Posts by KalebOutWest

18

Out of the Mouths of Vampires

by peacefulpete in

one of the most quoted and loved passages of the bible has an unexpected textual history.

at matt 21:16 jesus is made to say:.

have you never read, ‘from the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself’?”.

So I got to do some further research on the article and its author. I had some trouble understanding what the paper was saying. Since it was from The Catholic Bible Quarterly, I asked an old acquaintance of mine who was a Catholic and a Bible translator who has asked for my help in translation in the past.

To my surprise, he told me that I actually run in the same circles as Mark Smith. I have just never met him.

First, Mark's article is not about "vampires" and the referring to the God of Abraham as "El." My buddy showed me this, even demonstrating that, just as I had posted on here earlier, the origins of the etymology of the word for "sucklings" stems from Semitic roots involving a non-Jewish myth that might involve something Smith labels as "divine 'suckers;'" but he goes on to say:

"It is hardly necessary that the same myth be involved."

This means that Psalm 8 has nothing to do with the myth even though a word evolved from the idea.

"The paper is about a Catholic theology quandary," my friend told me. "Is Psalm 8 another creation narrative? If so, who are these children and babes? Who is the enemy? What is the silencing that occurs? Is this a parallel to chapter 3 in Genesis?"

For Catholics, the question about Psalm 8 is not why is it using this word, but their belief that it is Messianic, about Jesus, and somehow tied up to him creating the world, and their view that it may have something to do with Genesis 3:15. If it does, if that can be proved, then in their eyes they will have a real "anchor" of sorts. (The only problem is that the Psalm is not as old as they want it to be.)

My question was put forward as to how did Smith and other Catholics (since Smith is Catholic) see Psalm 8?

While I am sure he couldn't directly speak for Mark himself, Mark is a very well-educated Catholic layman, serving as a professor at various universities. But he did have this to offer about the general Catholic viewpoint:

"There is a difference between the academic answer and the one that motivates us by faith," he answered. "One [critical scholarship] is at service of the other [faith]. But for a Catholic, all Scripture has the earmark of divine inspiration."

My friend, by the way, is a language scholar who helped produce the new English-language Psalter for the Roman Catholic Church which is being employed, beginning this Advent, all around the world, in every country where English is spoken. He isn't stupid by any means.

The idea is that this Psalm might involve a cosmology in which creation, as Smith puts it, "ancient, divine victory over cosmic enemies," even though it is allegorical (there are no "children" or babies" in heaven, for example, and there was not yet a complex demonology in Judaism adopted into the Hebrew religion).

This is important for Catholic theology in building its Christological ideas and theological instruction, especially as it evolves.

18

Out of the Mouths of Vampires

by peacefulpete in

one of the most quoted and loved passages of the bible has an unexpected textual history.

at matt 21:16 jesus is made to say:.

have you never read, ‘from the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself’?”.

KalebOutWest

Believe whatever you wish.

English is not my first language. I grew up speaking Hebrew, Ladino and Aramaic, praying the Bible and the Siddur daily all my life in Hebrew. It was just an opinion

I have been an instructor in praying the Jewish liturgy for some years now. But It doesn't mean I know everything.

You do you.

18

Out of the Mouths of Vampires

by peacefulpete in

one of the most quoted and loved passages of the bible has an unexpected textual history.

at matt 21:16 jesus is made to say:.

have you never read, ‘from the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself’?”.

KalebOutWest

I have heard this before, but this is just like the "torture stake" argument Jehovah's Witnesses created based off of reading the text and looking things up in lexicons, but forgetting that these texts were not written by Hebrew-speaking Jews but Aramaic-speaking Jews that used liturgical Hebrew for worship and were slowly beginning to replace their everyday speech with Aramaic.

In Psalm 8 you find Aramaic mixed in with Hebrew and influencing the Hebrew liturgy. This is a liturgical text, very different from a narrative one from, let's say 2 Samuel or Joshua. The liturgy is filled with both Hebrew and Aramaic. Some of the prayers of the Siddur are completely in Aramaic, such as the Kaddish, which is the prayer one says for the dead. The time period is of the Second Temple, the time of Ezra, likely after his death.

Since most doing research don't know the difference between a liturgical text and that there is an influx of Aramaic in these texts (and that, as I mentioned before in a previous thread, the Hebrew Bible was written during the Persian Era or the Iron Age and not the Bronze Age, when Hebrew was spoken), the cultural aspect of what the texts are used for and what language is actually being spoken is not taken into account.

When you write a Hebrew prayer for liturgy, whether it became a psalm for the Bible for a fixed prayer for the Siddur, Jewish prayers do not rhyme in their words like they do in English. You employ a type of cadence or beat to each line, sort of like saying:

"Georgie Porgie pudding pie, stick a finger in my eye."

