Posts by OldGenerationDude

9

Can I borrow your god?

by thinker in

according to biblical history, the israelites were in egypt for 430 years.

that's a long, long time.

that would be approximately 14 generations.

OldGenerationDude

When Exodus's Pharaoh claimed, according to Biblical tradition, that he did not know "YHWH," it doesn't mean that the Israelites were not worshipping "YHWH."

Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses claim, YHWH is not a proper name in the same sense that humans or angels may have names. In fact, it is an "anti" name.

YHWH or HaShem, as the Jews speak of it, was never recognized as a mundane name. It also doesn't read that way in Hebrew. Jews know this early in life, at least by the time they are old enough for Bar or Bat Mitzvah. Curious that the "translators" of the NWT are ignorant of this being the "non-name" that it is, something you wouldn't be if you know Hebrew or even if you know someone who is Jewish.

In the time of Moses and even before, especially in Mesopotamia, the custom of heathen religions was to use names of deities to get their attention and thus control them (they weren't "Pagans," as that is actually a religion of the people of Europe, like some of the ancient Celtic people--another mistake of the inaccurate JWs; the correct term for a theist who worships gods other than HaShem is "heathen").

All the gods of the heathens therefore had names, in order for the people to get the right deity's attention and thereby have some sort of "control" over them (for a god, once called upon and attentive to such a call by a mortal uttering its name thereby had to fulfill any prayer asked, otherwise it showed itself and its name to be impotent beofore others, mortal and deity alike). The Semitic term for "name" actually means "handle," and the Jewish definition of the term is the basis for the American use of "handle" as a pseudonym for identification when C.B. radio communication was popular in the 1970s (i.e. "What's your handle?" meaning "What is your C.B. user name?").

Because Moses grew up in Pharaoh's court and was also familiar with the worship of the Hebrews, Moses asked God for his "name" or "handle." The reply was not something Moses expected. "I AM WHAT I AM" or "I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE" is what HaShem replied.

In other words, HaShem didn't have a "handle" or "name," not in the mundane sense. God's name was what he proved to be, who HaShem was, by reputation. God was defined by God, not by any mundane name like the gods of Mesopotamia. HaShem doesn't have to respond to those who use his "handle" because YHWH isn't a "handle." It is the definition of God's identification. It means, in modern English terms: "I am defined by myself--who I am and what I do." It is circular reasoning, God proving God by God and no one else's standard.

This is why although Abraham worshipped HaShem, Moses still asked for a name. The Israelites knew of The Name, but since they also spoke the language of The Name, it both meant more than could be defined while at the same time nothing at all.

This is the meaning behind Pharaoh's statement, that he did not know HaShem. In fact, he may not have heard YHWH pronounced at all. It is written down, but the words of Scripture are not necessarily meant to reflect the actual words used in the conversation, as if taken down by a court reporter and thus preserved in that fashion.

No, more than likely Pharaoh heard a substitute because he would not be speaking Hebrew. He would be speaking Egyptian, and Moses and Aaron had to speak in Egyptian instead of making Pharaoh, a god, speak in the lowly tongue of slaves.

And in fact, being that YHWH is an anti-name, what Pharaoh heard from Moses and Aaron would be insulting, regardless of the actual terms used. To paraphrase: "The God of the Hebrews, He-Who-Cannot-Be-Defined-or-Controlled-By-a-Name, calls out to you, Pharaoh, by name, and commands you to let his people go free."

The God who had no handle used Pharaoh's "handle" and was telling him that HaShem could thus control him.

Pharaoh responded: "I--the god--do not know of this He-Who-Cannot-Be-Defined...and therefore cannot be controlled by him who uses my name."

In the Cecil B. DeMile classic, The Ten Commandments, they shorten this definition of God's name to: "He-Who-Has-No-Name." This wasn't an invention or ignorance. It is the real understanding of the people of HaShem and the same conclusion Christians have come to understand through Jesus of Nazareth's teaching.

When Jesus told his followers that they 'should not pray as the heathen do, using word upon word,' he didn't mean that people were not to repeat themselves. If that were true then many of the psalms would never have used in worship as they often repeat themselves over and over again the same way Kingdom Songs sung by Jehovah's Witnesses repeat the chorus or refrain of their songs over and over again. At Matthew 6:7, Jesus said that they shouldn't babble "like the heathen" when praying.

