paul who turned Jesus (Yeshua, actually) into a Christian. Remove the writings and the influence of Pauline thought - including Gospels - and little is left of the NT (consider the position held by Marcion).

The people who wrote Timothy and Titus were followers of Paul, so they wrote in a manner that they believed reflected his position. These were written decades after Paul's death.

That's what happens when you climb into the first century.

Doug

71

Did Adam and Eve Partake of Literal Fruit or is it Symbolic?

by Stauros in

was it real fruit they ate or does the fruit represent something else?.

e..

Doug Mason

If someone thought that either creation myth was to be taken literally is to completely misunderstand Jewish storytelling, mysticism, and such.

Like any other parable or retold history, they were used to convey a message. Modern people make the mistake of taking any of the bible literally; the stories, the histories, the speeches, and so on are not literal verbatim accounts. They are religious histories designed to impact the immediate community they were read out to. (Only a small part of 1 per cent could read, even fewer could write). Propaganda?

The myth of the Tree of Life carried a message that has to be understood in terms of the people who wrote it and heard it. The myth at Genesis 1 was written about the time of the neo-Babylonian Captivity (6th Century BCE). The Garden Creation myth was written earlier, at a time when - as the writers recount - Asherah and her poles dominated the religious scene. Is it possible that they used this familiarity with the trees in the temple as a mechanism for conveying a message. The bulk of the people worshiped Asherah along with her husband, Yahweh.

Doug

38

Question for JW apologists...

by Jeffro in

the new new world translation translates jeremiah 29:10 as follows:.

10 for this is what jehovah says, when 70 years at babylon are ful?lled, i will turn my attention to you, and i will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.. the official watch tower society teaching is that by the end of the 70 years, the jews were back in judea, and that their actual arrival in judea marks the end of the "70 years".

*** si p. 85 par.

Doug Mason

My reason for saying that the exodus into Egypt could not have taken place within two months of the destruction of Jerusalem is available at:

http://www.jwstudies.com/Did_Jews_exit_after_two_months.pdf

It simply means that instead of bring in the destruction of Jerusalem, the WTS simply has to jump from its mythical 537 date to the (undateable) exodus into Egypt. Of course that could mean that if the exodus took place in 607 and there was a 4 year gap to the destruction of Jerusalem, they would simply only have to move Jerusalem's Fall to 611 BCE.

It's that simple for them.

Doug

71

Did Adam and Eve Partake of Literal Fruit or is it Symbolic?

by Stauros in

was it real fruit they ate or does the fruit represent something else?.

e..

Doug Mason

The renaming of the woman as Eve, chavvah ("progenitress"), "because she was the mother of all the living" (Gen. 3:20), happens only after eating from the tree. This too bolsters the "sexual" reading of this story—eating of the tree of ultimate "knowledge" turns the wife of Adam from ha-ishah ("the woman") into a (potential) mother.

God's response to the woman after she eats from the tree is not a curse. The words "And to the woman He said, / 'I will make most severe / Your pangs in childbearing; / In pain shall you bear children. / Yet your urge shall be for your husband, / And he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16) are a description of women's new state: procreative, with all the "pains" connected to procreation in the premodern world, including the natural pain of childbirth. This verse is not stating (as a harmonistic reading of Genesis 1-3 might imply) that before eating the fruit women gave birth painlessly, but now they would have labor pains. Furthermore, it notes that women will not do what most people do—try to avoid pain at all cost—because "your urge shall be for your husband, / And he shall rule over you." The meaning of this last section is ambiguous. The root m-sh-1 ("to rule") has a general sense, so that its use might suggest an overall hierarchy of male over female. However, the context of this verse suggests that it means merely that men will determine when couples engage in sexual intercourse.

It is difficult to determine the attitude of this mythmaker toward the new state that he is describing. Is he happy that a boring life as asexual immortals in Eden has been traded for a challenging, sexual life outside of Eden? Or does he miss immortality? Or is he being merely descriptive, noting how humankind moved from an earlier stage to its current one? The Bible (in contrast to much of Victorian and post-Victorian society) has a generally positive attitude toward human sexuality, as may be seen most clearly from the Song of Songs. In various places, it sees women in particular (in contrast to men) as very sexual beings (see especially Proverbs 1-9). Thus, it is quite reasonable within a biblical context to see Eve as a type of Pandora figure, who is to be commended for bringing sex into this world.

