Posts by Doug Mason

33

Why did Jesus piddle around for 40 days in the wilderness?

by nowwhat? in

after all he only had 3 and half years to perform his ministry so every day counted.

instead of witnessing to satan couldn't he have made better use of his time reaching as many people as possible?

just using some jdub reasoning on the matter..

Doug Mason

My views on the 40 days testing of Jesus by Satan will initially appear radical. I believe it is a parable with messages to their local, immediate hearers.As with any Scripture, our minds have to be transported to the times when they were being written, taking note of every local aspect.

In the story of Jesus' 40-day testing, Jesus and Satan reason with one another in a very gentlemanly manner, using Scriptures in the same manner as any good duelling Jews would. (It was written by Jews about a Jew.)

https://jwstudies.com/Is_Awake_accurate_about_Messiah_s_anointing.pdf

Doug

33

Why did Jesus piddle around for 40 days in the wilderness?

by nowwhat? in

after all he only had 3 and half years to perform his ministry so every day counted.

instead of witnessing to satan couldn't he have made better use of his time reaching as many people as possible?

just using some jdub reasoning on the matter..

Doug Mason

smiddy3,

Going by the Synoptics, his ministry could have lasted 12 months or shorter. John's Gospel alone has Jesus going to Jerusalem on three annual occasions. I do not have any details at hand. I read this a short while ago and when I come across it again, I will share it with you.

Doug

33

Why did Jesus piddle around for 40 days in the wilderness?

by nowwhat? in

after all he only had 3 and half years to perform his ministry so every day counted.

instead of witnessing to satan couldn't he have made better use of his time reaching as many people as possible?

just using some jdub reasoning on the matter..

Doug Mason

What makes you think Jesus preached for three and a half years?

Doug

14

To Active JW's Who Think Outside the Box: 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12 Reconsidered...

by MADMARY in

watchtower society “contradicts” the bible – where and why?.

god's word certainly warns anyone who would dare, or be so audacious to deliberately change, twist or distort his holy message of truth by saying:.

“5 every saying of god is refined.

Doug Mason

The text of the Hebrew Scriptures was in a constant state of flux, to the point that no one knows what was originally written ('autographs'). Scribes were more than just copiers, they were not averse to changing (redacting) it to suit their own beliefs. By the time the Masoretes fixed the text, they set a corrupted text in concrete (Emanuel Tov).

No one knows what the writers of the NT originally wrote ('autographs').

There are differences between the various texts of the OT (LXX, Symmachus, MT, etc., etc.) and also with the texts of the NT (Erasmus' Textus Receptus; Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, etc.).

There is any number of "the" Bible: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, Syrian, Jewish (Tanakh), Protestant, etc., etc.

Those texts employed to justify the Bible as "God's Word" were written many centuries before any Bible existed. Besides, that's circular reasoning -- to use a text from within the Bible to "prove" the Bible.

Read:

Kloppenborg, John S., Newman, Judith H., editors. Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present (June 15, 2012). Society of Biblical Literature

Müller, Reinhard; Pakkala, Juha; Romeny, Bas ter Haar. Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible (2014). Society of Biblical Literature

2

Further thoughts on "The Origin of Life" booklet

by Doug Mason in

in my previous thread on “the origin of life”, i expressed my concern that endnotes [1]a, [2]a, and [7]a, are not referenced within the body of the text.

this is also true for endnotes [25]a, [39]a, [39]b, [39]c, and [51]a.. i have a hypothesis which, although strange, is feasible: each of these endnotes is an endnote (or footnote) of the prior endnote.

for example endnote [1]a is actually the endnote/footnote to endnote 1, not to the main text.

Doug Mason

There are generic issues that affect the nature of the brochure. The WTS always starts from its position, with the conclusion it is determined to reach. It then seeks support, whether this is through the use of selective Biblical texts or even through the misrepresentation or mistranslation of Scriptural texts. I do not accept this practice, but nevertheless it is acknowledged that this was the process used by writers of the New Testament. These people, such as the Gospel writers and Paul, had come to conclusions about Jesus Christ and they then “searched the scriptures”. Matthew is notorious for the way Hebrew Scriptures texts were misapplied.

Because the WTS operates this way, in seeking support for a predetermined conclusion, they are vehemently opposed to Higher Criticism, which for me is the only way to understand the Biblical writings. A true scientist looks at all of the evidence and then creates hypotheses leading to conclusions (“theories”). That is the way Higher Criticism operates, termed “exegesis”. The WTS, however, does not do this, and I classify their methodology as “eisegesis” and as “begging the question” (look up the true meaning of that expression).

======

It seems to me that because the Biblical account links creation with fully formed beasts and humans, this forces the brochure’s inability to make the distinction between the creation of life and the subsequent development of living beings.

