Posts by JuanMiguel

20

Where is that "Hidden HOOK"?

by Terry in

a number of years ago i started doing something i had never done before.. i started questioning the basic premise of things which cause arguments.. why?.

long running controversy usually contains a hidden premise both sides buy into without knowing it.. by backing up one whole step and questioning the basis for the hidden premise the problem quickly goes away.. .

it looks yummy.

JuanMiguel

Good points, Terry.

I've been spending a lot of time with my Catholic and Orthodox family/friends lately and we actually had a discussion over a similar topic (and I didn't start it).

Neither side holds the Bible at the sole authority. The Roman side of the fam believes it also resides in combination with the Magisterium and something they call the sensus fideium. I thought they were going to say the Pope, but they surprised me when uncle Roy stated: "The Church can exist when there is no Pope, but the Pope cannot exist if there is no Church." And the Orthodox said they had something similar, that authority was invested in their religion and exercised through clergy. "But if there is no Church to validate the Bible, then there is no Bible." Both sides of the table agreed.

And while both agreed they could show what they believed in Scripture and defend it, both sides also agreed that using it as a proof text like I did as a Witness was wrong.

So I guess the points work well in the sola scriptura world, but they didn't fly well over a family reunion dinner (but first time in my entire life we ever talked religion...and peacefully among 50 of us...quite interesting).

I'm sure there some kind of hook in there somewhere, but there were homemade flour tortillas on the table as well, so I wasn't entirely as focused as I could have been.--LOL

Otherwise, excellent post. Excellent!

28

"Do NOT go beyond the things written (but we can)."

by TimothyT in

i was doing some research yesterday on this scripture: 1 corinthians 4:6!.

"now, brothers, these things i have transferred so as to apply to myself and a?pollos for your good, that in our case you may learn the [rule]: do not go beyond the things that are written, in order that you may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other.".

read this from the watchtower 2008, april 15th, page 7:.

JuanMiguel

This is a perfect example of making a mountain out of a molehill.

The brief comment Paul makes at 1 Corinthians 4:6 to avoid going "beyond what is written" is not a general rule upon which to base Christian obedience or knowledge or theology. That is taking the phrase out of its intended context.

Paul was dealing with a specific problem of speculation that far exceeded anything taught in the Hebrew Scriptures and beyong the scope of instruction from him and the others leading the Church. Such specultion had to do with things that would normally require direct answer from him or the other apostles, and likely in writing (note how in the following verses he corrects their speculative views on already ruling in Christ's kingdom).

Being overly concerned with things even the apostles were not was going beyond the example of the cross and following in the footsteps of Christ's passion (see entire passage, verses 6-21), an example that was being made ever more visible in the life of Paul and the others who were currently leading the universal congregation.

In other words, the example of Christ and those who follow in his footsteps is enough. If the time for anything more to busy themselves with came about, they would have been told in writing if not in person. The instruction is not centered on going beyond written instruction per se but considering anything else more important than following in the footsteps of Christ. The kingdom of God is found not in speculative talk about their future place in that kingdom but in the power found in those who were gifted living examples of sharing in the passion of Christ, the same power which was evident in Paul.--1 Co 4:18-20.

I like how the Governing Body makes it about something else since they themselves live quite a plushy life in comparison to the actual instruction found in the context.

42

What Are Their Motives?

by headisspinning in

i have a question.

if jws are a cult, what is the motivation of the leaders?

what are they getting out of controlling all these people?.

JuanMiguel

Another thing that is often not considered--maybe because it's chilling to some--is that money, power, and even personal influence may not be at the center of some cults. History is filled with the risings of cults that weren't "out to get" anything in particular. We human being can be quite foolish in our attempts to "feel safe and fulfilled."

"Feeling safe and fulfilled!" This is what a lot of groups in the past and today offer. The groups and those within may be genuine but naive. And yes, even though I like to hope for merit in other forms of philosophy and religion, I know that some are worse than shams--they're outright wrong.

At least when someone is organizing a hoax to pull the wool over people's eyes and attempt to take something valuable from them, heck, even in having people "freely" hand over things like money, property, power, and sex, in that case there's evidence of at least someone at the end of the chain who is smart enough to use their brain to pull off a scheme like that.