This babbling was not merely repeating, but using "word upon word," meaning in Semitic language "name upon name." In Jesus day there were some who felt they should call upon God by uttering YHWH, using it often in prayers, or by heaping up YHWH along with other titles, like EL, ELOHIM, ADONAI, etc. (sounds a lot like the JWs today who constantly repeat "Jehovah" in their prayers, thinking God will "hear them for their use of many words (names). Heathens still believed in Jesus' day that by uttering lists of names they could control gods and force them to do their bidding, to give to mortals what they wanted. Jesus stated that HaShem did not have such a "handle" and didn't need one. Why? " Do not be like them, because your Father knows what you need before you ask him."--Matthew 6:8.

Your conclusions don't fit either the Hebrew language, the understanding the Jews have had of the text from antiquity, and the basic meaning of names and their importance in heathen worship in contrast to the "nameless" HaShem (YHWH).

I will say it before and I will say it here again: You cannot take the Scriptures out of their context, the religions that wrote them down, and expect to understand them. You need to think and read and believe like those who wrote them to understand the meanings of what is written down.

You are using the Bible the way the JWs do, as if the Bible is the source of the Hebrew's history. It is not. It is not the source of religion but the reflection of a religion. It's not what a religion should be based on, instead the Bible is based on a religion.

Since it is a reflection and not the source of this religion, anyone who reads it independently of it gets the same that anyone else would get if they read a reflection--their understanding of things comes out BACKWARD.

19

The Bible

by N.drew in

the bible is not an instruction book and it is not a history book.

it is a story.. the reason for the thread is posters keep on posting that there are other books of wisdom.

ok. there is more than one story book too.

OldGenerationDude

As a believer in the Bible, I am more apt to agree with OnTheWayOut.

My entire family line on both sides of my family is ethnically Jewish. They do not subscribe to the Scriptures as fitting the "purely historical" mold that so many Christian "believers" seem to want to shove it into.

Gone With the Wind is not about what really happened in history, but what history meant to its main character, Scarlett O'Hara. It's the same with the Scriptures. It's not about history per se as much as it is about what history means to those whose story it is.

The problem with many religions is that they want to read the Bible in a vacuum. They want it to be the book for their religion, the standard on which to base all things. You can't do that. It would be like trying to read Gone With the Wind while being ignorant of the rest of human history before and after the book.

To illustrate: the Psalms are not history. They are prayers, liturgical ones at that. These are still chanted and prayed as they are by Jews, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians several times a day. Why? Because that is why they were written, collected, and how they've been used since they came into existence. They are like the "songbook" and "prayer book" for my people. Yes, some history is there, some prophecy, but none of it explicitly literal.

Okay, you say, I don't read the Psalms as literal history either. So what's the point?

The point is that the other books have reasons for why they exist and what they're doing as part of the collection. Judaism didn't come after the books were written. My people and their history and their religion came first.

Same thing about Christianity. The religion comes first. The books had to measure up with what the believers already believed or practiced (which is what "canonized" means). If you don't already belong to the religion, why are you taking its book and trying to make something out of it that wasn't intended.

While a historical take is included, they aren't implied or necessary for expressing the truths central to the Jewish or Christian religions. These so-called "truths" or beliefs came first. They molded how these people saw history, and their response (which was often fictionalized into parables--like Jesus used) was meant to carry moral lessons not historical ones. Trying to make the generation of the universe and the earth fit into some sort of "six-day" set up to match Genesis 1 is therefore ridiculous. That's not the moral of the story.

If all you get out of reading the story of Noah and the flood is that there was a real big boat that saved this man, his family, and his animals during a historical world-destroying flood, then you've missed the point.

If you think the story of Abraham being told to offer Isaac is a story of God trying to get Abraham to literally place his son on an altar, you just don't understand. And why not?

Go back to the Psalms. Would you, if you held different convictions, run into another religion's house of worship and take its hymn and prayer book and use it in your worship or to base your personal convictions on? Of course not! The hymn and prayer book are specifically for that religion or group, and it only has real meaning to them, to those who assembled it in the first place. If you take it out from its world and you never go into it, then you never really understand it.

But people do that with the Bible all the time. "Religion has to be based on the Bible," when in reality religions came first, and members within wrote and edited and collected their books for their own purposes. Some of the books are novellas, some hymns, some for liturgical purposes, some for catechesis or training. Some have a place in shul or in a church, others are meant for different settings.

Because so many try to read it outside the vacuum, they make it seem to have "historical errors" in the eyes of very open-minded individuals. Of course they would be "historical errors," because often the books weren't meant to be read that way.

You can't use books of one religion and then take it to create your own. These books weren't meant to be the basis of any faiths or the central pot from which "truths" were to spring. Like that hymn book, it's not intended for you if you don't belong.

I know people don't like to hear that, but that's why someone like OnTheWayOut sees what he does. He's only being honest. He's also correct.

If you don't want to understand these books outside of the way they are meant to be used and understood, then don't stand outside of the religions that created them. If you are, stop trying to create a religion based on someone else's book. (Again if you want to belong to the religion, just join it...but I can say for the Jews at least, you can't really be that which you aren't or don't want or don't have the courage to be).

You make the Bible look silly because any worship book taken from its proper place would equally make as much sense if used in the same manner.

I don't see people running around with a copy of Dianetics and trying to foretell the future with it or start a religion with it.

Stop making the book of my people look stupid because of your inept ability and stubbornness to accept it on its own terms. You go get your own religion and make up your own book like everyone else and stopping trying to shove ours down the throats of others that don't want it (I don't even want it "shoved down my throat" because it wasn't meant for that).

Besides, people who take hymn/prayer books from other religions without their authority are thieves. And who would trust a thief in the first place?

16

"The Most Embarrassing Book in the Bible - Understanding the Book of Revelation"

by JWB in

the most embarrassing book in the bible - understanding the book of revelation.

in a short 36 minute video, andrew corbett discusses an alternative view of the bible book of revelation.

his position is interesting as it attempts to place much of the subject matter of the book in a first century context with rome as the seven-headed wild beast and jerusalem as the great harlot.

OldGenerationDude

In mainstream theology, there are five schools of thought regarding interpretation of Revelation:

Critical: held by many scholars today, tends to read the book as a reflection of the struggle between Church and the State at the end of the first century. In this light the book's "prophecies" or "visiona" are seen to teach that God will inevitably triumph over Rome and eventually every human institution which opposes God and uses its power for evil.
Preterist: seen, like the critical view, to be discussing the world and events contemporary with its author, except that the visions are proclaiming Christianity as the grand fulfillment of all Old Testament hopes, with the "end" being that of the Jewish worship system associated with the Temple. The dawning of the Christian era heralds the end of the world in general as well under this view.
Historicist: the visions offer a panoama of the Church's life as to be experienced throughout history, with each vision or prophecy a successive stage of the Church's "pilgrimage" in the world; however the book does not focus on a particular point in literal history, according to this school of thought, but rather on "salvation history."
Idealist: some who hold to this view allow that events in the book may indeed be references to actual history contemporary with the author's life, but that as a whole the book typifies the never-ending struggle between good and evil, on a world scale as well as personal one. A timeless message is seen, rather than a "temporal" one, such as held by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Futurist: Similar to the Jehovah's Witness view, except that it can apply just in part, with some of the other views mentioned above playing a part in the book's understanding. Also differing from the JW view is that understanding is rarely seen as an "earmark" of belonging to the "one true religion," as dogmatically proclaimed by the Watchtower. Instead the book is not closed, but opened, a warning and prophecy for all, the Church and world included.

Common to all these views, and curiously absent to the Jehovah's Witness theology on a whole, is the attention the book gives to the first advent of Christ, with the themes of Christ's passion and resurrection as the central theological basis for everything that plays out. Characters in the visions often experience death, resurrection, or both, often reflective of the suffering, death, and rising of Christ himself, until eventually all the dead rise, and God comes to "dwell with humanity" as did Jesus in the first century.

Curiously the Governing Body sees these events as parallel to the events of their own history, marking their experiences as "unque," but without noting the striking Christo-centric references implied. Regardless if on this end of the Watchtower we embrace a theistic or atheistic view, we cannot miss this point. Such a self-serving interpretation is insulting, even if the book is seen as fable. Why? Because it is like saying that this Aesop fable is only about the Governing Body, and that this Native American tale is also only about the Governing Body, as likewise all the myths of the Greeks and Romans and other ancients foretell how central identifying them is to human survival.

Myths some may call all of them, but they are expressions of the human mind and heart. To degrade them all to "Magic 8 -ball" status that can be wielded only in the palm of the Governing Body to interpret as their whim dictates to "prove to the world" that they are "God's sole channel of communication" is repulsive. It's an insult to any kind of writing, fiction or not.

8

Passover and the Memorial is this correct ?

by jam in

jw
friends

contray to the passover regulation that required male.

circumcision and all members of the family to participate,.

the lord"s supper is to be observed only by those whose.

OldGenerationDude

You are on the right track, Jam.

Just as all of physical Israel was obligated to partake of the Seder lamb, so are all of spiritual Israel obligated to partake of the Lamb of God. (John 1:29) Of course if you believe the Witness teaching that there is a limit to those who are part of spiritual Israel, then you are back to square one. However, as you have copied the word "you" in imitation of the NWT in its interesting (but often unnecessary) attempt, you highlight something that could be used with someone who is at least open to Christian history.

The "you" in Matthew 26 is as Quarterback states, in reference to the apostles (not disciples--all Christians are disciples or "students). The English term for "apostle" is "emissary," meaning a person sent out with a message or a testimony. Jesus was speaking to them specifically, especially as written in Luke 22:19: "Do this in memory of me."

The early church fathers saw this as a directive to the apostles which they were responsible to hand on to the rest of the church. According to Justin Martyr, writing about 150 C.E., the memorial of Christ's death was observed weekly, "on the day called after the sun," meaning Sunday. He described the weekly ritual, saying that "bread is brought, with wine mixed with water to the president," or the presiding Christian over the weekly worship service. Everyone present partook, except for the following, which Justin described as followed: "None is allowed to share unless he believes the things which we teach are true, and has been washed with the waters that bring remission of sins and give a second birth, and lives as Christ order us so to live. For we don not receive them as ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but as Jesus Christ our Savior."

The Didache (or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) agrees, giving the following instruction for all members of the congregation: "On the Lord's own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure."

While the Witness might want to insist that the writings of Justin Martyr are not part of the Bible, and that the Didache is spurious (it isn't spurious, per se, as it's being attributed to the apostles does not mean written by them personally but instead passing down their teachings), these do agree with the rest of early church history (and you would do well to read these from non-JW sources as the Watchtower heavily edits them and waters them down and has barely reprinted 1% of what actually exists from that period). And what does all this mean when tied together?

Let's go back to Justin Martyr's words, that the so-called (by the JWs) "emblems" were not viewed as symbols or "ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but as Jesus Christ our Savior." The Didache calls this a "sacrifice." The early Christians believed that when Jesus held the Last Supper with the apostles, he presented to them his literal body and blood in a sacramental sense, or the literal life that God was to accept as a ransom via the body and blood on the following afternoon. While it looked and tasted like ordinary bread and ordinary wine, it was, as Justin wrote, something very different. Unlike you and me, as the early Christians saw it, Christ was not prevented by time from taking this literal sacrifice from the cross (or "stake" if you prefer) and miraculously offering it via a sacrament or physical representation. "Do this in remembrance of me" was seen as Christ telling the apostles that they could perform the same miracle, make that sacrifice present again (not repeat it, just make its literal value miraculously present across time) and offer the sacrament to others.

The "you" is a plural, but restricted to the apostles only. The apostles, on the other hand, never limited to anyone except those who were not Christian and did not believe in the actual presence of Christ at the weekly memorial of his death (later referred to as the Sacrament of Holy Communion). Nothing in the Bible or in any of the creeds or Church Fathers ever unites the thought that the 144,000 of the book of Revelation was a literal limit to those who could partake. In fact, that book would be written at a time when most if not all the apostles to whom Jesus spoke to had already died (many scholars believe that the John who wrote Revelation, if not the apostle, was a disciple of the apostle himself, as it was an accepted practice to write in the name of one's teacher when spreading their teachings, such as 2 Peter and the several authors of Isaiah).

The teaching of the apostles, as experienced by the first-century Christians, as attested to by people like Justin Martyr and later referred to in The Didache all agree that all Christians partook of the emblems, and that this was done every Sunday, not once a year. This is not written in the Bible because the Christian Scriptures as a library had not existed as an authoritative collection until the 4th century. The early Christians did not base their beliefs on the New Testament writings. They based they practices on what the apostles told them to do.

The reason these directions do not occur in the Scriptures themselves is that the Bible was not meant to be the source of all teachings and truth for Christians. Jesus was seen as the living and ever-present Source of Truth, and they viewed the teaching of the apostles as the truth as well. While the Scritures include these teachings, they were never meant to be exhaustive as it was never conceived that anyone would separate from the church and take the Bible but not the teachings of the apostles with them. Even the Christian texts agree that the authority and source of truth for Christians was Jesus and the teachings of the apostles. (Compare John 14:16 with Acts 2:42.) Nothing is written anywhere, not even in 2 Timothy 3:16, that states that the Christians devoted themselves to the writings found only in the official canon, which was not created for several hundred years later. These writings were also canonized by the Christians only because they believed that devoting themselves to the teachings of the apostles outside of the New Testament gave them the authority to create the same New Testament.

Yes, you will have to drop the Witness devotion to Bible-only. Christianity was never a Bible-only religion. Jesus did not say that those who would be saved must read and follow everything written in the Scriptures, and that salvation depended on this. No, the church is based on a Person, Jesus Christ, and the teaching and authority he passed to his apostles. And since the beginning all the church's members have been partaking, weekly.

23

Its Easter, Christ is Risen - Really?

by cofty in

the resurrection of jesus is at the heart of the christian faith.

"but if it is preached that christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even christ has been raised.

OldGenerationDude

After leaving the Watchtower I slowly made a return to religious beliefs, but adopting far more critical techniques of learning than before.

I don't believe in Christianity or its dogmas or teachings because of the "resurrection accounts" alone (which generally mean the written accounts in the Christian canon of Scriptures). The early church and the first several centuries of believers did not believe in the resurrection of Christ because they read it in a book, but because of the testimony of living witnesses and those that learned from them.

True, eventually the written text was added, but this was not the source or the sole accounts.

The problem with just believing the New Testament gospel accounts is that this was not what the original Christian movement was based upon. These written accounts did not exist at the time.

I also can't say that I believe in these things because of the current testimony of today's believers either. What a person says they believe is so different from the way they act that this is not a very good rule either.

As for evidence or "empirical data," I would say that would not be a good rule of thumb to follow either. True, something must have happened historically that turned the tables, but "faith" or a conscientious conviction is what it has to come down to in the end, for me anyway. There are no standards set by the scientific method or community for measuring, collecting, proving, or disproving that which claims to belong to the transcendent. If I could subject a god to test of this kind, it wouldn't be much of an almighty, immeasurable god. It would be like trying to measure someone's capacity for imagination with a yard stick and saying that if their imagination can't be measured by the yard stick this proves they have no imagination. It's just the wrong tool to measure imagination with, that's all.

Do I feel my convictions make me smarter, wiser, better, etc. than those who don't embrace it? Not at all. In fact, I have more atheist friends than I do religious ones. I prefer a critical mind open to reason and experience over one that chooses things blindly.

My convictions on this matter are quite difficult to fully explain, because, like imagination, they are hard to measure and escape my capacity to fully grasp. I do have strong reasons beyond a desire to believe in them, but the usual "proof vs. faith" and "Scripture vs. history" and "deist vs. theist" are not efficient ways to explain it. It's a combination of all these and more.

In the end, regardless of what I believe, if it doesn't make me a better person, if it doesn't make me accept and love people as they are (without wanting to change them or claim that they are stupid for not believing like me), if it keeps me from being encouraging to others to follow what they really have come to believe is true--then there's a problem.

Okay, it's not the belief perhaps a lot of Christians say they have or make claim to or perhaps sounds wishy-washy to some others, but it's probably another quirky thing you can either ignore or accept about me. I think concentrating on what we have in common instead of uselessly debating about what others waste the centuries doing is a better what at peace...And I think the time to resurrect that notion is now.

108

The Bible designed to stagnate people and ruin lives

by WTWizard in

and i mean the whole bible, from start to finish.. first, the fear factor.

many that are deeply into the bible are afraid that, if they quit or disagree with it, they are going to suffer forever (destruction or hell).

they are also promised a major reward (life on earth forever, or heaven) if they obey.

OldGenerationDude

This seems to be written from the mindset of someone who agrees with the Watchtower teaching that the Bible should be that on which to base religion or the source from which they originated.

Remember that the religious societies that created the Bible existed long before these written works. The Jews did not have the Tanakh (Old Testament) in the form that we know it today until after their return from Babylonian exile. And there was no effort made to mass produce it for public distribution or demand that other peoples live accordingly to what was written among the books of its collection after it was set in the current form.

The Christian cannon also came after the religion of Christianity started. It was only the gnostic movement, especially that which tailored its philosophy after the likes of Marcion of Sinope, that believed that there was "wisdom" to be found among "proof" texts in a select library or canon of books. The early Church did not base its belief system on any set of texts (and many were against establishing a book or canon of equal status to the Tanakh in imitation of Marcion); instead they set their theology on that verbally taught by the college of apostles of Jesus of Nazareth. By its own authority, without any support from the Hebrew Scriptures, did the Church eventually develop and officially set a canon that they believed was inspired, but by this time some 400 years had passed since the original college of bishops and apostles were on the scene. There was no authority from any book or any New Testament by which the Church drew upon to create its library of Holy Writ. In fact it was due to the absence of such a canon that the early Christians developed the credo system (creeds) because there was no such list of authoritative writings that represented the basis for their beliefs regarding Jesus in their primitive times.

It was the radical Reformists who created a sola scriptura system so separate from Martin Luther that eventually led to the development of literal theology that gave people the ideas about the Bible that you express. This inventive theology, which generally includes a denial of the need to read what is found in any particular Biblical book within the setting of the theology in which it was originally expressed, is absolutely foreign to the original societies that created the library to begin with.

Giving the Scripture the status you have in mind is an invention of later evangelical radical movements from the time of the American revivalists, a status which holds this collection up as if it was intended to be a book of magic with secrets locked away for but only a select group. Because of the lack of historical education and Church history, groups like the Millerists and Adventists had no idea that in promoting such ideals that they were copying Marcion in giving the Bible this "power" that they claimed it have, to enrich them with knowledge that others did not have. To this date, most people from these types of religious systems know nothing or very little about Marcion's influence that eventually led to the New Testament canonization.

While this is not to say that the religious systems from which this book came from are free of causing some of the suffering of human history, but one cannot blame it on the Book you speak of. Remember, not until 1800 CE, with the famous walk of Mary Jones, did someone see the need of making the Bible available for everyone. It would not be until the time shortly before and following World War I, which came with a decrease in world illiteracy and the introduction and increase of western Bible societies, that the average person of any population had access and could read their own copy of the Bible. But by then the time of the crusades and every other war up to the Great War had already passed, with the foundations for World War II having already been set.

To this date very few of the population has ever read the entire Bible, let alone studied it to get any real sense of it. So it is very hard to blame a book which neither started Judaism or Christianity, and which was not available to read until modern times for all the stagnate minds and ruined lives of history up to this date.

56

Common JW phrases that aren't in the Bible

by biometrics in

i'm interested to know common phrases jehovah's witnesses use, but don't actually apear in the bible (even the nwt).

especially phrases most jw's would assume are in the bible.

e.g.. "paradise earth".

OldGenerationDude

Bible

Kingdom Hall

17

The Last Days and the Bible's Responsibility to Prove Itself

by freshcrepes in

according to the watchtower's interpretation of the bible, we live in a time of unprecedented importance.

the current system is likely to end in our lifetime, and as the end draws closer the need to for the world to accept the bible becomes more urgent.. we are also in a unique time in that billions of people have the risk of eternal destruction upon death.

as i understand it, the billions who have and will die before armageddon will get an 'auto-resurrection' after armageddon (save a few in god's bad books) but those who die at armageddon are gone forever.