“The more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance. To sidestep this dilemma, some evolutionary scientists would like to make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the question of the origin of life. But does that sound reasonable to you?” (The Origin of Life?, page 12)

Yes, that sounds absolutely reasonable to me, Mister Watchtower. So are we now determining “truth” on what sounds “reasonable”?

The scientists discussed in the brochure accept Evolution. But each scientist has a different view on the mechanism that gave rise to the presence of life on planet Earth. Yes, it is most reasonable to separate the origin of life on Earth from the subsequent development.

======

Let us accept for one fleeting moment that life commenced on Earth because of the actions by a supernatural energy. Some give this energy the term “God”, or “Gods”. Questions that quickly flow include:

1. Who created this energy?

2. Is this supernatural energy comprehensible in human terms?

3. How many sources of supernatural energy exist? How do we know? Why?

2

Further thoughts on "The Origin of Life" booklet

by Doug Mason in

in my previous thread on “the origin of life”, i expressed my concern that endnotes [1]a, [2]a, and [7]a, are not referenced within the body of the text.

this is also true for endnotes [25]a, [39]a, [39]b, [39]c, and [51]a.. i have a hypothesis which, although strange, is feasible: each of these endnotes is an endnote (or footnote) of the prior endnote.

for example endnote [1]a is actually the endnote/footnote to endnote 1, not to the main text.

Doug Mason

In my previous Thread on “The Origin of Life”, I expressed my concern that Endnotes [1]a, [2]a, and [7]a, are not referenced within the body of the text. This is also true for Endnotes [25]a, [39]a, [39]b, [39]c, and [51]a.

I have a hypothesis which, although strange, is feasible: each of these Endnotes is an Endnote (or Footnote) of the prior Endnote. For example Endnote [1]a is actually the Endnote/Footnote to Endnote 1, not to the main text. This would mean that each is provided without reason or explanation.

======

The key to understanding the brochure, “The Origin of Life” (whose name is a parody of Charles Darwin’s epic work), lies with two pairs of paragraphs on pages 13 and 22. The first of the paragraphs opens with “What do scientists claim?” while the following paragraph opens with “What does the Bible say?” Scientists only make “claims”, they only say what they “believe”, whereas the Bible “says”. The Bible is the authority.

The author therefore only needs to debunk scientists’ “claims” without having to provide an equivalent forensic examination of the Bible (let alone explain why they use the Christendom Protestant Bible). All the author has to do is keep throwing darts at scientists, while at the same time make full use of their scientific knowledge to show that “what the Bible says is scientifically accurate” (page 30).

Since the author starts with the position that the Bible is the authoritative source, there is no need to draw on the support of any Creation scientist. To be seen to be aligned with Evangelicals, in any case, would be somewhat embarrassing, to say the least. Therefore, at the outset the author distances the brochure from “religious groups who want to have creation taught in schools” (page 3)

These predispositions set the brochure’s parameters: Use science and the Bible to attack scientists, all the while keeping well clear of all other religions that defend Biblical authority on creation.

======

Apart from the nebulous process described at the start of this piece, the author’s methods of citing and representing sources are illustrated on page 21:

“More recently, noted philosopher Antony Flew, who advocated atheism for 50 years, did an about-face of sorts. At 81 years of age, he began to express a belief that some intelligence must have been at work in the creation of life. Why the change? A study of DNA. When asked if his new line of thought might prove unpopular among scientists, Flew reportedly answered: ‘That’s too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle … [to] follow the evidence, wherever it leads’.” (Associated Press Newswires, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,” by Richard N. Ostling, December 9, 2004).

The article is accessible at: http://s8int.com/Godexists.html and it shows that the full quotation is actually: “If his belief upsets people, well ‘that’s too bad,’ Flew said. ‘My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads’.” “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” he said. “It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.” …

A different article shows what the brochure means with “an about-face of sorts”:

“To make things perfectly clear, he told me: ‘I understand why Christians are excited, but if they think I am going to become a convert to Christ in the near future, they are very much mistaken.’ … Flew is not worried about impending death or post-mortem salvation. ‘I don’t want a future life. I have never wanted a future life,’ he told me. He assured the reporter for The Times: ‘I want to be dead when I’m dead and that’s an end to it.’ He even ended an interview with the Humanist Network News by stating: ‘Goodbye. We shall never meet again’.” (http://evidenceforchristianity.org/michael-flew-world-famed-atheist-now-believes-in-god/ ). In Flew’s book, available for download at https://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/There-is-a-God.pdf , pages 74-75 he explicitly credits DNA for his change. He died aged 84.

13

Mixed up references in "The Origin of Life"

by Doug Mason in

until now, i have never had a reason to read the brochure "the origin of life" so i am certain that what i am about to say has been commented on widely.. page 31 commences the list of endnotes.. endnote 1a gives "francis crick" as its source.

there is no reference to any endnote 1a in the body of the brochure.

however, page 32 credits "nicholas wade" at endnote 18. page 14 of the brochure makes reference to endnote 18, with the nondescript "one science book".. page 31 lists an endnote 7a, which does not exist in the body of the brochure.

