Posts by David

17

Question on the sun created in the fourth day

by opusdei1972 in

in the first day elohim created light, and it was day and night in the first day.

then in the fourth day he created the sun, the moon and the stars.

of course, it did not actually happen, but what did the writer have in mind?.

David_Jay

@opusdei1972,

Of course if one considers that the God concept is different for the Jews than it is for Christians (and so, as a consequence, is the concept of inspiration), the problem may be caused by the lens one applies to the concepts of deity and revelation.

For Christians like Jehovah's Witnesses, God is a literal deity, a "supreme being" not too different than other gods like Zeus, for instance. But for Jews, "God" is actually not the ancient concept of what a deity is. The same term is used, but this is for a lack of a more accurate label.

In Judaism, tradition claims that before any direct revelation from God, Abraham came to realize that deities were false. He came to this realization by comparing nature to the idol gods sold by his father. Abraham reasoned that the world was "caused" by something far different than the gods worshipped by people.

This ultimate "Cause" is the God of Abraham and the Jews. Exactly what this Cause is transcends human capacity to comprehend. Compared to this Cause, a human is like an amoeba under a microscope and God is like a human watching it. An amoeba has no ability to comprehend the human on the other end of the microscope, and if it could think any concept it did attempt to create to define the human would fail.

This is not to say that the Cause is a being with a mind either. Some Jews think this Cause may be the universe itself with the laws of nature that govern and caused it. Some think this Cause has intelligence but so far advanced that human logic and intelligence cannot compare. God, therefore, in Judaism is mystery.

I remember a line from the film "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" where Dr Jones is teaching his class and says: "Archeology deals in facts. If you want truth, take a philosophy class."

The attitude that the Bible is unacceptable if it lacks facts is an argument we used to use out in field service. As Jehovah's Witnesses we were taught that it was a book of facts and that our beliefs were "proven" by looking into this fact book. We wouldn't believe anything without such "evidence," and we surely wouldn't believe in the Bible if it wasn't factual.

But it's a collection of writings dealing with the search for truth. It doesn't deal in facts. The whole idea that it's worthless or uninspired by the great Cause of the universe because it's not the fact book the Watchtower told you it was is like running back to the JW attitude: "I'm not going to believe it if it's not a fact book!"

Religion is like philosophy, concerned not with the empirical evidence of science but what the existence of the evidence means, the WHY it is here in the first place and why YOU are witnessing it. Just because the Bible is not the book JWs told you it was doesn't make the Bible wrong. It makes the JWs wrong.

18

7th Day Adventist growth/decline stats similar to JWs

by fukitol in

jw
friends

the sda's are also getting most of their growth in africa and latin america but plateauing or declining in europe and parts of the western world.. what's also interesting is the sda leadership fronts up and attempts to explain why there is decline in some areas of the world (albeit somewhat disingenously), eg, on the link below from 2014. but the watchtower leaders have never tried to give any explanation for why membership is dramatically falling away in the western world.

increasingly worried jws are instead turning to other sources of information to try and understand why the 'true religion' is contracting.. http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2013-10-13/membership-nears-18-million-secretary-highlights-regions-of-growth-decline/.

David_Jay

An additional footnote to the above: The critical review of the LDS history has backfired in that it has included admitting that long-held apostate (ex-Mormon) views about Joseph Smith were correct, namely about the number and age of his various wives and the fact that Smith used a "seer stone" dropped into a hat to "interpret" the so-called Golden Plates of the Book of Mormon.

18

7th Day Adventist growth/decline stats similar to JWs

by fukitol in

jw
friends

the sda's are also getting most of their growth in africa and latin america but plateauing or declining in europe and parts of the western world.. what's also interesting is the sda leadership fronts up and attempts to explain why there is decline in some areas of the world (albeit somewhat disingenously), eg, on the link below from 2014. but the watchtower leaders have never tried to give any explanation for why membership is dramatically falling away in the western world.

increasingly worried jws are instead turning to other sources of information to try and understand why the 'true religion' is contracting.. http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2013-10-13/membership-nears-18-million-secretary-highlights-regions-of-growth-decline/.

David_Jay

The SDA and Jehovah's Witnesses come from the same branch of Adventism that sprung fourth from the Second Great Awakening in America during the 19th century.