OldGenerationDude

I had to unlearn a lot about what I still took for granted about the Bible that the had Witnesses taught me. It took a period of ten years or so to realize I was expecting more of the Bible than even most so-called believers did. I mean, can a book be "responsible" for something?

To illustrate:

The JWs claim that "true" or "correct" religion has to be based on the Bible. Maybe I'm stupid, but I thought Christianity was based on a person, not a book. I thought the New Testament (Christian Greek Scriptures for those who still can't let go of JW-speak/think) was written by members of and based on the religion that resulted from that person from Nazareth. The person from Nazareth came first, the religion second, and the book last (being written by and then "canonized" by the authority this religion had without this book). That sounds kinda backward to the JW model to me, doesn't it?

Truth is measured by what is written in the Bible. I never read that in the Bible, not even in 2 Timothy 3:16. But I do remember Jesus saying that he, himself was "the Truth." (Jn 14:6) Hmmm, the book versus the person thing again, interesting.

Salvation is only possible by having a true or correct understanding of the Bible. Yes, I remember it all well--Jesus was ascending unto the heavens, and yea, he spake unto them that were his disciples, dropping from His hands a most holy of Books to the earth and declaring unto them: "Unless ye read and study and get to know this book correctly, ye cannot be saved." ...Wait a minute? What? That never happened? Isn't that a requisite somewhere in the Bible? It isn't? The Witnesses lied about that too? Gosh darn it to heck and fiddlesticks!

The Bible can't "know" when an "end time" is. It's just a written book. Even if you believe it is inspired (actually especially if you do, one would think), then you definitely realize that a book hasn't the ability to know anything, be responsible for anything, nor can it or any other inanimate object convince people of one thing or another. All those things have to do with the readers, not the book.

Yes, I agree with Freshcrepes that if we accept what the Watchtower teaches it causes us to be idiots expecting a book to "do things." Even if we aren't religious anymore after leaving the JWs, the Bible is still one of the great works of literature, and it is insulting to see the religion of the Governing Body of JWs take such a work and turn it into nothing more than a Magic 8 ball of sorts that's "supposed" to "supply all the answers." ("Tell me what to do next, Magic 8 Ball, I mean, the Bible.")

Religious texts are nothing outside of the religious systems that made them. The problem is that this is what the JWs have done, removed the Bible from their religions and then trying to invent something new for themselves. That reduces the Bible to a joke because it was not the basis of the religion of the Jews and Christians; it is a reflection of their religion.

And when someone looks to a reflection to teach them things, they end up getting things backward.

37

Do you stil have Jw stuff

by d in

i still have jw stuff like bibles and watchtower i have to get rid of.

do you any of you guys and girls here have stuff you to get rid of..

OldGenerationDude

After 20 years? I do have the so-called "book bag" I used in field service and the catalog case I used when I was a ministerial servant. As for literature? I think the last thing I had on hand was the Reasoning in the Scriptures book, a copy of their editions of the KJV and the American Standard Bible...but that is it. The case and leather bag are of good quality, but they are in the storage room and hold old photos and frames that I have little room on the walls for.

I did hold onto a lot of the traits for a while, but eventually these got tossed away too.

51

Theists - Please Explain This.......

by AK - Jeff in

and please don't do so with the standard "i don't know the answer - but there surely must be one.

" or some other lame attempt to defend god/bible without a real explanation.. here goes:.

i find it incredibly interesting how hard the mind works to prevent rational thought when it suits it's purpose.

OldGenerationDude

I don't see this as a theist/atheist thing. I see this type of argument as still having a little Watchtower left on the brain (and it can happen to any of us who were once in that trap.) If we’ve only been exposed to the Watchtower interpretation of things this might seem odd to hear, but this neither an error nor a lack of rational thinking, and there’s been an understanding of these verses for a couple thousand years.

When I left the Witnesses in the 1990s I was completely unaware of the different take that “Christendom” and Jews have on the process of revelation (i.e., the inspiration of the Bible and inerrancy). While the details as to how literal the book of Exodus is may differ, the understanding is generally the same across the board: Exodus is not word-for-word history but is history told via a religious perspective. In in the instance of the first 20 or so chapters of Exodus, this format or “genre” is that of a song or legend.

