Posts by OldGenerationDude

22

Jesus told A lie, John 7:8-10

by jam in

did he tell his brothers a lie?.

john 7:8-10 (8) go to the feast yourselves; i am not.

going up to this feast for my time has not yet fully.

Remember while our reading of a text may be as simple as turning our eyes to it, our understanding can often be clouded by modern notions as well as unfamiliarity with the way both writer organized material and the reason a person spoke in such a manner.

There are forms of expression in Hebrew that cannot be understood at first blush or very easily from a translation, especially when one has no familiarity and experience with the culture. To illustrate, not too long ago in American English there was a great difference between calling a woman "phat" and "fat," even though the words sound the same. Someone listening who was not in the loop with fads and US pop culture would not be equipped to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the differences between the two phrases.

While the words in John may be Greek, the original language was Hebrew/Aramaic which uses an indirect way of communication (recall the unique use of the Semitic half-affirmative at Matthew 26:25, 64, 27:11, "you say so" and the "what have I in common that has anything to do with you" expressions of Jesus--a use of the Hebrew denial-of-common-interest form at John 2:4, also used at Mark 1:24, 5:27). These are forms of speech which have no equivalent in English or in our Anglo-American culture. And they are not the only ones that one comes across when reading John, as the verses of 7:8-10 demonstrate.

I came across several commentaries in reference to this reading, and this is the way it is generally explained by translators, theologians, and exegetes:

The Gospel of John relies heavily on a series of word plays that repeat again and again and again. For example, there are several uses of "I AM" that, while they can be translated different ways, are used instrumentally throughout the text in reference to the prologue at the beginning of this gospel.

The same play occurs with the expression "go up." Like Jesus reference to his raising the temple of his body, the gospel of John commonly shows Jesus acting contrary to his words as a way to demonstrate that his disciples often missed the true meaning behind them. Since Jesus does go to the festival, apparently he is once again talking about something which cannot be gleaned from a surface listening to or reading of his words, even in their original tongue. The indirect use of speech common to the Hebrew culture was obviously a pushing-of-the-envelope in the hands of the Nazarene teacher to an extent not experienced before.

Because of this creative use of the indirect-expression in Hebrew culture by Jesus, scholars note that there are three other "go up" statements that occur in John, namely at 3:14, 6:62, and 20:17. All four together are seen as a play on the words "go up", referring not only to going up to Jerusalem but also to exaltation at the cross, the resurrection, and Christ's ascension.

Some early manuscripts have "not yet" inserted that, via analytical textual research has been demonstrated to be an interpolation by those who were unfamiliar with Jesus' original meaning, and took the reading as false the way it stood.

40

Why is the Watchtower petrified by Higher Criticism?

by Doug Mason in

what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?

what are they trying to hide?.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.

OldGenerationDude

And the Watchtower doesn't even realize how unreasonable their stand against critical theory is. If it weren't for critical textual analysis they would not have the master texts which they claim they based their New World Translation upon. The master texts they cliam to use are based on critical readings.

This is not an endorsement of religion or belief in the Bible either. Siding with a well-proven form of study should be something the "true religion" should embrace, but they don't. Truth is not really what they are after.

Looking at something with a critical eye means willing to accept something on its own merits. I don't believe any of the writings of William Shakespeare were inspired, but I sure wouldn't want someone who was not learned in textual and literary criticism to publicly print interpretations of his work and claim that their undisciplined views on Shakespeare were the only correct views on the planet. That's insulting.

So a person doesn't have to be a theist or a believer in any mythology or texts of any particular ancient religion to insist that such works be handled by trustworthy academic principles. The texts of the Bible are still part of the library of literary works produced by humanity, and just on that basis alone deserve better than the "Magic-8 Ball" analysis the Governing Body of JWs give them. Regardless of what I believe about the Bible itself, ancient texts don't deserve to be in the hands of idiots.

21

What if Adam knew his wife, before the sin?

by Nambo in

i sometimes wonder how things would have been if adam and eve had procreated before eating from the tree of knowledge, and the ramifications of such.. if any children didnt also eat of the tree, would we now have two groups of humans on earth, one perfect and living forever, and us.. would god have split the two classes of human, putting eden on another planet or dimension or such?.

does this indicate that its all deliberate, that god knew satans plan so let the play unfold before letting adam and eve know each other?.

or does it just mean that satan was allready corrupted and wanted to get his deed done at the very beggining to ensuer he had everyone?.

OldGenerationDude

Mainstream theology goes back to pre-Christian times, before there was a canonization of even the Tanakh. I'm Jewish, and I can tell you that neither Constantine nor a desire to appease any Gentile or to act like other religious systems was ever at the heart of their exegetical system which laid the foundation for academic critical analysis of Biblical texts.

I'm not against atheists or those who may have some type of spiritual belief but reject the inspirational claims regarding the Bible. In fact I applaud the use of the rational mind and education over beliefs wherein the emotion is allowed to take over. I don't think it is just for the society to not blink an eye if I publicly display a menorah but allows others to go all up in arms when an atheist wishes to do something like place their views or even question the beliefs of others on a billboard. What’s wrong with someone asking another person to apply sound reason and academic principles? I will always side with free speech and freedom of conscience and don’t believe I have to share the exact conclusions of my neighbor to defend what I know is right.

But I've never seen the "Constantine" argument backed up by any critical analysis or academia (it falls under opinion, not fact). Therefore I personally side with the critical approach when it comes to religious study and which makes clear that the authors, editors, and interpolators of the writings of Scripture had little to no idea nor intention to create a self-defining text. The idea that the any Biblical texts can be read and interpreted independent of the religious traditions that formed them, as if the texts themselves offered up greater insight when all but the texts themselves were ignored, sounds more like wishful thinking or even attributing some sort of mystical power to them beyond even the claims of most theists.

While I respect your opinion, I think the context has to be widened in the way academics and scholars have been doing so via critical theory. After all, the "scribes" who produced and copied these texts were themselves the very religionists you condemn, and I don't think one can read any text independent of the views of their human authors, regardless if one believes they contain divine revelation or not.

21

What if Adam knew his wife, before the sin?

by Nambo in

i sometimes wonder how things would have been if adam and eve had procreated before eating from the tree of knowledge, and the ramifications of such.. if any children didnt also eat of the tree, would we now have two groups of humans on earth, one perfect and living forever, and us.. would god have split the two classes of human, putting eden on another planet or dimension or such?.

does this indicate that its all deliberate, that god knew satans plan so let the play unfold before letting adam and eve know each other?.

or does it just mean that satan was allready corrupted and wanted to get his deed done at the very beggining to ensuer he had everyone?.

OldGenerationDude

And remember folks, I didn't come up with this. Since I didn't make it up and since it is basic mainstream theology (and you have no need to fear the Watcthower punishing you for doing so) you are free to do the reasearch on your own with no one bothering you. Just because you study the critical approach and find it makes sense doesn't mean you suddenly become a "born-again Bible believer" of some sort (note tootired2care's response). Many who teach critical theory are not associated with any religion at all but are historians or literary academics.

Also, one last note: I do know that this same school of thought actually teaches against the view that tootired2care claims to be an axiom. That "axiom" is a central dogma of Fundamentalism literalist theological thought. The mainstream view is that God is not trying to force people to do what he wants. Instead God is trying to demonstrate that we are more like God than we realize and that we naturally reflect God's best qualities in our dealings whether or not we believe in God. (Romans 2:13-16) Being obedient to God is not like living up to a code of laws but it is actually our sharing in God's own rule over creation.

Instead of having to go up a mountain to God to get a set of laws that only bring death if we don't live up to them, this theology teaches that God became a human being to show us that we don't have to go through that to be like God. We are naturally made that way, or so this school of thought teaches.