It's scary to think that people will believe in things that are even contrary to any line of evidence or argument presented, with no brilliance at wheel (not even dishonest brilliance), filled with adherents who will put their very lives on the line if they feel it necessary, and again to do this for something that is not a scheme or a farce but instead something incredibly valueless.

While there is such a thing as mind control and plenty of delusion for the sake of gain to go around, we can also let ourselves be thoughtlessly blind to realities and red flags and therefore join cults if we are not careful. It doesn't have to be something like a religion or dress itself up like a form of intellectual exercise, either. There is plenty of despair and mystery and lack of control in life to make having the opposite an appealing treasure worth any price we can pay, including our minds, our freedom, and even our lives.

The Jehovah's Witnesses may be a combination of such factors, which can clearly make its appeal and influence far more dangerous if it were just a sham for money or merely a hopeful mistake.

44

David and Goliath TRUE OR FALSE

by jam in

few other legends are so well known, or read so often, and yet remain.

so poorly understood.

if you read the account in 1st and 2nd.

JuanMiguel

While the story of David and Goliath is refererred to in academic circles as "myth" or "legend," one should not apply the vernacular meaning of these terms to come to the conclusion that scholars are calling this narrative a pure invention or a falsehood.

It is apparant that the tale is loaded with symbolism, for example the way Goliath is described as being as high as 6 cubits, wearing 6 pieces of armor and a carrying a spear that weighed 600 shekels of iron. What isn't clear is how much historicity this legendary tale has behind it, if any.

But there is no universal consensus that it is pure fiction. On the contrary, higher criticism teaches that the Books of Samuel offer a theological interpretation of how the monarchy was established in Isreal, not a historical account. Heroic sagas are interwoven into historical reports by several authors, and the end result is a religous one.

But "thanks," Terry. Now I got that song playing in my head and it won't stop: "They got tiny little hands/and tiny little feet./They drive tiny little cars/ that go beep, beep, beep..."

10

Higher Criticism and the WTS

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:donotshowrevisions /> <w:donotprintrevisions /> <w:donotshowmarkup /> <w:donotshowcomments /> <w:donotshowinsertionsanddeletions /> <w:donotshowpropertychanges /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp /> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables /> <w:dontvertalignintxbx /> <w:word11kerningpairs /> <w:cachedcolbalance /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif].

i have my idea why the wts waxes so strongly against higher criticism, so i would like to hear the views of others on this matter.. i do not want this thread to degenerate into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of higher criticism, but rather for this thread to explore the reason(s) why the wts has to be so adamantly against it.. as a clue to my own thoughts, i suggest that consideration should be given to the wts's silence -- as far as i am aware (and i am open to correction) -- on the subject of lower criticism (and other forms of analysis).. doug.

JuanMiguel

Larsinger58,

If we don't use critical techniques (remember, "critical" here doesn't mean what "critical" means in the vernacular; a "critical" approach is where one uses reason and empirical evidence to understand a subject, often employing an academic methodology to do so), then the book of Exodus is filled with mistakes if we try to make it into a literal and chronological historical account.

One example is that according to the narrative of the fifth plague all of Egypt's livestock dies. Then when the plague of hail and fire rains down, the dead livestock get killed again. Did God kill the animals in one plague and then resurrect them just to get slaughtered in the next?

Using critical analysis allows us to compare this type of detail with other literature contemporary with Exodus. The genre of "epic" turned historical accounts into legendary "song," so to speak. In such a genre elements are embellished with imagination, humor, and larger-than-life possibilities. In this instance the critical method provides us with reliable data to see that the author of Exodus was purposefully writing the details like this, as it was common to use humorous elements to explain how daft a person was being. In this case the Egyptians had to be idiots to allow more than five plagues from God to come down upon them. But instead of using derogatory terms, and because legends allow room for it, "stubborn-headed stupidity" is illustrated in the detail that the Egyptians lost all their livestock ‘not once, but twice' at the hand of God!