Except the words "pie" and "eye" do not rhyme; you just have the sing-song of the line made up by the words.

This is important to understand why they selected these particular words over some more common Hebrew words. Let me give you a Hebrew example by transliterating part of a famous Hebrew prayer that uses a lot of this sing-song cadence that is hard to miss:

ASHER YATZAR ET HAADAM B'CHOCHMAH
UVARA VO N'KAVIM N'KAVIM
CHALULIM CHALULIM
GALULUI V'ADUA LIFNEI CHESEI CH'VODECHECHA
SHE-IM YIPATEI-ACH ECHAD MEIHEM
O YISATEIM ECAHD MEIHEM

[God] who formed the human body with skill
creating the body's many pathways and openings;
it is well known before Your throne of glory...

There is a far easier way to say the above prayer, known as the Asher Yatzar. The word choice is peculiar, odd, and actually fun to say (and this is just a selection of it). But this is how all the prayers and Psalms go, just about, except for the acrostics (which ususally employ a different technique sometimes).

Just as when a poet in English will use a special dictionary to select special words to rhyme his words just right, the Jewish authors chose words that would keep this cadence in place. Why? Because the Hebrew text is not read like English text is. It is chanted.

If you go here, you will note not only vowel signs but also what are called cantillation is found in most Hebrew texts. You probably have never noticed them before because you didn't know the difference these marks and the vowels. But Jews have preserved and passed these down over the centuries. Eventually they developed a system to write it down to help you read and chant the text correctly.

The peculiar wording for Psalm 8 is used to make it bounce with the cadence it has so it can be chanted. It uses terms borrowed from Semitic sister languages and incorporates it into the text. The text isn't talking about vampires or parasites or young men or an orgy of the gods. But it is employing Aramaic at an early stage of liturgical development. People who forget that this text is meant to be sung or chanted and that the writers were looking for words to match music more than accurately reflect narrative theology can get mixed up in trying to reflect their own Western ideas about Bible study.

This term is also found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures for nursing children in general, but remember, these were Jews living in the Persian Era, and Aramaic was taking hold of the Hebrew language. (Ge 21:4; 24:59; 35:8; Ex 2:7 ff) This is because, again, the late date of when most of the Bible was written (not before but after the Babylonian Exile).

The cultural design of the God of the Jews was for the sake of cultural preservation. Preserving Jewish identity was important when this text was written, but the idea of what "God" was was still highly influenced by both a disgust for idol worship and an arrogance and self-superiority in their own ideals that would soon put Judaism at odds with Hellenism in time for the Macabbean Revolt. Only the Greeks were as arrogant as the Jews about their culture, language and religion. They were not writing about a weird deity. Alexender the Great was just on the horizon. Don't buy into the story that this Psalm was composed in some "Golden Age" of a Solomononic Temple than likely never was. YHVH's monotheism was fully established by the time this psalm was written. It was a lot later in time than you are thinking. By the time the Seleucid invasion occurred, the monothestic YHVH was a well-established concept.

20

So Let's Say Bigger Change Happens

by peacefulpete in

if a change in the blood policy happens, who will be more upset, jws or former jws?

i suspect the latter.

when the beard thing went down, jw's seem to immediately embrace it, whereas many former jw's have been brooding about it.. did it take away a pet gripe we had?.

KalebOutWest

That is indeed true, Peacefulpete.

Getting stuck in a particular "holding pattern," always looking back, is what the "pillar of salt" metaphor of Lot's Wife may be likened to. It can be self-destructive as one can end up 'dying' with the past and perishing 'society.'

20

So Let's Say Bigger Change Happens

by peacefulpete in

if a change in the blood policy happens, who will be more upset, jws or former jws?

i suspect the latter.

when the beard thing went down, jw's seem to immediately embrace it, whereas many former jw's have been brooding about it.. did it take away a pet gripe we had?.

KalebOutWest

One cannot help how they might feel over anything that happens anywhere in life. I myself laughed over the beards and slacks, while I heard some felt betrayed. But I have my own reasons which have nothing to do with being a Jehovah's Witness for my reaction. How I felt had to do with being a Jewish man who lives in a world where growing a beard is a norm and I never really think about somebody allowing or not allowing me to do this.

And being a refugee is not necessarily a bad thing or a good thing. It often comes upon people due to circumstances beyond their control. One cannot "stop" or "start" living in a state that is forced upon you.

And it isn't a term to judge others by.

The Watchtower religion is ever-changing because it is supposed to be the "restoration" of "true religion" which, according to their own theology this restoration would only occur in the Last Days during the final generation mentioned by Jesus in his discourse given recorded at Matthew 24. So their existence has painted them into a corner, so to speak. Those closest to them will feel something with any news from them or about them.