This doesn't necessarily change the conclusions anyone makes, but the point is that a lot of what we sometimes think is applicable to the Bible or religion in general after leaving the Watchtower is just JW-muck. There should be no fear of unlearning and abandoning what we were told was true as Witnesses and at least opening ourselves to being really educated (not just personally reading up on things) on all sorts of subjects. The point of what I'm stressing is that we shouldn't adopt a certain view based on what we were taught by the Governing Body. If the Bible doesn't teach that God will not accept his creation if they do not bend to his will, and that is the reason we reject the Bible, then we're rejecting the Bible on account of something the Governing Body teaches, not on mainstream theology.

As the book Wisdom states (a book rejected by JWs):"God didn't make death. God takes no delight in the ruin of anything that lives. God created everything so that it might exist."--Wisdom 1:13, 14, Common English Bible.

21

What if Adam knew his wife, before the sin?

by Nambo in

i sometimes wonder how things would have been if adam and eve had procreated before eating from the tree of knowledge, and the ramifications of such.. if any children didnt also eat of the tree, would we now have two groups of humans on earth, one perfect and living forever, and us.. would god have split the two classes of human, putting eden on another planet or dimension or such?.

does this indicate that its all deliberate, that god knew satans plan so let the play unfold before letting adam and eve know each other?.

or does it just mean that satan was allready corrupted and wanted to get his deed done at the very beggining to ensuer he had everyone?.

OldGenerationDude

Hi there. Thanks for the questions.

First of all, I didn't "propose" higher criticism. I was just offering what that form of teaching offers. The exegesis I offer isn’t my own invention, neither am I claiming it represents my current belief.

When we come out of the Watchtower we don't realize how much our thinking has been altered by the Governing Body, not to mention what we don't get exposed to, like the mainstream explanation. That is what I offered.

However, in answer to the questions, I found the following (remember I didn't come up with it, I'm just offering what I have researched--and it doesn't necessarily reflect my personal convictions either):

Tootried2care: The critical approach doesn't deny the historical basis to the story. It merely teaches that the Genesis account isn't a news report. The story is written to teach the lessons learned from history, i.e., "What can we learn from the choices our first parents made?"

It's like an illustration I've used before: school children in the United States often learn American history via the legendary tales, not the dry historical facts. "Paul Revere's Ride" by Longfellow is a legend, but it is taught as history. Why? Because Longfellow's poem tells Americans not just what Paul Revere did, but what his ride meant for the Americans, saving what history means for them, and how this one act changed the course of history. The actual historical details are a little different. One doesn't learn the legendary side of this event if they are British or live in Russia. Instead the just learn the dry facts because Paul Revere's ride doesn't mean the same thing to others as it does to Americans. Americans keep the meaning of Revere's ride alive by this tradition, but it is practically meaningless outside of the U.S.

The same goes for the Adam and Eve account. The critical approach doesn't deny that Eve was deceived by Satan the Devil, it merely states that the Genesis account is communicating religious "truths" through a simplified narrative, a "legend" similar to Longfellow's poem. Early Christian theologian Gregory Nazianzen wrote that the trees in the story were symbols for the type of choices Adam and Eve faced. And even the account writes details in the narrative which is meant to tell the reader that symbolism instead of literalism is being used (note the rivers mentioned running through the Garden of Eden alongside the Euphrates at Ge 2:10-14, a paradox and geological impossibility for a historical account).

And as for the other questions, just because the story of Adam and Eve is told in allegorical symbols doesn't mean it isn't based on a historical event. Again, Nazianzen wrote the events were real, but merely simplified into symbols. And this approach isn't saying there wasn't a Fall, it is just saying that the account of Adam and Eve is not presented in Genesis as telling us exactly what was entailed in the Fall like a news report would, but merely impressing upon the reader that that the Fall happened due to concupiscence.

Again, just because Longfellow's account of Paul Revere is written in the form of a legendary poem doesn't mean that Paul Revere wasn't a real person or that the events described didn't happen. But it's a poem, not a news report or historical account. The same thing about the Adam and Eve story: it's not that the events described didn't happen, but the events as written in Genesis are in the form of mythos, allegory, or parable, not a news report or historical account.