Your True History Is Probably Just a Legend (Otherwise You’re Boring)

Now before you think of “legend” in the “strictest way” that the old JW persona may want you to, remember that legends aren’t necessarily false. For example the Legend of Paul Revere is a historical event, but it’s an event told in the genre of poetry, namely “Paul Revere’s Ride” by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Paul Revere was a real person, an American patriot, and the “legend” tells of a true event, something that really happened.

While legends or “songs” are a type of genre that, while they can tell us a true story, they do not tell us the story in literal terms. You see, depending on which “side” you were on the actions of Paul Revere were either seen as that of a hero or an enemy. A legend tells “how” a person or a people view history, interprets how they viewed what happened, and it is through such a device that we find our identities in our history. (Legends are for that reason sometimes called a “song” too, such as in Franz Werfel’s Song of Bernadette.)

History is in the eye of the beholder--or the one telling the story. What may be seen as a victory to some is told as a defeat for others, but the historicity of the story remains regardless of what we think the events mean. This is the same with Exodus. It isn’t a historical report but a religious one.

The Cattle Should Be KILLED to Death (That Should Learn 'Em!)

And you see, mentioning that the animals die more than once is not an error. It is a purposeful technique in legendary expressionism—especially the ancient form which did not have their books published under the Dewy decimal system with indicators on the spine that read “legend” to tell them the genre in which their history was being expressed at any given time. So how do you tell the audience what type of literary device or format your story is in short of saying it in the title?

You use indicators. This one, with the cattle dying three times is called a “literary device.” Each genre type in Scripture (and there are many) has its own set of devices which helps the reader understand if they are being taught a moral lesson or being told history or if they are being told history in such a way as it is used to teach a moral, etc., etc.

As this thread discussion brings out, in Exodus the poor cattle die several times, three times to be exact—once in a plague, again during a hail storm, and then again in the plague of the firstborn.

Either the writers of Exodus were stupid, or the audience they were writing too was stupid, or we are (well, not really stupid, just unlearned in this, because this is not the only place such a thing happens in Exodus…I’ll let you discover those other instances on your own). Also this description of the animals dying three times was written and copied this way for centuries, and while we can tell through analytical study where corrections likely happened, this was not the case. This detail was written this way with a purpose.

Because it happens in such close succession within the structure of plagues that also uses a specific number (ten), then obviously it is a device (three deaths to the same animals—poor things). What is it telling the audience to whom the story was written for? Simple, that the God of the Hebrews is real with enough power to do anything (especially in comparison to the powerless carved figures that the Egyptians so highly revered—and eventually stuck “dead” by the Hebrew God).

This type of storytelling was not in any way exclusive to the Hebrews either. It is a form still used today. In fact, do you know that many of the details school children are taught in the United States about the ride of Paul Revere actually come from the legend but are not literally true? While this doesn’t mean the story isn’t true or that truth cannot be found from the legend of Paul Revere, it does teach us that “truth” is not limited to being expressed in mere accurate details.

Put The Blame for Misunderstanding Where It Belongs (Otherwise the WT Gets Away With It)

Now I didn’t study theology upon leaving the Witnesses or anything like that. I proudly became an average Joe and settled in to life after my exit some 20-plus years ago. While the details may differ, this is basic, “101”-type information found in most study editions of any Bible you can buy at any store that sells them.

If we don’t know this, even after leaving the Witnesses, it’s likely because we still have a lot of Witness dribble still clinging to the brain. It’s not necessarily our fault—more of the religious upbringing and legacy we can thank the Governing Body for.

Remember, the Witnesses teach that they have a corner on Bible knowledge and treat everyone else with a “gotcha sucka” approach, but in reality nothing like that is happening whatsoever. The book of Exodus is thousands of years old, and it has been revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike—and these people developed the systems of universities of higher learning we all benefit from today. With all their vast knowledge and contribution to society we are only fooling ourselves if we think we suddenly see something in a text generations have been studying for eons. That’s a Watchtowerism!

What? You’re the first person out of the billions of others among generations and millennia to uncover a “stumbling” point in Exodus? Really? I bet you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Congress too, right?--Stopping the Watchtower begins thoroughly stopping it in us first!