Doug Mason

Phizzy!

Brilliant! Thank you! Big hugs from Oz!

A visiting JW thrust this brochure on me and as you can well imagine, I have been spending some time on it over the past few days. Your information is material I was looking for and needing.

In order to maximise the possible effectiveness of my findings, I am preparing two notes to pass onto my visitor: one looks at the Biblical aspects, the second considers the scientific aspects. With the latter I am more interested in showing that the author/WTS/GB cannot be trusted, although I will try to point out that you cannot prove your case (divine creation) by attacking the views of others. The ultimate end would be that nothing could be believed.

I can only assume people such the JWs make such a big deal out of this is because they believe the Bible is God's Word. I see this in the language of the brochure, where scientists "claim" while the Bible "shows".

If you email me, I will show you what I have got up to so far. Writing is a lonely affair and any help is Most Welcome.

https://jwstudies.com/contact_me.html

Never worry, in my 50 years of this activity, I have never divulged confidences, often to people's dismay.

Doug

13

Mixed up references in "The Origin of Life"

by Doug Mason in

until now, i have never had a reason to read the brochure "the origin of life" so i am certain that what i am about to say has been commented on widely.. page 31 commences the list of endnotes.. endnote 1a gives "francis crick" as its source.

there is no reference to any endnote 1a in the body of the brochure.

however, page 32 credits "nicholas wade" at endnote 18. page 14 of the brochure makes reference to endnote 18, with the nondescript "one science book".. page 31 lists an endnote 7a, which does not exist in the body of the brochure.

Doug Mason

I have resolved the problem I had with Endnote 26 on Page 21.

F.H.C. Crick is mentioned on page 21 with Endnote 26. That Endnote references page 83 of a book by David Lamb. I have now located page 83 where he does indeed commence a section on Crick and his theory of Directed Panspermia. This is only one of any number of hypothetical mechanisms described by Lamb. All of the scientists and philosophers who promote their model do accept Evolution. Their only differences lie with the mechanisms they promote.

Crick’s Paper is available at https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/scbccp.pdf, where he wrote: “Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability.”:

35

WT / JW Doctrine ,Satan cast out of Heaven in 1914 ? He has always had access to the earth ? Since Eve .

by smiddy3 in

this doctrine / belief that jehovah`s witnesses have , surely raises a few questions that they do not address.. 1.this spirit being challenged god by questioning his authority and offering eve an alternative making himself satan.. and this took place on earth ,the garden of eden.

so he who became satan had access to the earth.. 2. all throughout the old testament , the hebrew scriptures do we find examples of satan interfering with gods plan of things either by himself or his followers .. 3.their are just too many examples to list individually ,however a few key ones would be , the nephilim , job when god in heaven asks him where he has been , and his reply , from roving about on the earth .

, etc.etc.. 4.and of course in the new testament , where jesus is taken up into a mountain to be tempted by satan for fourty days ?.

Doug Mason

There is no "satan" in either Creation story. It is reckoned that the story that appears later (the Yahwist account starting at Genesis 2:4b) was written earlier than the Elohist account (Gen 1:1-2:4a).

Many Jews say that the first sin originated with Cain, not with Adam and Eve. The concept of Original Sin is very late, coming with the early Church Fathers in the context of arguing about the need for infant baptism.

The narrative of Adam and Eve does not feature in the Hebrew Scriptures following its initial appearance.

Doug

35

WT / JW Doctrine ,Satan cast out of Heaven in 1914 ? He has always had access to the earth ? Since Eve .

by smiddy3 in

this doctrine / belief that jehovah`s witnesses have , surely raises a few questions that they do not address.. 1.this spirit being challenged god by questioning his authority and offering eve an alternative making himself satan.. and this took place on earth ,the garden of eden.

so he who became satan had access to the earth.. 2. all throughout the old testament , the hebrew scriptures do we find examples of satan interfering with gods plan of things either by himself or his followers .. 3.their are just too many examples to list individually ,however a few key ones would be , the nephilim , job when god in heaven asks him where he has been , and his reply , from roving about on the earth .

, etc.etc.. 4.and of course in the new testament , where jesus is taken up into a mountain to be tempted by satan for fourty days ?.

Doug Mason

Critical biblical scholarship allows us—perhaps even forces us—to see Genesis 1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-3:24 as two distinct stories that should be interpreted separately. … 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. …

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. …

The tree that is first forbidden is (literally) "the tree of knowledge of good and bad." Here, "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." (A merism 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 eats from the tree do they gain sexual awareness. … 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). …

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 context of this verse suggests that it means merely that men will determine when couples engage in sexual intercourse. …

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. …

Genesis 1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-3:24 are two separate stories, written by different authors using different styles. … 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. (Excerpts from “How to Read the Jewish Bible” by Jewish Bible scholar Marc Zvi Brettler)