Implications and Conclusions

Genesis 1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-3:24 are two separate stories, written by different authors using different styles. They are both myths—neither aims primarily at offering a scientific description of "the earth and everything upon it" (Neh. 9:6). They are metaphors on the story level, traditional tales dealing with issues of collective importance. As such, they are "creating" worlds.

The first story describes a very good world, which is highly structured and controlled by a most powerful God who in some ways is so dissimilar from humans that he even has his own word, bara, to express his creative activity.

The world of the second story is much more ambiguous. Its God, a master potter (Gen. 2:7), is much more humanlike, walking and talking, even sewing (3:21). Also this world is unlike that in the previous story: it lacks the gender equality of the previous story, and it is not "very good."

Modern "critical" biblical scholarship fosters these observations by allowing the stories to be disengaged from each other, allowing each to be seen as an independent story, reflecting its author's perspectives. It understands them as constructive myths, which helped to frame the very essence of Israelite self-understanding, as well as their understanding of their relationship to their God, and to the world that they believed He had created. (“How to Read the Jewish Bible”, Marc Zvi Brettler, pages 45-47)

71

Did Adam and Eve Partake of Literal Fruit or is it Symbolic?

by Stauros in

was it real fruit they ate or does the fruit represent something else?.

e..

Doug Mason

The Meaning of Genesis 2:4b – 3:24

The story as widely known has been filled out through various (Christian) interpretations. For example, nowhere does the text itself tell us what the forbidden fruit was. In early Christian tradition it was generally understood as an apple, whereas early Jewish tradition offered several opinions as to the fruit's identity, with the fig being the most popular—and contextually the most appropriate (see especially Gen. 3:7).

Other dearly held views of this text are also not borne out by a close reading. Thus, we might believe that its main theme is the curse received by the woman (and all women), yet the word "curse" is absent in God's comments to her (Gen. 3:16), while it is present in God's statements both to the serpent (3:14) and to the man (3:17). Moreover, the doctrines of the Fall of Man or original sin are nowhere to be found in this passage, though they appear in early Christian interpretation of the text.

The Garden Story is about immortality lost and sexuality gained. It begins from a simple premise: originally, people were immortal. In fact, the huge life spans recorded in the early chapters of Genesis are part of an effort to make a bridge between that original immortality and "normal" life spans. As immortal beings, they were asexual; in the Garden story God does not tell them to "be fertile and increase" as they were told in the first creation story (Gen. 1:28). Sexuality is discovered only after eating from the tree, when "they perceived that they were naked" (3:7). In fact, the divine command of 2:17 should not be understood as often translated—"for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die" (so the JPS translation)—but rather "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall become mortal." The connection between (procreative) sexuality and mortality is compelling and was well understood even in antiquity—if people were to be both sexually procreative and immortal, disastrous overpopulation would result.

Many details within chapters 2-3 support this interpretation. The tree that is first forbidden is (literally) "the tree of knowledge of good and bad." Here da-at ("knowledge") is being used in a sense that it often has in the Bible: intimate or sexual knowledge. "Good and bad" is being used here as a figure of speech called a "merism": two opposite terms are joined by the word "and"; the resulting figure means "everything" or "the ultimate." (Amerism is likewise used in Genesis 1:1, "heaven and earth," which there means the entire world.) The words "good and bad" have no moral connotation here.

Only after the primordial couple eat from the tree do they gain sexual awareness. Indeed, immediately after this story concludes, we read "Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain" (Gen. 4:1). That is, eating from the tree of "knowledge" leads to a very specific type of "knowing." Nowhere in the text is this knowledge depicted as intellectual or ethical.

This reading also explains why the tree of life is mentioned only toward the end of the story (Gen. 3:22). Early in the story, people were immortal, so that tree offered no advantage, and thus was not mentioned. However, only after eating from the tree of ultimate "knowledge," becoming sexual, and becoming mortal, does the tree of life come into focus. Eating from this tree would allow people to become both immortal and sexual, creating an overpopulation problem. The first couple was expelled not as punishment, but so that they might not "take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!" (3:22).