Because so much time has passed from the mid-1800s until now, 2024, and the group has drastically and dramatically evolved to deal with the fact that this generation is stretching over 2 centuries, people are seeing a different religion coming and going out. It should be upsetting to some ex-members. It is a horrible lie to see them go on and on.

It lies about life, history, religion, God, culture, belief, disbelief, science, medicine, sex, and itself, just to scratch the surface. So every change is a reminder not only of the ridiculousness of it all but to some people, the changes are personal and might remind them of where they once landed on the spectrum of JW beliefs and promotion. Theat can be a sore spot.

This sort of turmoil pains many who have been leaving the LDS church recently too. While the recent president seems to have put a stop to it, there was about a decade of faithful reporting from the Mormon church on its history and on Joseph Smith's lack of truthfulness behind his claims. It did much damage by decreasing numbers steadily until to pandemic. 2023 saw its first increase ever after that "truth" fiasco.

It's natural to feel in response to news reports, whether they regard the Jehovah's Witnesses or not. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

20

So Let's Say Bigger Change Happens

by peacefulpete in

if a change in the blood policy happens, who will be more upset, jws or former jws?

i suspect the latter.

when the beard thing went down, jw's seem to immediately embrace it, whereas many former jw's have been brooding about it.. did it take away a pet gripe we had?.

KalebOutWest

The religion I knew in the 1980s no longer exists. As I have often told others, if I were a baptized JW who fell into a coma in say 1985 and awoke today, I would be disfellowshipped for my belief and practices since my Watchtower religion would not be acceptable by Witnesses today.

I see the Jehovah's Witnesses as an ad hoc religion. Despite their claim to the contrary, they are founded on the premise that they are the sole modern-day prophet of God for the final days of history, inspired with the knowledge to understand the "true meaning" of Bible prophecy to forewarn of and proclaim the coming battle of Armageddon to the nations.

But as any ad hoc system, since the have been doing this since the 1800s (and it is now 2024), their system is set up for change. Jesus return in 1874 and subsequent destruction of all nations in 1914 left alot to be desired, so much change was ready at hand and quick to be to be thought of by the next generation of prophets to follow up behind in the footsteps of self-proclaimed appointee-of-God Charles Taze Russell. And thus it has always been.

The only true freedom will come to people who disconnect entirely from this ad hoc system and others like it. There will always be a change on the horizon.

The Mormon religion is one of the biggest ad hoc religious systems built upon an "end of the world/prophet" scenario. It is always undergoing change, always. Recently they have attempted to change their name, topple the angel Moroni from his place as their mascot/logo and replace him with Jesus (why wasn't he there in the first place?), and oddly all of this will of course be subject to change when the current prophet dies and the next one takes his place.

When all these current changes, I do, however fear a collapse similar to its sister religion, the Worldwide Church of God that went through similar changes and quickly and just lost over 75% of its membership in about 2 years. Unlike the LDS church, the Watchtower religion is highly apocalyptic like the WCG was. When it became apparent that changes being offered are novelty instead of following through on the end-time promises, like the fellowship of the WCG, followers may see it as pure gaslighting. If not handled right this will create a mass Exodus effect from the JWs instead of greater adherence.

This type of freedom will be different from independence. Independence is when a person realizes and chooses to leave and is capable of being untouched after they have done so.

After a collapse or during one, people leave as exiles. There is freedom, but for a while people are emotional refugees. That is a bit different.

Some of us might still be in that "refugee" situation, where we are affected by where we left. So when we hear news of what happens in the Watchtower world, it can affect us based on our particular situation and loss. But if there is a collapse due to poor leadership, it will be like popping corn without a lid on the top.

When springs have been held down too tightly and you suddenly let them go, they shoot off, some very far away. One needs only talk to those who have gone through what happened with the WCG fell apart.

56

Can God Change his Mind?

by peacefulpete in

is 31:yet he also is wise and will bring disaster and does not retract his words.. 1 sam 15: furthermore, the eternal one of israel does not lie or change his mind, for he is not man who changes his mind.. numbers 23: god is not a man who lies, or a son of man who changes his mind.

does he speak and not act, or promise and not fulfill?.

when the god you worship pronounces judgement, is he, really just issuing a warning or has the matter been determined through all the godly powers of insight, foresight and perfect judgement?

KalebOutWest

People have various beliefs about God. Some don’t even believe in God. Being exposed to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their religion, we were likely taught that the Bible was giving us a unified description of what the “one true God” was thinking, feeling, and desiring. The Bible was a singular product, at least in their teaching, so we might still feel there is a simple, singular answer.

If you are looking for what the Hebrew God of the Bible is thinking, if God’s mind changes, you might be surprised to find that at least in context from the standpoint of Jewish thinkers, there is no “mind” to consider.

Of course it looks like the Jews are describing a Bronze Age deity when they talk about YHWH in the narratives (especially in Genesis through 2 Chronicles), but it was designed to do that. The writers were living in the Iron Age, from the period of the Persian Empire.

If you were one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then you were taught to read the text as historical and at face value. That was due to both a lack of education from its leaders and perhaps duplicity. The Jews, on the other hand, were “wrestling” with the concept of God, not settled with it, as if it were static, as the Watchtower was trying to teach it.

This is why there is no “mind” for “God” to change in Jewish theology. It is taught that one cannot use prayer and ask for God to change things as Christians do in their prayers. That is not what prayer is for in Judaism, which is why prayers are written down, settled in the Siddur, composed of the Psalms and several other ancient texts handed down from the centuries. One learns to accept God’s will or to accept reality as settled, unchangeable, by repeating the words of psalms and holy texts daily to edify the mind.

In other words, Jews learn to change their mind via prayer, not change God’s “mind.”

The clues have always been there in the Biblical Hebrew text via anachronisms, written by Hebrews who were not from the Bronze Age but merely guessing what life might have been like for their ancestors. They had some legends, some folklore, and borrowed some mythology from around them that came from the foreigners among whom they dwelled. This mixture provided the following Iron Age boo-boos, for starters:

The Garden of Eden being a Babylonian King’s Garden
Eden guarded by a cherubim with a sword
A flood legend that imitates Babylon’s
Babylon’s Tower disaster reported as history/mythos
Abraham having camels
Abraham coming from Ur of the Chaldeans
Arameans constantly referenced throughout Genesis
The existence of Edom (which only popped up after the Assyrian’s invaded)

And the list can go on and on (and we haven’t even left the book of Genesis yet). Since Jehovah’s Witnesses do not dare question the validity of the Biblical text, all of this is reality.

Thematically, the Biblical writers in the Mosaic Law narrative and beyond, state that the Jews are called “Israel” and not “Abraham.” The name “Israel” means to “wrestle with God,” not to blindly accept via faith. The folklore about Jacob is that at the point that he is about to make peace with his brother and his past and to inherit the land with his family and his children, he wrestles all night with God and never stops. The wrestling match leaves a permanent identifying mark on him too, not just a new name.

The idea is that God is not a static, one time concept that gets written down in Scripture and that is that. If one reads the Psalms, the concept of God is different from the narratives in Genesis through 2 Chronicles. If you read Esther, there is no God. If you read the Prophets, God is entirely different, far more complex, almost denying what you learned before.

God changes or better yet, what the Jews learned about God changes. They “wrestle” with God. Sometimes God is this, sometimes they learn that God is that.

The idea behind God today is that Jews cannot say what “God” is. Unlike Christianity that defines God, i.e., God “is” love, God “is” omnipresent, omniscient, etc. Judaism sees God as Ineffable and thus undefinable.

This does not mean that Judaism is the owner and main definer of “God.” But if one is talking about the God of Abraham, the ideas of what they are talking about in this context might help.

I suggest that anyone can make up their own minds on what they wish to believe, however, and that no religion or religious authority has the final say on what God is or isn’t. However, again, in this context, and in this context only, here is where many in Judaism have come to over the centuries in comparison to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

God has no body.
God is not a spirit.
God has no mind.
God is greater than an entity.
God is greater than a “God.”
The concept of “God” was invented by humans and therefore God is greater than a “God.”

Some go so far as to add that God is not personal or not a “person,” so to speak, meaning God is beyond personhood. The concept is that there is no supernatural God, i.e., God is not the creator as much as creation is godly or evolution is an act of what we understand as divine, if that makes sense. The spark of “divinity” is in everything and everyone, but God is not omnipresent in the Christian sense, such as a supernatural presence is everywhere controlling everything, knowing everything, and responsible for everything that happens.

The various and different stories in the Scriptures are ancient concepts, elementary in the Jewish evolution of wrestling with the God concept. Not everyone believes in God, feels a need for God, or will come to the same conclusions. Hopefully some of this may have been of some help wherever you are on your personal journey.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

KalebOutWest

my dog is dead now no thanks to you

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

KalebOutWest

I am so tired of you bullying me Jeffro

Why are you so mean Jeffro

Why Jeffro

Why

I was so nice

I am so angry now

Is this what you wanted

To see me snap

Are you happy

You exJws are mean. Look at your pists to me. What do you want?!

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

KalebOutWest

You exJWs are evil people! You are evil bullies!