this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?
god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.
in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.
And you are worried about God lying to Adam & Eve? What about MeanMrMustard lying to Kaleb?
You do know Kaleb is an autistic savant right?
I edited this part out as I think he will be upset that I shared even this.
But he is very well-known in his field and wouldn't get a joke if you tried it in writing. He would if you said it aloud as he is very funny himself.
I said too much.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
Vienne wrote:
Exposing another's lack of depth may not be the best way to educate them. Doing so tends to become insulting rather than educative.
I agree. It "tends to be insulting" instead of educational.
Yet does one then avoid exposing the lack of ability, capacity, and credibility of the members of the Governing Body who call themselves Bible scholars and appoint themselves and others as members of the translating committee of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures?
It insults then when you point out their shortcomings, and doing so many not educate these people. They are so self-convinced that they don't need a former academic education, often demonizing scholars, so there is nothing you can do for these kind of people.
It's hypocritical to criticize JW leadership for being uneducated and frowning at higher education opportunities but applauding people who attempt to spread their personal ideas in a similar fashion without proper peer review process and procedures that critical methodology at the university level ensures.
You cannot criticize the Jehovah's Witnesses one way while embracing someone else else by different standards without a betrayal for what you stand for. You become a liar when you do that.
I would rather insult every member of the Governing Body and idiot who acts like them, while proclaiming to people that education is freedom of mind and life.
Mebaqqer2 just wants his view and paper to be accepted as true.
I want you and everyone to be educated so everyone can be empowered to make up their own minds and live the fullest most independent lives possible.
And I don't want you to accept my view. I want people to be educated so they can develop their own views and make their own dreams become reality.
If that is elitist, negative, insulting or impatient, then so be it.
And if you think I am saying you MUST have some form of higher education, then you are wrong. My grandfather and grandmother did not and died wealthy of their own making!
What I am saying is a person shouldn't claim to be or act the part of a scholar or an academic without being on the same educational level of others in the same field. If they know Hebrew, Latin and Greek, for example, you should too.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
Honey, I believe you can accomplish anything you want to do. You have the ability to be accomplished in the field of academia if you want to.
But this is not academia. This is just some site where people debate the views of JW theology.
If you were an academic and a scholar, you would know what I was talking about in reference to these papers and the Siddur. That is why I left the sources out. You don't see that I am testing to see what you know and what you don't? You would know these sources by heart. I left them out on purpose.
Go out and do great things. This is not the place to be an academic. You are not proving anything with me. If you were trying to get a grade like so many of my students and this was your paper that came across my desk, sweetie, it's a D- at best. I'm sorry.
You have potential, though. You are wasting it here. I have some fun stuff to do over the weekend and sight seeing to do next week. You bore me, sweetie.
I predict another reply (though I won't be around to read it). I have predicted you would reply to everything I posted. You have no self-control yet. But I hope you will learn to get that under control and not let anyone pull your strings in the future. We teachers do that to our students and irritate you on purpose. There are things some of you need to fix. Sometimes it's your behavior.
Until that gets under control, your scholarship will never shine I'm afraid.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
Of course let your own success or failure be your judgement.
I'm just a retired old teacher.
I'm a nobody. Why would my words mean anything to you? If you were a real scholar or academic, you would have ignored me a long time ago.
Now if you will excuse me. This elitist is going to In-and-Out Burger.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
As I explained, I neither disagree with nor endorse the view. However as I also explained, the view is found in basically all mainstream Bibles because it became accepted a very long time ago based upon how the Hebrew narrative reads like both the symmetry of prayers found in the Siddur and the Hebrew psaltry.
There is a cadence to Jewish poetry. Instead of rhyme they employ a beat to their verse. Some of the most famous examples are Asher Yatzar, Adon Olom, and Ahavat Olam from the Siddur along with several famous psalms like Psalm 22.
These texts, and others like them, sound playful, build upon themselves, and come to a climax. Some decades ago a scholar recognized that the first chapter of Genesis read like one of these and a light bulb went off and the entire process began with a thesis. The rest was history, and now it is inside all the Bibles.