Both groups come from the Adventist teachings of William Miller whose predictions on the Second Coming of Jesus caused the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844. The Adventists have survived, but the SDA and the Jehovah's Witnesses were two groups that successfully managed to put a spin on the Great Disappoint as to offer an excuse for why Jesus did not return in 1844.

Like JWs, the SDA believes in the Marcionism concept that written Scripture is the ultimate source of divine revelation, and as such that it is the basis for all religious doctrine and truth. They believe that God and Satan along with humanity are players in a drama over God's rightful sovereignty, something the SDA calls "The Great Controversy." While they accept the teaching of the Trinity, they do believe in a Christology that matches very much what Witnesses teach in regards to the passion and death of Christ. They too believe in "soul sleep," which seems to be an earmark of all Adventism. And though SDA emphasizes the observance of the Jewish Sabbath for Christians, they too believe that God exists in the same time frame as humans and that "time prophecies" point to the "fact" that we are in the Last Days.

Recently, like the Latter-Day Saints, the SDA has been redefining its beliefs via critical analysis such as is done in Catholicism and Judaism. This has allowed them to be more honest about their past statements that, like the JWs, have failed to come to pass and seem to lean in the direction of claiming a past over-emphasis on the works of Ellen G. White. Hoping that adopting critical analytical hermeneutics would prove as advantageous as it has over the past centuries for both Catholicism and Judaism, both the LDS and SDA have experienced the reverse and now see a drop in growth.

A footnote to all this is that the Bahá'í Faith, a mixture of religious teachings from East and West, claims that Miller was generally correct about his calculations regarding the Second Coming. The 1844 calculations are believed by the Bahá'í to correctly forecast the arrival of the Báb, a major figure in their religion.

While the Jehovah's Witnesses are not a direct splinter of the Millerite movement, Charles Taze Russell once commented: "I confess indebtedness to Adventists." (wt 6/1/1916, p 170) The Bible Students and subsequently the JWs employed Adventist views on calculating time periods from numbers mentioned in Scriptures, adopting their general ideas that the final days of the world began in the 19th century and that the last generation of humanity was now present since the mid-1800s.

17

Question on the sun created in the fourth day

by opusdei1972 in

in the first day elohim created light, and it was day and night in the first day.

then in the fourth day he created the sun, the moon and the stars.

of course, it did not actually happen, but what did the writer have in mind?.

David_Jay

The writer is merely saying that everything has it purpose in the scheme of things. While it is not clear if the writer believed this was the chronological order in which things appeared, the reason for writing so has to do with the belief that the exile to Babylon occurred because the Jews failed to observe the Sabbath, the cornerstone of the Mosaic Law.

The first chapter of Genesis appears to be the newest and last part of the book written. The language is Sabbath-centric, revealing that the writer(s) were emphasizing adherence to the Mosaic Law by seeing humankind as designed to obey Torah. This is seen in how the writer makes the Sabbath the pinnacle of the story, after the creation of humankind.

With this in mind the narrative plays out as an empty tableau, with parts and pieces placed on it like the backdrop for a play, and then the players put into the place. As such it has two parts:

A three piece tableau is filled: On the first three days the tableau is filled with the settings of night and day, heaven and sea, earth and vegetation. The tableau is now filled, now time to fill the settings.

The settings are filled: On the last three days (before the Sabbath) the settings get filled: the heavens (which is described as a solid dome or firmament) is affixed with luminaries, birds fly over its face and fill the sky, marine life fills the seas, the land is filled with vegetation, animal life, and then humans. And then the Sabbath caps it all off.

First off, the settings are based on the science of the day, the Mesopotamian understanding that the cosmos is filled with water (no vacuum of space was understood by the ancients). These cosmic waters were held back by a solid dome upon which were affixed the sun, moon, and stars. Precipitation came down through windows or gates in the dome. The earth was a flat surface with basins for seas, and all this sat upon a set of pillars which kept it upright in the cosmic ocean, the waters around the pillars being referred to as the “abyss.”

This cosmology is not from the Hebrews, however. The author is only using it as the tableau to fill it with a Jewish meaning, namely that all things are created to fulfill God’s purpose (and subsequently man to fulfill God’s Law).