And the writer of Exodus goes further by employing Biblical numerology and having the livestock "die" three times, at least the firstborn by means of the final plague of the first Passover. If the critical sciences are not correct, and one should go ahead and view it as history, then how on earth do you kill animals three times in succession like that? Instead of making fun of the opposing Egyptians, such a rejection of academic study leaves conflicting details like this to make the Exodus narrative itself look foolish.

There is historical evidence to suggest that one or more exodus runs of slaves occurred in Egypt. Further secular accounts regarding observed natural phenomenon that matches some of the miracles associated with Israel's exodus-like the Red Sea (or Reed Sea) parting-add unexpected witness to the weight of the historical basis for the book.

But there is no consensus that Exodus is either myth in the vernacular sense or even fits the pattern of ancient mythological genre (it isn't a story of origins like Genesis, for example). All that is agreed upon is that this is a legendary retelling of historical events, the exact details not preserved, to highlight the religious lesson learned by Israel as God freed them from slavery and led them to Sinai and the Promised Land. The examples you provide are not universally held. They are extreme views of but a few scholars.

That other details of the historical exodus did once exist but were not included in the inspired account is the testimony of the apostle Paul who gives the detail that two Egyptian priests were the thorn in his Moses' side, the ones who used their magical arts to try to explain to Pharaoh how certain wonders, like the Nile turning into blood, occurred. In fact, Paul gives us their names, Jannes and Jambres. The tradition from which this derived (and even inspired other narratives) comes from the same historical source that is at the basis of Exodus, and thus the New Testament itself is witness to this work not being literal history.-2 Timothy 3:8.

This is just some of the reasons why a fully academic approach of the text (which is what "critical" stands for) can be not only informative but useful in showing the validity of the books people refer to as Scripture.

45

Is Satan actually a liar?

by Scooby-Doo in

you positively will not die.

for god knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like god, knowing good and bad.".

did satan actually lie to eve?

JuanMiguel

Terry's got a good point.

Even if you are believer in the Bible, how often do animals talk in the narrative? Why is this account taken as historical when there’s not even similarity to the other “animal-talking” account of Balaam’s talking donkey?

Genesis Narrative: Snake talks without any surprise from others and without any mention in narrative how this was accomplished (we’re not even told that Satan is behind this by the author); the snake questions God’s directive and instructions and then immediately makes a claim in the opposite direction—in other words, the snake is not asking an honest question but is setting the woman up; the snake gets punished and cursed for what it does, losing the ability to “stand.”

The Talking Donkey Narrative: This narrative explains details regarding the donkey’s behavior, such as an angel with a sword standing in the road, and then that the Lord “opened the mouth of the donkey;” the donkey acts in reverential fear of God and his messenger and even attempts to save Balaam’s life; the donkey’s actions are praised by the angel who tells Balaam: “When the donkey saw me she turned away….you are the one I would have killed, though I would have spared her.”—Numbers 22:33.

If the Genesis account is supposed to be historical report, it doesn’t read like one. It doesn’t explain the source of the snake’s speech nor why it would pose a question it didn’t really want the answer to. It also doesn’t explain the harsh curse it receives from God.

The talking donkey narrative treats speech from an animal as a supernatural event, gives details as to what was going on in the spiritual realm beyond Balaam’s notice, and is presented as an example worthy of imitation.

Even if you’re going to attribute literal historicity to the snake of Eden, one has to admit that it is far, far different from other Biblical narrative.

To claim that a literal interpretation fits best also goes contrary to the way the early Christian community saw the Genesis account. Writing in the 300s A.D., Gregory Nazianzen explained that the narrative was symbolic, a lesson explaining humankind’s current predicament. He contrasts Adam with the vegetation of the garden, “immortal plants, by which is perhaps meant the divine conceptions,” with the “Tree of Knowledge” representing “contemplation, which only those who have reached maturity of habit may safely undertake.” Shame over their actions leads the human pair to cover up their bodies, which up to that point has been reflecting God’s image, and they receive animal skins to cover themselves instead, “the coarser flesh, both mortal and full of conflict.”—The New Jerusalem Bible: Saints Devotional Edition—“Understanding the Fall,” page 5, Doubleday.

The literalism of the Watchtower regarding this part of the Bible is a modern invention which is rejected by both traditional theology as well as that governed by the historical-critical method.