This was why I had originally asked about you speaking Hebrew and inviting you to discuss it with me. I wasn't trying to sound like an elitist. I thought you were either a seasoned academic or scholar. Instead it turns out you probably don't even know enough Hebrew to have studied or read the Siddur or the Psalms in the original form or read the original papers where these proposals tooks place so long ago. You couldn't identify Asher Yatzar from Ahavat Olam or know why they were important.
I'm not endorsing the view I presented. I have been a teacher. A teacher just teaches.
But instead of videos, you should read books. Instead of spending your time debating with me (and hiding the fact that you don't know any), you could be learning ancient tongues.
The truth is, you don't know enough.
Nobody knows enough. Anybody who claims that is definitely not in a position to write and publish a paper.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
While I am not necessarily saying I endorse or disagree with this, Mebaqquer2 actually is describing what is found in practically all mainstream Bibles, namely what scholars call "The Six-Day Structure."
It is a motif or a design that one can compare to the setting up of a stage and is describes not only in The New Oxford Bible, but actually outside of study Bibles, such as in the very footnotes of the NABRE translation in chapter 1 of Genesis. It is also in the SBL Study Bible and its previous version, The Harper Collins Study Bible and just about any Bible you can find that has footnotes.
It is a symmetrical pattern that is hard to deny that goes like this wherein God sets up a series of "stages" for "players" when creating the "universe" as the Jews understood it:
The "stages" are:
DAY 1: Light and Darkness
DAY 2: Water
DAY 3: Land and Vegetation
Onto the "stages" God introduced the following "players" that are:
LIGHT & DARKNESS: sun and moon (day 4)
WATER: Fish & Birds that Fly over the waters under the sky (day 5)
LAND & VEGETATION: Animals & Human Beings
That is all that the scholars and academics have noted.
The Sabbath is set aside as it is based on already existing liturgy which was indepent from the Torah and inspired it (and vice versa). Chapter 2:1-4 is actually a prayer in the Jewish Siddur known as the Kiddush said on Friday evening after sundown when the cup of wine is blessed. The idea is that there is no stage because there is no "work" to be done at this point, only joy in welcoming the Sabbath. God performs mitzvot (good works) on each day and in each stage of the 6 days, but none of the 7th. Jewish liturgy and tradition as well as Scripture characterizes God as following his own laws, obediently observing the Sabbath, even though God is not under the Mosaic Law. It's an anthropomorphic illustration, applying human characteristics to God that do not actually exist in this case to make the argument that Jews are obliged to observe a weekly Sabbath rest.
After this follows what is generally believed to be an older creation mythology, Gan Eden, with a different cosmological makeup, and where obligation to the Torah seemed to be shifted to the humans instead of God. Instead of the Kiddush, a prayer, this mythology ends with God pronouncing curses that announce death. The motif seems to be The Temple and the Promised Land and its loss as Adam and Eve are forced to live "east of Eden" (aka, Babylon) where a "cherub" with a "sword" guards any chance of re-entry (cherubim marked the gates to Babylon and armed guards stood beside them). This myth foreshadows the ending of the Torah where Moses is left east of the Promised Land and dies without any chance of entry due to his sin.
So in the context, they see a significant pattern in the writing that differs greatly from the Gan Eden myth which is more of a narrative. Some have suggested that Genesis 1-2:4 is a mnemonic, an actual law to remember to observe the Sabbath, ending in the Kiddush.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
Great choice, Halcon. My preferred of them all as well.
One more, along the same lines (and very surprising since it comes from Conservative Judaism) is Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary. Containing the same English text as The Jewish Study Bible (NJPS) as well as the Masoretic Text on the side, it has an extensive commentary as well as an introductory and appendix apparatus that pulls no punches when it comes to telling you in detail what is fact and what is clearly fiction (and where it came from) as you read through the pages of the Five Books of Moses.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
If you already "thoroughly believe that God created the universe and planet Earth," there may be little to look for in the thesis of an academic that might be of help or interest.
The reason is that very little of it is of practical use. Academic papers might contain loads of theory that eventually get rejected or worse, disproved by those in the field an academic is submitting their work to be examined by in the first place.