The luminaries which appear on the fourth day are merely filling their place in the tableau setting. God made the dome or firmament, the writer says. Why? To hold back the waters over the earth, and to provide a place to affix the sun, moon, and stars. The Mesopotamians believed the luminaries were small lights affixed to the firmament/dome which rotated around the earth to created the differences in day and night.

Apart from this the author is unconcerned with whether the Mesopotamian cosmology is sound or not, or has any care about the luminaires themselves. The idea the Jews had after the exile was that God had punished them for not keeping the Mosaic Law. This was foremost illustrated on how little importance Sabbath-keeping held in pre-exile days. Upon returning from Babylon and rebuilding the Temple, the Jews set into place the foundations of the religious system that would become Judaism, with strict rules to prevent the exile from happening again. As such the Torah was recopied with interpolations that included some hermeneutic material, and thus the expansion of the creation story. It originally began with Genesis chapter 2 as the first in a series of creation stories (the Noachian flood is also a creation story). With the return from the exile, this third Sabbath-centric one was added as the beginning or prologue to the rest of the Genesis, which in reality is the prologue to the entire Mosaic Law.

43

Jehovah sure loves foreskins!

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

an atheist (never jw) friend of mine is an rv for a jw who he is trying to deprogram.

he started this totally on his own and just telling me about it.

it's quite amusing what he comes up with.. point 1: why the s & m stuff with foreskins?

David_Jay

Yeah, I kinda knew the American/Puritan circumcision reason (just realizing that as a Jewish man I know way to much about dicks in general). A footnote, Graham crackers were created for a similar reason as Kellogg's anti-JO flakes.

And my friend Avi has just now told me his preference and why and sent pictures to explain (and I can't really tell you without the pictures, so I won't). I now know more about gay male sex too.

Thank you, ex-JW forum for bringing this up. Those images from Avi are gonna stay with me for a very long time.

43

Jehovah sure loves foreskins!

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

an atheist (never jw) friend of mine is an rv for a jw who he is trying to deprogram.

he started this totally on his own and just telling me about it.

it's quite amusing what he comes up with.. point 1: why the s & m stuff with foreskins?

David_Jay

@schnell,

It's a good ramble. I think we've all had a dip in the same gene pool to be honest.

As for circumcision, at least my parents were Jewish enough to have it done for me on the 8th day so I don't remember a thing. They may not have instilled much Judaism in me, but they did that at least.

I also can't speak in favor of circumcision or the lack thereof as I am not a connoisseur of the male organ. My best Jewish friend is gay, so I will ask his opinion.

43

Jehovah sure loves foreskins!

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

an atheist (never jw) friend of mine is an rv for a jw who he is trying to deprogram.

he started this totally on his own and just telling me about it.

it's quite amusing what he comes up with.. point 1: why the s & m stuff with foreskins?

David_Jay

I don't know who the "him" is and what "moral hook" this person shouldn't be released from, but one has to stop reading Jewish Scripture like a Christian and think that every time the Tanakh says something that it is at the same time saying the action was moral. The actions are not justified even though they come from inspired Scripture, at least in the way Jews read their Scriptures.

These are very ancient stories, attributing customs to a paradigm where mythology was the device to attribute all things to Providence. This makes it a static snapshot of an ancient era long gone, and therefore not a means of justifying customs. Jews now use science and critical analysis to explain our history, not the texts of the religion of my people.

However, Judaism does not see a difference between direct revelation as written in Scripture and the more historical explanation. Since the God concept of Judaism may be just as much of an ancient literal device as the mythology, the end is still the same. This is our particular custom and it is as much value as those customs cherished and practiced by non-Jews (some of which are equally as odd to us), regardless of the origin. Scripture is about who Jews are, the good and the bad of my people.

43

Jehovah sure loves foreskins!

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

an atheist (never jw) friend of mine is an rv for a jw who he is trying to deprogram.

he started this totally on his own and just telling me about it.

it's quite amusing what he comes up with.. point 1: why the s & m stuff with foreskins?

David_Jay

schnell,

I got one better (or worse) to admit: After leaving the JWs in my youth, I had to un-learn all the wrong things about my own culture and then learn them again. It was nice to know I was a Jew upon leaving the Watchtower, but very sad that I was a stupid Jew. So yeah, I kinda know what it means to feel bothered that you don't know as much about your own culture than you do about an insignificant people from a desert land.