And it has already been established by others on this thread that both Eve in the narrative as well as Christ in the gospel account attribute deception in the actions of the “snake.” Add this to the fact that Satan is not referred to as a “devil” until New Testament theology, when Christ reveals this individual as responsible for most of the ills visited on humankind. Up until then the Bible has a somewhat obscure opinion of Satan, even portraying him in Job as a member of heavenly society, though already accusatory in nature.—Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6.

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

JuanMiguel

One should not jump to the conclusion that because a translator does not use I AM as a rendition of ego eimi that they do not believe in the Trinity.

For example, the Catholic rendering offered by you does not mean that Catholics don’t believe in the Trinity. Because of the guidelines of translation found in the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu a Catholic translation may choose to render the expression literally.

This is generally the most favored way of translating Scripture in Roman Catholic academia. While recognizing that traditionally certain verses may have evolved a way of being rendered that reflects advances in theology over the centuries, more often these later renditions are offered in the footnotes instead of the main text.

A most outstanding example, since it was at the heart of the discussion originally, is the NABRE which uses “holy Spirit” instead of “Holy Spirit.” While understanding that personification was primitive but not totally without connection with God in the first century, the translators chose only to capitalize “Spirit.” The word “holy” would only later be considered part of the “proper name” of the Third Person of the Trinity, even though formal adoption of the doctrine preceded the canonization of Christian scripture.

Does this mean that the translators of the NABRE don’t believe that one should use the term “Holy Spirit” or that they have abandoned belief in the Trinity? No. It was just a choice that fits in with their overall devotion to the principles that governed their work, one that showed favor to more primitive renditions over age-old accepted ones.

And that the Trinity doctrine was not developed directly from the canon of accepted Scripture (mainly because it had not yet been formally decided upon) should allow us who come from a JW background (where all that is true can only come “from” the Bible, lest it be false) to give the Trinitarian translator their due when this allows them to see the text independent from a theology that was developed from more than mere writ.

Unlike the JWs and Fundamentalists, mainstream Christians—both Catholics and Protestants—do not need to have the Sacred Text molded in translation to support a view that did not directly proceed from Scripture to begin with. Therefore just because some do not use “I AM” in the traditional places should not be construed as exclusive empirical evidence of an abandonment of the Trinity doctrine. That will likely sound foreign to those of us who have never lived like that, even illogical and unbelievable.

One last note, it is because of the Semitic use of the word “son” and its implications that it can carry the meaning of being one and the same with the subject’s “father” that the Jews came to the conclusion about Jesus referring to himself as God (I make mention of this earlier in this thread). As members of the faculty of theology of the University of Navarre in Spain mention in their commentary on John, Jesus is being accused of blasphemy for allowing such a connection to be made possible from his speech, not really so much on what the claim of his identity may be.

Jesus defends the use of such speech by quoting Psalm 82:6 to show it is not blasphemous to use such terms. They conclude, as shown from verse 10:36, that Jesus maintains his claim to divinity and even that these enemies of his have reached the right conclusion of what “sonship” means in reference to him and the Father. The only thing Jesus is correcting is that these Jews “wrongly interpret his words as blasphemy,” when no such thing has occurred, even when using the term to refer to “son” as in the “spitting image” sense of the word. In other words, Jesus is not committing blasphemy to use "Son" to make claims about his own divinity.

10

Higher Criticism and the WTS

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:donotshowrevisions /> <w:donotprintrevisions /> <w:donotshowmarkup /> <w:donotshowcomments /> <w:donotshowinsertionsanddeletions /> <w:donotshowpropertychanges /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp /> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables /> <w:dontvertalignintxbx /> <w:word11kerningpairs /> <w:cachedcolbalance /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif].

i have my idea why the wts waxes so strongly against higher criticism, so i would like to hear the views of others on this matter.. i do not want this thread to degenerate into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of higher criticism, but rather for this thread to explore the reason(s) why the wts has to be so adamantly against it.. as a clue to my own thoughts, i suggest that consideration should be given to the wts's silence -- as far as i am aware (and i am open to correction) -- on the subject of lower criticism (and other forms of analysis).. doug.