21

What if Adam knew his wife, before the sin?

by Nambo in

i sometimes wonder how things would have been if adam and eve had procreated before eating from the tree of knowledge, and the ramifications of such.. if any children didnt also eat of the tree, would we now have two groups of humans on earth, one perfect and living forever, and us.. would god have split the two classes of human, putting eden on another planet or dimension or such?.

does this indicate that its all deliberate, that god knew satans plan so let the play unfold before letting adam and eve know each other?.

or does it just mean that satan was allready corrupted and wanted to get his deed done at the very beggining to ensuer he had everyone?.

OldGenerationDude

We were speaking about the critical theory approach to Bible interpretation in another thread, and what it teaches about Adam and Eve and this story may be apropos here.

The story about Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is not an historical account of how sin can into the world. It is, instead, an explanation of why God has to call people--his own creation--back into union with their Creator. Again, mainstream theology as well as first-century Christian exegesis states that this is a story about "why,' and not about "how" as the Watchtower teaches.

The first 11 chapters of Genesis are allegories--parables, like Jesus of Nazareth used, to explain truths regarding humanity and its origins. Now it's not about origins, in the sense of giving a scientific or even popular superstitious view (even though, as critical Biblical theology points out, much superstition can be seen in the details offered, such as in Genesis 1 where the sun, moon, and stars are described as being stuck into a "firmament," meaning a dome that had an inner vault in which rain water could be stored). Like the parables Jesus used, these tales are purposely written with a style that readers of the past understood were allegory or religious stories with a moral to them. Instead of marking the writings with numbers of the Dewy decimal system or words such as "Fable," the way we do with modern books, all ancient Mesopotamian writings of the time used narrative devices or indicators to make the stories impossible to be confused with literal reports (such as telling one creation story in Genesis 1 and then suddenly telling a conflicting one right afterwards; it's not a mistake, but a common earmark that says: The details are not where the truth lies, so look for a moral).

The following stories in Genesis are more historical with less allegory, but mythos nonetheless (again, not to be confused with the vernacular use of "myth" meaning "falsehood;" the literary meaning of "myth" is here meant, an "origin" story, usually wrapped in a religious lesson or view of the meaning behind historical events). The story centers around Abraham, then Moses (as Genesis is one book with the four that follow it in the Tanakh, a combination known as simply as Torah, "Law").

The critical approach teaches that the main thrust behind this book is not what the Adam and Eve story tells us about history but what that story has to do with why God called Abraham to follow him, and why later God sent Moses to call Abraham's children to freedom. The reason? Simple: Humans have a tendency to throw God out of the picture, even when it is evident that to do so is to their detriment.

The Adam and Eve story is not a story of how sin came about, but that we are subject to concupiscence, a desire to do things based on our limited experience and even deifying that experience, often comparing it to that of God's knowledge and wisdom, or supplanting the need for it.

In the story, Adam and Eve lose paradise because of this. But we never really are told exactly what they did, besides eating fruit, that introduced this concupiscence in the first place. As the apostle Paul later stated in one his letters, eating doesn't cause a person to get closer or further from God. Only doing something with the full knowledge that it will displease God and even cause harm to another, even their neighbor's conscience, is considered sinful when Paul discusses food. (Romans 14) Therefore it is would mean even throwing away the logic of an apostle to teach that Adam and Eve's eating of fruit was literal, since there is no power in food itself, for good or evil.

So the question as to when Adam has sexual intercourse with Eve is moot. The story is merely saying that Adam and Eve passed on this condition we seem to be unable to conquer on our own, and that God intervened by befriending Abraham and then freeing them through Moses because people cannot follow God's law if left to themselves, even if it were offered to them via theophany like a burning mountain, a loud horn, and the thundering voice of God himself.

An interesting note: Both Adam and Eve and the newly freed nation of Israel get to hear God's voice, and then both are said to replace God, one by throwing him aside for their own wisdom and the other for making God into something God is not.

Of course, I'm not saying this is the only accepted understanding or there aren't other details offered by critical theory used in Biblical study. Neither am I trying to insult those who are atheists or agnostic and claim another set of convictions. I am merely stating that the Watchtower view is nothing like that held by the majority of Jews, Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestant Christians outside of the ignorance offered by the Governing Body as "food at the proper time."

The food of the Governing Body is like a stale candy bar compared to what "Christendom" feasts upon via the use of critical analysis.

40

Why is the Watchtower petrified by Higher Criticism?

by Doug Mason in

what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?

what are they trying to hide?.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.

OldGenerationDude

I hear the Watchtower in the words of people who claim that this set of convictions or that other are "lures," like bait leading to traps.

Neither religion nor atheism are causes in themselves for the many crimes against humanity. Religion is the excuse for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition. Atheism is the excuse for the terrors of Marxism and other like murderous governments. The real cause of the crimes against humanity is humanity itself.

Humans don't like to take the blame. We will blame others or some doctrine we adopted, and like the Jehovah's Witnesses, we will demonize others who don't share our current set of convictions. But rarely do we find the person critical of themselves.

If anyone who has left the Watchtower believes they can now be a trusted voice when declaring the right way to walk and what type of other groups are wrong, then that person hasn't learned much. If we could make the mistake of belonging to the Watchtower, the last thing we should be doing is acting like the Governing Body does, teaching that religion is a snare--and what else uses a lure if not a snare?

I can only say that I know that the Watcthower does wrong and can be proven wrong. But if anything I have learned to be cautious about it is my personal convictions I now hold. If anything, I have proven myself wrong of being a judge of religion outside the Watcthower--yep, as former JWs we have no tract record to prove we can still call religions traps or in any position to make claims that that are luring people in such a manner.

40

Why is the Watchtower petrified by Higher Criticism?

by Doug Mason in

what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?

what are they trying to hide?.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.

OldGenerationDude

Knowsnothing is correct, along the lines of critical theory as used in theology.

As defined by the Watcthtower and other radical literalists, a person must accept that truth in the Bible is limited to historicity and the inspiration by God requires that the humans used to compose the books did so practically per vadum. That requires one to abandon the use of logic, and thus the mind.

Critical theory champions the school of theology that teaches differently, that truth is not limited to how historical a record is, or even to writings that aren't parable in nature.--Yes, the parables of Jesus aren't true stories. But they are still inspired because they teach morals or truths that these religious groups who composed the Bible believe come through divine revelation. This goes for much of the Bible which rarely employes dry reports of events and instead places events into a narrative form that can teach and instruct.

Also, while a person can come to have faith in God after reading the Bible, one must never forget that that the critical method teaches that the religions came first and that the faith these groups already had were later put to writing, and then even later edited into the forms that were eventually, following a long process, became viewed and declared "inspired" by the authority these groups already believed that had without Scripture. As I've stated many times before, the Bible is a reflection of the religions that wrote it, not the basis on which they are governed or founded.

One does not put faith in a reflection (the Bible) when you have the real deal (the religion) standing right there.

40

Why is the Watchtower petrified by Higher Criticism?

by Doug Mason in

what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?

what are they trying to hide?.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.

OldGenerationDude

Actually, Finkelstein, "critical" study of both the Scriptures and religion in general is the favored approach of the majority of Christian religions today. The methodology of critical study is not new. It is based on the allegorical approach to Biblical interpretation that was the main focus and thrust of first-century religious exegesis.

The word "critical" therefore doesn't have the meaning you are using, such as scoffing or doubting. It's a school of thought with an approach to examination of evidence at its most basic levels and within the context of the subject's form. In academia it falls under "critical theory."

The literalist approach most of us are familiar with is very recent, contemporary with Western society, connected with the periods of American religious revival that swept the states after the Civil War. Only a minority of Christians adopt such a stance, and then it is mostly limited to the most radical of Fundamentalist groups, like the Jehovah's Witnesses. It generally requires an almost complete ignorance with first-century Christian theology and the writing of the Church Fathers.

Examples of the application of critical thinking can be found in such publications as the Zondervan Handbook to the Bible. It has also been the basis of all the exegetical material found in Roman Catholic Bibles, such as the New Jerusalem Bible and the latest New American Bible Revised Edition. The first-century allegorical foundations of Christian critical studies are themselves founded upon the Semitic school of thought and approach to understanding the Tanakh.

There are several possibilities as to why the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses constantly avoids the use of critical theory. While clearly lack of higher education among its members and adherents plays a great part, since it is the basis for even primary-level catechesis taught to Roman Catholic children in First Communion prep programs in the United States, university-level education is not necessarily a formidable hurdle or requisite to what is so readily available from merely reading the footnotes of most non-NWT Bibles.

While this is just a personal educated guess, it is more likely due to the need for different classes to exist among the JWs, and to promote this view and nurture it. Unlike other faiths that can be championed by a sole voice, even that from a mere child, who can rise, oppose, correct, and even condemn the church's authorities (such as Jeremiah and John the Baptist in Judaism, and Martin Luther, Joan of Arc and Bernadette Soubirous in later Christian periods) and still rise to "saintly" or hero status, the Governing Body both teaches and promotes the belief that not only does God speak solely through them, that it is impossible for God to speak through anyone else--as if limiting God's abilities (I can probably do without the "as if," huh?). Only the highest class of them all, those in the Governing Body, are the center of all gnosis of God. Any others not in this unique class are lower forms of humans, unable to be used by God as a mouth piece due to the restrictions invented by the GB class, making God incapable of using anyone except those who the Governing Body approves of.

Critical theory is not the sole property of the educated, but it is often the sword of the stout-hearted. It also requires an open-minded approach, the understanding that a person, any person, can come to incorrect conclusions and even mislead many as a result. Instead of considering certain scenarios as impossible as does the Watchtower and other radically literal approaches, it basis its views on the question: Why not? In other words, who said such and such or this and that is not possible? Prove it.

Sure, you act like Jeremiah and Joan of Arc, you get tossed down a pit, stoned, or burned at the stake as a heretic. When has society not murdered the good? It is not an exclusive feature of religionists either. The atheistic states are famous for using this type of approach too.

Critical thinking only invites "doubt" when it requires a person to admit that they are incapable of fully grasping God. When God does not fit into the definition an individual has invented for themselves about what God is, can be, or even not be, the methodology and the one using it becomes demonized. People are the result of their convictions. Prove any one’s convictions incorrect, the person feels they have lost their identity, religious or not.

In other words, I don't think it's only fear on behalf of the Watchtower. I think it's likely pride more than anything else. Pride mixed with wanting to hate those who use this approach in their study of the Scriptures. When people want to hate somebody or some group, dismissal is the easy path. It avoids having to be petrified, for no one faces or fears what they do not believe exists or may even be a possibility.

70

Would mankind be better off without religion today ? A topical debate .

by Finkelstein in

this is an interesting debate paneled by people representing both pro and con aspects of religion as a ideological concept in human sociality.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfix_e1qnbm.

OldGenerationDude

Yeah, we're anything but doing what's wrong. When we call others horrible things or say something that we would find critical or hurtful to ourselves, we excuse ourselves for saying it about others by chalking it up to "opinion."

"Opinion"-sminion, I say. Words are powerful. That's why the JWs got as powerful as they have. Words, whether you call them opinion or not, still hold the same power regardless of the label.

People have killed themselves because others wrote their personal opinion about them and spread it on the Internet. Those were opinions, right? No less lethal. Those people are dead. They're no less dead because what was written was just "opinion," are they?

If we don't believe that we can and will screw things up as badly as anyone else can, regardless of religion or lack thereof, then we're truly to be pitied. The world is what we make of it, and since it isn't very good right now, everyone in it and all the elements--the religious and non-religious--are responsible.

Passing the buck doesn't make the buck go away.