This is all part of the methodological process known as critical scholarship. As an academic you might have views that you believe are correct, but you have to present those views and have them affirmed via testing by disinterested parties in your same field. If your views stand, then you have a working theory. It is the same in any field, like in biological science. You have to be made of tough stuff. Otherwise you won't make it in this profession.
Views that do get accepted are reduced to practical, working models and speech and can be found in mainstream publications, such as study Bibles, for example the SBL Study Bible or The Jewish Study Bible, or even in the literal footnotes of a working translation like the official Catholic NABRE, which is heavy with critical analysis (maybe a little too heavy for some readers).
So if you are looking for something that can aid in your faith journey, you will want to start with something already published for the mainstream public. This means it has already been accepted by the field of scholars and academics in theology and religion and has been put into practical terminology that is useful.
As for what makes a scholar and/or academic, and what is the difference? A Wikipedia entry defines it as follows:
A scholar is a person who is a researcher or has expertise in an academic discipline. A scholar can also be an academic, who works as a professor, teacher, or researcher at a university. An academic usually holds an advanced degree or a terminal degree, such as a master's degree or a doctorate (PhD).
This is why people tend not to trust, for example, the so-called "New World Translation Commitee" who introduced their version of the Bible to the world since it was not made up of Biblical scholars. None of them were academics either because they did not work nor support working as instructors (or even getting an education at) a university.
Individuals who create academic research papers submit them to academic journals who generally do not charge anything to publish them, just like any reputable publisher or magazine doesn't charge you to publish your manuscript. Of course, your work has to be very good, and you have to be at the top of your field. You also do not have to have any ties to a university to get published, of course. But your chances increase if you do. And there are many undergraduate publishing opportunities as well. It isn't easy to become published however. You have to be a great writer and your work has to be of the most excellent quality.
In the end, if it is your faith journey you are looking to aid from a critical standpoint? Perhaps try The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible with Apocrypha (NRSV) 5th Edition. It is middle of the road, gives you an idea what critical thinkers say on the text, but at the same time stays balanced enough to support a person's faith in Scripture without being blind to where it came from and without giving up one's rational thinking. The NRSV is also a great standard Bible text. It's the translation they give you in colleges when you take any class that uses Scripture.*
___
*--It's just been updated as the NRSVue, a slight revision to make it more readable, but Oxford has yet to update it's Study version. The SBL Study Bible is an option you can try that has the new NRSVue text, but it is very heavy in critical anaylsis, meaning it is not for someone who wants to walk away with a "firm faith" that God created the universe. It is for someone who understands that the Scriptures are a product of their time, place, and culture, and that this does not always create a smooth picture that some in the religious community sometimes hope to create.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
I possess the requisite knowledge of Hebrew to make my case...
Sounds like the same line of BS the JWs give us in "translating" their New World Translation.
We don't have to be scholars. Our work speaks for itself. We obviously have the ability to translate the Scriptures better than anyone else, otherwise how else could we have produced the most accurate translation there is?
Why come here to get our opinion if those of us who went to college (many of us have, you know), and some who lived in Israel, who taught religion and the Bible for a living are "in the clouds"? I merely asked if you would join me in some Hebrew discussion.
If you said you wrote songs in Spanish and I wanted to chat in Spanish with you and you called me an "elitist" for doing so when I questioned your ability because instead of doing so you pontificated on and on?
If you asked me a simple yes or no question and instead I told you the story of the making of The Wizard of Oz, you would think something was up, wouldn't you?
Somebody else explain it to this person. I am obviously considered vomit here.
i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
So in other words you don't even read Hebrew.
There are easier ways to say "no."
You have to be able to read Hebrew to be able to claim, as you do, that many of these views are incorrect.
No one will publish your work if you cannot read Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. You cannot expect to publish an academic paper and be taken serious at this point.
The Watchtower does a crime to many minds. It tells people they can do without a formal education if they want to be involved in academia. You cannot. That is the very substance of it.
When you are finished tossing red herrings and gaslighting and can speak directly to people instead of cutting and pasting from other people's works like a Watchtower magazine, when you can say "yes, I speak it," or admit "no, not yet," then you are worth speaking to.