JuanMiguel

I agree with Slimboy. It's like people misunderstanding the expression "theory of evolution" and saying: "See, even scientists don't believe it is proven because they themselves label it a 'theory.'" Some are unaware that "theory" in this instance refers to an established observation of nature that is supported by empirical evidence and independent verification.

To be "critical" of the Bible sounds bad to some who are not educated in the scientific method. Regardless if one believes the stories of the Bible factual or not, one can still use some academic disciplines to produce a verifiable text as well as an accurate translation of its books. These methods in turn allow broader exegesis on stories that can even be reasons to support Scripture's claims, but interestingly many "Bible-only" believers never get far enough in learning about the process to discover these things.

For instance, with the discovery of texts in Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) and Masada, as well as non-Jewish literary discoveries of recent years, a critical analysis theory of the first part of Genesis teaches that practically all ancient societies told the same story of creation-paradise/flood/and restart of humanity. The characters are all different as well as the gods that play into the stories, but the framework was shared and used as a backdrop fas a once well-accepted model of history, whether or not that model was ever meant to be taken literally to begin with.

The religious insight was found in the players, not the events, and how the players reacted to or caused the various events of the framework. The Hebrew text follows the same framework but introduces a different type of God, one constantly drawing humanity back when they stray and promising a hopeful future.

Whether or not this latest critical analysis proves to be popular enough to withstand time or acceptance, it would work in favor of those who claim a belief in the Bible against those who are always pointing to the framework details as proof that the Bible is false. According to this theory, details like the size of the ark, the number of animals, the location of the Garden of Eden, the hundreds of years people were said to live, etc. are not the focal point of the story, but a shared paradigm of ancient culture. The cynics would have to concentrate on the lessons provided by the interplay and abandon all hope of finding fault with a framework not exclusive to the Hebrews (or so the argument goes).

I personally don't know if I share this view, but this does bring up another factor as to why the Witnesses might reject it. This would prove that the Bible wasn't always being chronologically literal in its retelling of history. This would therefore mean that one could not rely on the dates often offered in this section of the Bible, and this would eventually destroy their "time prophecies" they cling to in their on-going desperate attempt to claim the world is ending.

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

JuanMiguel

For whatever it’s worth:

I did some digging around since I left the JWs and discovered something new, at least to me, regarding the I AM controversy. Trinitarians are quite aware that “ego eimi” cannot and should not always be translated as “I am” in the Bible. According to their doctrine, the I AM statements as references to “identification of Christ with God” has a connection with what they call “The Book of Signs,” namely John 1:19-12:20 specifically (while the I AM sayings run in somewhat of a secondary narrative that can be said to include chapters 6-15).

According to Trinitarians, there are only seven instances where “ego eimi” means “I AM” in the sense of a play on words that, according to them, link Jesus with YHWH. These are connected to the “seven signs” in John’s gospel.

Their take is that when John mentions Christ’s turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana that this is not necessarily the very first miracle or sign he ever performed. Instead the writer uses “seven signs” as a backdrop for seven significant points that move the narrative of his gospel account along. It is not even considered a chronological listing. Instead it is a theological discourse that runs through John in place of the parables that occur in the synoptic accounts, or so they claim.

Apparently the “seven signs” concept is based on an ancient catechism of sorts in which Christians used certain events in Christ’s life as evidences of his divinity. The seven I AM statements are included as parallels to the signs, but they only apply to this specific section of this gospel. There is no intention for readers to see a wordplay in other uses of I AM whether occurring elsewhere in holy writ.

The Seven Signs

1.The wedding at Cana: Turning water into wine (Ch. 2)

2.Raising the son of the royal official (Ch. 4)

3.Paralyzed man at the pool of Bethesda (Ch. 5)

4.Multiplication of the loaves (Ch. 6)

5.The Walking on the water (Ch. 6)

6.Healing the man born blind (Ch. 9)

7.The raising of Lazarus (Ch. 11)

The Seven "I AM" Sayings

1.6:35 - I am the bread of life

2.8:12 - I am the light of the world

3.10:7 - I am the gate for the sheep

4.10:11 - I am the good shepherd

5.11:25 - I am the resurrection and the life

6.14:6 - I am the way, and the truth and the life

7.15:1 - I am the true vine

Maybe I didn’t pay enough attention, but all I remember the Watchtower ever teaching us was that Trinitarians did this arbitrarily, and not according to a specific pattern in link with the “Book of Signs.” In fact, if I remember correctly, the Witnesses teach that the miracle at Cana is literally the first miracle performed by Jesus having no knowledge that this is a reconstruction of events to highlight what the author was trying to say in John 1:1.

Trinitarians believe the author is explaining his “Word with God” and “Word is divine” or “Word was God” (or whichever you prefer) preface from chapters 2-15. Afterwards an “eight sign” occurs, the Resurrection of Christ, signaling the beginning of a new “week” (Christ being resurrected the day “after the Sabbath”). The event is the I AM statement in this instance, according to their theology.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t remember the Watchtower even presenting the I AM translations in this light and being limited to the narrative according to the way Trinitarians believe. I was just made to understand that they were being dishonest with themselves and others and just selecting verses at random. Was there any information in the Watchtower that showed that Trinitarians only apply the I AM principle in these instances? I had never heard of such views of John till I left the Witnesses.

(The above information came from several sources, including several Oxford study Bible versions, the introductions to the gospel of John in certain editions of the NRSV, and from explanation from several Trinity believers I met recently. It’s taken about three years for all this to come together and click, and Wonderment’s last post suddenly triggered that somehow, it seems.)

10

If one day to Jehovah is a thousand years to us...

by sabastious in

...how did that whole "whom i have approved" dove thing even happen at jesus' baptism?

did jesus and john the baptizer have to wait for god to say it really slowly?.

maybe it would take a few weeks for him to say it i haven't done the math.. maybe it's best if he didn't talk since it just takes forver and it's hard to make out the words when they are slowed down like that.. -sab.

JuanMiguel

That's just is. 1,000 is not a specific number. It occurs often in Scripture, but rarely outside of symbolic use.

Temporal and Eternal Existence Compared

Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventists, theists do not believe that God exists within the realms of time and space. Time is believed to be a facet of the universe created by God. Theists call this "temporal" existence. If I understand them correctly, their belief is that time is our means of measuring change experienced on the temporal plane.

A peculiar aspect of this belief is that it shares a practically identical understanding of time as held by physicists, including the belief that time is relative.

God, according to what these people teach, lives in the "eternal." The eternal is definied by God's existence (and, according to this belief system, everything else is as well). To them, God "is." We might speak in such terms. such as saying God "was" and that God "will be," but those are understood as relative statements from the temporal perspective. Since God does not change, there is no was or will be with God. God is, and just that, "is." God transcends time to these persons.

Oral Transmission of the Number 1,000

This belief is ancient and goes back to the oral teachings of the Hebrews that helped shaped the written text. It was carried over into Christianity and is even shared by Islam. It was with the invention of dispensationalism that Adventists abandoned the view that God existed outside of time. If we were under the constraints of time, so was God, they taught. This teaching was absorbed by the Witnesses through Russell who got it from association with Barber and the other Second Adventists.

So for Witnesses and those dispensationalists who hold God as subject to time the same way humans are, expressions in the Scripture texts are literal. To this theology 1,000 years is 1,000 years (but there are arguments as to whether these are solar or lunar years or a mean between both). While recognizing the context of Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3 as symbolic, this theology abandons the rule for both uses of 1,000.

Agreement Between the Two--Where?

It should also be noted that both theologies are in agreement that in all other uses of 1,000 outside of a connection with time, the terminology is secondary to accuracy, always carrying the meaning of "many" or "much" but with no specific value. That is why some census counts, notably in Samuel and Kings, are always rounded up and often look unrealistic (counts of people and army members are always perfect, i.e., 245,000 and 50,00, etc., never 245,678 or 51,235). In all these instances the number 1,000 is a narrative device meant to keep the reader from paying undue attention to details that might interfere with the subject at hand.

Again this rule is taken as universal for all its uses in Scripture except in the eyes of Adventist groups like the JWs who hold God as being subject to time like humans, thus evaluating all numbers with some specific value.