One thing for sure: It's good that the JWs didn't claim to be experts in Irish and Cherokee history and stuffed this down your throat under threat of loss of salvation. Can you imagine having to undo all that for yourself now?

43

Jehovah sure loves foreskins!

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

an atheist (never jw) friend of mine is an rv for a jw who he is trying to deprogram.

he started this totally on his own and just telling me about it.

it's quite amusing what he comes up with.. point 1: why the s & m stuff with foreskins?

David_Jay

It’s quite interesting to read the posts in this conversation from my perspective. For instance, where you (non-Jews) see a story about circumcision at Exodus 4:24-26, Jews see something different. Also, people from a Christian world view (whether religious or not) tend to read the statements in the Bible as literal, as if God commanded the practice of circumcision (which is not likely at all).

Exodus 4:24-26 is a parallel of the episode of Genesis 32:25-33. The stories both involve a Jewish hero, in Exodus it is Moses, in Genesis it is Jacob. Both stories involve an attack by a divine being while journeying from one land to another, Jacob by an angel, and Moses by God. Both stories have the divine beings “losing” the fight, with Jacob refusing to stop fighting and with Zipporah using blood as a ransom.

It is not certain if this is a story of an actual circumcision because there seems to be a play on words in the expression “Bridegroom of Blood” which can mean “protect” as well as “circumcise.” The expression “Bridegroom of Blood” may be a name given to Moses much as Jacob gets renamed Israel. The saving power of the blood in the attack on Moses foreshadows the saving power of the blood used by the Israelites on their doorposts on Passover.

As for the episode in which Saul asks David for “foreskins” as a substitute for a bride-price at 1 Samuel 18:25, the expression was a contemptuous (and somewhat bigoted) way of referring to the Philistines and their lives. As the Philistines were not circumcised, and this was considered detestable to the Jews, this was a way of asking for “proof” that David had slaughtered Philistines. (Compare 1 Samuel 14:6 for a similar contemptuous use of the term toward the Philistines.) The issue is not really the foreskins but the insult of referring to proof of their lives in being reduced to counting foreskins of the dead.

Circumcision was not exclusive to the Jews, but was common as a rite in neighboring cultures and nations. It appears to have been connected with the nuptial ceremony of these peoples. In line with this, the ancient Hebrews picked up the tradition and at first followed the more primitive custom of circumcision at the age of puberty, a rite of passage to manhood. It appears it was sometimes reserved to the age of warrior acceptance in Israel before their settling in the Promised Land. It was only after settling that the rite was transferred to the eighth day after birth, the Torah being only a regulating factor to the custom and less the source of something that was adopted from the custom of the surrounding heathen world.

In other words, this seems to be another thing the Jews did (like plural marriage and slavery) that they had previously adopted from the surround cultures as norms and that the Mosaic Law merely allowed by regulation. As always, the language of Scripture makes these practices sound like inspired instruction from heaven but critical examination of Hebrew history offers contrary evidence.

13

Who was/is the promised Messiah ? Jesus or Immanuel

by smiddy in

in isaiah 7:14 "therefore jehovah himself will give you men a sign look the maiden herself will actually become pregnant and she is giving birth to a son and she will certainly call his name immanuel".

this scripture is attributed to the virgin birth of jesus from his mother mary to become the messiah.

the problem is the name of the messiah isnt jesus its immanuel .

David_Jay

Actually, "Immanuel" is often mistaken for a title by Fundamentalist and literalist Christians. It isn't (or at least it wasn't when it was written in Isaiah). It is just a Hebrew name, a common one at that.

At Isaiah 8:8 the name "Immanuel" appears again, but this time meaning the people and land of Judah. It appears besides two other names, Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, neither of which are titles either. All three names are used symbolically in Isaiah.

The Protestant Reformer John Calvin was one who claimed that "Immanuel" has to be a title. He reasoned that since Isaiah 7:14 reads that the maiden names her child "Immanuel" that there must be something unique happening here. Calvin wrongly asserted that the Hebrew custom of name-giving was 'reserved to fathers,' and thus the text in Isaiah had to be talking about the mother doing something far different than giving an actual name.

Calvin of course made this up. For instance, Genesis 29:31-30:24 has Rachel and Leah naming the children of Jacob, the very names of the tribes of Israel. But this wrong idea among many Christians has still never died away.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay