Posts by kepler

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

kepler

Thanks, Caleb. What I see here in your replies are homilies about scriptural texts that we of other persuasions would not likely ever hear, but would find that there is much to contemplate.

Which is a matter that leads back to something you mentioned earlier: the term Gentiles in Matthew 6:7-9 where Jesus gives disciples guidelines on how to pray, followed by introduction of the Lord's Prayer.

I went back to look at the text - and it is as you said. Chapter 6 begins with a discussion of alms giving and objections to public displays which refer to local practices (e.g., in synagogues - verse 5), but in English, "Gentiles" are called out as the ones who think they will be heard because of their many words. Like many people who retain the scriptures as a composite, I had assumed that Christ was again attacking Pharisees - and perhaps I had even heard as much from the pulpit at one time or another. At the very least this verse is directed elsewhere. Yet it still seems odd, perhaps even anachronistic. Who were these audibly praying Gentiles of which Jesus spoke?

I referred to a Greek English New Testament with the Concordance - and the Greek word used in this case was ETHNIKOS. In the text by Paul Reynolds the Concordance ( Strong number 1482) defines the word as NATION, but in all its applications and in the majority of its variant ( ETHNOS - Nation), the translation is assumed to be Gentiles. Since there are 162 uses of the latter, the context probably decides which is more appropriate, I suspect the rules are not iron-clad. But there are patterns: In Matthew, the early chapters speak of Gentiles up to chapter 20:19 (" the rulers of the Gentiles"), and thereafter we start seeing phrases like 29:19 "make disciples of all nations." And Paul in Romans is translated in speaking of Abraham as "the father of many nations", significantly not "Gentiles". ...Yet it is still the interpretation of the same Greek word.

If I were a raccoon treating translation as a lump of sugar being washed in a stream, I think I could eliminate the use of "Gentiles" altogether. For unless I was there listening to the intonation of the speaker, I could hardly tell which version of the word its evocation is supposed to convey.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

kepler

Caleb,

Been interested in this subject for a while myself. When I was confronted by JW-beliefs as a non, I often found myself wondering what the early Hebrew or current Jewish perspective was on Scriptures. Even though I wasn't getting far in reading commentary, it was an eye opener.

The tip of the iceberg appeared to be the notion that there were such divisions as implied by the TaNaKh: law, prophets and writings, plus the pigeon-holing of the books therein. Ask various Christian which one is which (e.g., Daniel) and consider the implications.

But then considering the JW position is that a Scripture is inerrant, including I suppose Jeremiah 8:8 - while a Rabbinical or even Catholic position these days might be: "Some say, 'Yes', some say, 'No..."

I know that another topic has now been reserved for questions, but there seems to be a lot of cross fire on that channel right now. So, I'll ask you for your taken on what of the books in the Kethuvim, and that is Job.

Admittedly, Job is written in Hebrew, but is it originally a Hebrew story? Does it have any context? What does it mean to Jews? You said elsewhere that the purpose of life is to try to make the campsite better than when you arrived. Does Job address that? Saw the Coen brothers "A Serious Man" a few years ago. Maybe more than coincidental resemblances in the film, but the narrator didn't say at the end that protagonist got everything back in double. There was just a tornado warning.

1

Letter to Paul ( and to Augustine) from a "Roman" about 2 Cats

by kepler in

dear paul ( and if he is on the same cc-list, augustine, the one from hippo),.

i have read your epistles to the various cities and christian communities with understandable and overall interest, but while i was contemplating the behavior of our two household felines, i was brought back in particular to your comments in romans 5:11-21.. it is understood that you had written this piece to interpret the meaning of events described in the as yet unwritten accounts given in the gospels.

and also you had written these letters with a sense of urgency in as you sensed the end of this order was imminent, within a few years.

kepler

Dear Paul ( and if he is on the same cc-list, Augustine, the one from Hippo),

I have read your epistles to the various cities and Christian communities with understandable and overall interest, but while I was contemplating the behavior of our two household felines, I was brought back in particular to your comments in Romans 5:11-21.

It is understood that you had written this piece to interpret the meaning of events described in the as yet unwritten accounts given in the Gospels. And also you had written these letters with a sense of urgency in as you sensed the end of this order was imminent, within a few years. So beside the emphatic, I suspect there was also a need for haste...

But here I am writing two millennia later observing not only my own imperfect nature, and that of my friends, neighbors and people I read of in the papers, or thrust in my face when I sign on to my internet host, but also among the animals who were born without a scheme of salvation, namely our two household cats.

To protect their identities, I will refer to the two female felines of ten years difference in age as Cat A and Cat B with the first of the two arriving in the household the earlier. It (A) was born to a stray in a litter under the back deck and was the last of the four to come into the house from the wild. A neighbor tending the house while we were on travel had accidentally locked (A) in the garage, before it made a decision to join the other kittens, consequently it has had both a mix of feral and cautious characteristics ( coat of arms: Why take chances?). Subsequently, it ran off the other cats with jealousy, greed, suspicion, hectoring...

Fast forward ten years and Cat A is a sadder and wiser cat, now very gentle, tenaciously tied to the house and householders. Since we were short of memory, we thought that in its solitude it might be lonely and would appreciate the company of another feline, a friend. When my wife at work ran across a coworker at a new job who was trying to find homes for newly weened kittens, I got word to expect a tabby (B) to accompany our earlier stealth-like ebony (A).

When they met they hated each other and B has been as tenacious as A in asserting its stake in the house.

While the older cat was reluctant to play at anything, the younger cat was jealous of everything and is currently trying to cut off the older cat's food supply by elbowing it out of its own dinner bowls while simultaneous gorging at its own.

I could elaborate, but you get the idea. Any passion reflected in the early chapters of Genesis can be seen in the animal world, whether animals are thoroughly freed of human nurturing or not.

So what's my point?

In the 5:1-21 all the ills of the HUMAN condition are attributed to one man and his sin, which spread death throughout the world. "One man's offense brought condemnation to all humanity." (5:18). "It was by one man's offense that death came to reign over all."

Interesting. In the first sentence I would take the consequences as being restricted to human kind, but the second sentence would allow interpretation for all creation, right? But then later on the discussion about salvation is restricted to humanity. And then, of course, there is discussion of law which did not pre-exist before Adam, but came along by some sort of creative process as well - to an imperfect world, of course, but we will have to pick up on this aspect of your system of beliefs another time.

Now in the original story to which you refer, there seems to have been a talking snake which already had a reputation for guile. I don't see you referencing the snake directly. And it would seem that your legal argument is that once Eve had consumed the fruit, Adam had compounded the problem in the Lord's eyes by becoming an accessory to her crime. So elsewhere, you refer to this case here and elsewhere as a conflict between God and Adam; not including Eve, Satan or a talking snake.

But granted, like all things read in Genesis, the final argument about the details always seem to come to that that is just how much we are told. Yet still, considering the outcome, and what you and others (billions) have had riding on this story, would it not have been more straightforward if the warning described about forbidden fruit made some mention of a talking snake? And then again, how could a talking snake appeal to the vanity of perfect creations? It seems that the only act of Adam in chapter 3 that placed him above the other animals in the garden was response to the dilemma of what Eve had already done.

I can imagine these questions coming up in your days on the road as an evangelist, but I suspect you will not be replying directly to this inquiry.

Anyone else have any comments?

1

Summer Reading: "The Reformatin - A History", If you're busy, I can let you know how it ends.

by kepler in

there's something of a random walk in jumping from one used book to another.

the closest previous relations to the above were different media: the bbc/pbs series of broadcasts about thomas cromwell in henry viii's court, a fixer for introducing miss boleyn and then removing her from circulation.

and then what i expected to be a sentimental journey through the history of ireland ( the isle to the west of tudorland) by an emigre to america, malachy mccourt.

kepler

A missed typo. The title was supposed to be

Summer Reading " The Reformation - A History"...

1

Summer Reading: "The Reformatin - A History", If you're busy, I can let you know how it ends.

by kepler in

there's something of a random walk in jumping from one used book to another.

the closest previous relations to the above were different media: the bbc/pbs series of broadcasts about thomas cromwell in henry viii's court, a fixer for introducing miss boleyn and then removing her from circulation.

and then what i expected to be a sentimental journey through the history of ireland ( the isle to the west of tudorland) by an emigre to america, malachy mccourt.

kepler

There's something of a random walk in jumping from one used book to another. The closest previous relations to the above were different media: The BBC/PBS series of broadcasts about Thomas Cromwell in Henry VIII's court, a fixer for introducing Miss Boleyn and then removing her from circulation. And then what I expected to be a sentimental journey through the history of Ireland ( the isle to the West of Tudorland) by an emigre to America, Malachy McCourt.

I suppose Ireland was far from paradise prior to Tudor establishment, what with Vikings, Normans pulling their boats ashore and so forth, but it also seemed available to weather the Dark Ages, enough to restore some Northern European literacy via teachers and transcription of Scriptures at Derry monasteries contemporary to Charlemagne. Much the same service was provided to Anglo-terre. But when it came to reciprocity in Tudor times, Ireland should have heaved anchor and rowed a thousand miles away. For an example of what I'm talking about, consider Maynooth Castle or Silken Thomas. And those are just for starters. But was there any relief with New Thought and Parliament under the guise of Oliver Cromwell? And Oliver Plunkett? After the Battle of the Boyne, there were oaths and penal laws.

But as usual I digress. Irish history exposes much of the Reformation underbelly, but it was local and individual in character. Pelican books has a fairly recent history of the oveall Reformation by a Scot historian named Diarmaid MacCulloch. Other than his first name, which I have no idea how it should be pronounced, Mr. MacCulloch writes clearly and insightfully about a vast subject. That I should mention it at all here is, of course, because I think this past has bearing on our present state of affairs. In one way, the deliberations on the continent among speakers of Romance languages, German and Latin transmitted to the British Isles like a virus and then mutated in the English context. But much of what we believe about the Reformation is about as accurate as what we come to think about Columbus sailing off to the western hemisphere ( e.g., there was little question that the world was round or that his voyages demonstrated experimentally). Similarly, whether or not the western church was corrupt or not, it was clearly not without gift or vitality for measures other than religious civil war - and it was possible to be executed by either side for heresy or disloyalty - with the extreme prejudice innovations of the era.

The Reformation did not really start with a whistle when Luther nailed his 95 theses at Wittenburg in 1517 ( half a millennium mark coming up soon), but had roots in various reform movements in the Western Latin Church heir to Jerome and Vulgate. In that context it could be said that the fall and evacuation of Constantinople in 1454 injected much Greek text and philosophy into this environment - and fence sitting scholars such as Erasmus had as much to do with the onset. Luther was an Augustinian monk and hence a student of Augustine of Hippo, author of the City of God and the Confessions. This was not Greek culture or language, but the Latin view the recently compiled and translated combination of New and Old Testament Scripture.

In the light of increased Greek literature, it was the contention of McCullouch that the Reformati was society taking away from Augustine a revised vision, inherent in his works all along and the essence of Luther's faith.

Instead of concentration on a social City of God rising out of the ruins of Rome, Augustine was now to point to the worthlessness of the sinner in the sight of God. Nothing they could accomplish was of any worth and the sacramental system of the church did not change that. Only an unconditional faith in the redemptive act of Jesus.

I'll let others fill in the story on that, if there are any takers. But for Protesting groups, soon all issues in the church were on the table - and the strife among Protestants was near as intense as it was between them and Catholics. Take the Anabaptist movement, for example. But something that many of these groups seemed to have in common and reappears today.

Lutherans, Anabaptists, Zurich Reformers all thought they were living in the END TIMES! And they thought they had a direct line from God on how to deal with it.

They did have some evidence. Constantinople had been taken and converted to Islam much as the Crusader Jerusalem enclave had been taken centuries before - in a military campaign. Here were two instances were violence ( and poor defense) definitely settled something, perhaps forever. And currently,the Turkish Caliphate was just hundreds of miles away knocking off Budapest and the Kingdom of Hungary! The world of Christendom was shrinking to a couple of corrupt monarchies, right?

So once Protestantism consolidated throughout the Germanic speaking world, what did it do about this?

Nothing.

It was Charles V and subsequent Spanish monarchs that pulled the chestnuts out of the fire. Polish forces saved Austria. The Spanish fleet sank the Turkish at Lepanto (Turkey seeks to link itself to the European community by other means these days). I guess it took a lot of silver from the New World to finance all of that.

But as much as there is to mull in all this, I've got to go.

Mark 6, missions of 12, sent out 2 by 2.

by kepler in

this past sunday i was in a church where the gospel reading and sermon was on the above chapter.

it was noted that jesus was acknowledged as a carpenter from nazareth.

his relatives or genealogy was enumerated in a manner that, shall we say, was distinct from the manner in matthew and luke.

kepler

This past Sunday I was in a church where the Gospel reading and sermon was on the above chapter. It was noted that Jesus was acknowledged as a carpenter from Nazareth. His relatives or genealogy was enumerated in a manner that, shall we say, was distinct from the manner in Matthew and Luke. But in verses from 7 to 13, the instructions to the 12 disciples were related.

These instructions have been the gist of many discussions on this forum. For the two by two nature of the evangelism is imitated by the WTS in its door to door solicitations. Two pioneers appear at one's door with literature and inquiries. And two or more representatives from a KH will appear at one's home for instruction. I know this from being on the other end of the log. When someone I knew returned to the KH, she asked me to take instructions and I did. Short version of long story.

But as I look at the verses in Mark, I notice

"So they set off to proclaim repentance and they cast many devils, anointed many sick people with oil and cured them." ( 13).

I saw periodicals with spin on the scriptures, but I saw no oils or cures.

Any comments?

49

this weeks bible highlights: Jehovah slaughters his own people to teach David a lesson

by nowwhat? in

from 2 samuel 24. i am so mad at myself for not making a comment how could anyone explain this away?

then after he slaughters 70,000 he then feels regret?

kepler

The story is vexing enough as it is, but it is worth looking at from other angles.

1. Consider that this story ends the 2nd book of Samuel, but it's simply somewhere in the midst of Chronicles.

2. Note that in Samuel, David simply gets an idea to conduct a census, something that does not seem to cause any displeasure anywhere else. (e.g., birthdays according to Bethel are pagan, but not the census every decade - and no objections raised about Joseph and Mary reporting to Bethlehem). Consequence: an ultimatum delivered from on high via a prophet named Gad. Pick your punishment,

3. The story in its second telling (Chronicles) says nothing about the events preceding it in Samuel ( David and Baathsheba).

4. In Chronicles, David got the idea from Satan...

Other than in Job, as far as I know, this is the only mention of "Satan" in the Old Testament. And he advises David to conduct a census of Judah and Israel... Can you imagine anything more sinister in the eyes of God?

Rhetorical question, of course. But look what happens as a result. David selects a site for an offering in Jerusalem to come to terms with the Lord in penance and the First Temple is erected on the site.

I see in this story a garbled, legendary explanation for why the Temple was built where it was. Re-told in Chronicles, David was a darling and not the ambiguous figure he was to the scribes of Samuel ( and Kings). David's capital has increased.

At about that time too, pretenders to the throne in the Persian protectorate of Judah were capitalizing on the lineage. But it didn't work. We've got Nehemiah and Ezra giving accounts of the early days - and then Judah appears to enter a phase of relative prosperity and happiness under a couple of centuries of Persian kings. They don't march off into exile so much as spread out within the Empire to Asia Minor and Mesopotamia...

By all indications Chronicles was written shortly after the time when its narrative concluded, with the return from Exile and a lot of influences of the Persian sponsors of the return. The Persians were emerging as a Zoroastrian nation; if not Cyrus ostensibly, then certainly his successors. They were dualistic and spoke of many things that earlier Hebrew texts did not.

2

1 Kings 6:31, Insight from archeology, other translations and the good ole NWT

by kepler in

call this a review of a recent article i noticed in the biblical archeological review, "the puzzling doorways of solomon's temple" by madeleine mumcuoglu and yosef garfinkel, bar july/august 2015, pp.

this is not something that i had been waiting with baited breath to find out about, but sometimes there is a serendipity effect when you are idly reading something over breakfast.. the authors, field archeologists working at the site khirbet qelyala in israel, based on evidence from their dig site, believe they have an explanation for a strange reference in 1 kings 6:31. essentially, according to many current translations,.

"the bible tells us that the doors of the inner shrine of solomon's temple had five mezuzot (singular mezuzah) [and] whatever they were the bible is not referring to the little parchment texts in a case on the doorposts of jewish houses that are called mezuzot.

kepler

Drop off your key Lee,

Hello there. If I remember correctly, BAR was drawn to my attention when someone who was in the organization told me of how articles written by Ephraim Stern supported the argument of a 70 year desolation from the year 607 BC. This evidence was submitted in her ministry school. So I went to look for the article - and counter arguments in the periodical where Ephraim Stern posed his position.

As it turned out no one involved in the archeological discussion made any claim that Jerusalem or the Temple were destroyed in 607 BC, but rather in 586/587. And later, about the time I went on line with this forum, I discovered that JW publications often cited Stern in such manner. It had been noted by a number of people on this forum contributing a few years ago - and it was widely acknowledged as a deliberate distortion. Or to be more blunt, WatchTower and so forth lied. Some suggested he sue.

But yes, it is an interesting publication and I have subscribed from time to time. And for the record for everyone else, beside the printed periodical there is an on-line archive available for a slight fee. Since subscribing I downloaded a number of those articles and used that file just now to refresh my memory about Mr. Stern.

The BAR also sends some weekly notices to draw attention to recent articles or to share old ones at random. These are accessible at their website - and often elicit comment - which is solicited to a degree. Somewhat akin to an all you can eat buffet diner, this attracts a few people who ruthlessly exploit the deal. And you don't have to be an OT prophet to predict who or what that attracts: a couple of verbose trolls who cite JW publications to the nines, usually non sequitur. In those waters, most of the other correspondents step around them.

But, my point on the NWT was that the translation, though often treated as a very literal rendering, is really a translation which has a lot of sophomoric problems.

23

Bible Chronology, Egyptology and the Great Flood

by cappytan in

fact: bible chronology says the flood occurred between 2348 and 2370 bce, depending on which scholar you listen to.

fact: the great pyramid of giza was constructed 200 years before, in c. 2560 bce..

so, if you believe in a literal interpretation of noah's flood, you believe that the egyptians built a great civilization, were destroyed by the flood in 2370 bce, and then somehow, they reappeared immediately after the flood, picked right back up where they left off without skipping a cultural beat.. oh, and isn't it ironic that legitimately studying the great pyramid of giza debunks jw mythology now?

kepler

Cappytan,

The simplest solution to dealing with the above critique is to look around in genuine museum collections or check out the terrain of some geophysically active regions of the Earth. In the United States, the Pacific NW is littered with the actions of volcanoes and floods - but not the Big One. Ditto the Grand Canyon. To my knowledge, there are no Noachian flood epochs discussed in geophysical conferences except in one context: Mars. And that is because the notion is an appropriate metaphor for what is observed in Mars terrains due to melts of ice generally more than a hundred million years ago, if not a billion. Ice age melting would be somewhat akin to "Noachian" flood, but these are localized events based on the accumulation of glaciers and lakes behind natural dams... And there is no evidence of communities with written records of the Ice Age thaws.

Something else seems to be at work here. But attempting to reason away the existence of Egyptian civilization prior to 2400 BC is simply sophistry. The next day if it suits the spokespeople, they will invoke the same to support another Bethel point.

The guidebook of the British Musuem to Ancient Egypt, illustrated by its copious collection of artifacts pre and post such a would be flood gives passing mention Manetho, sure. But for the most part their historical records have been obtained from the stone-engraved accounts of the monarchs, scribes and noblemen themselves. Manetho was used as a guidebook obtained from the classical antiquity in the absence of translations of ancient Egyptians.

The Bible in this case mentions names of Pharoahs less than the number of fingers on a hand and in a rather incriminating way if we are wondering about its historicity. Shoshenq's name is garbled. Pi Rameses is already built before the Exodus was undertaken and Neco II the second is attributed with defeating Josiah - in the late 7th century BC. So where was everybody else? Either they were lost in time or the writers never knew, just like it does not mention any pyramids.

The Rosetta Stone was the key to translating Egyptian - and its closest linguistic analog is Coptic. The hieroglyphics date back to 3000 BC. But according to the Guidebook mentioned above:

"Our ability to place features of Egyptian history in their correct relative place depends in part on exact modern dating techniques such as

Carbon 14 testing on organic material, and

thermoluminescence , for dating pottery and in part

on ancient Egyptian texts relating to dates and measurement of time.

Systematic astronomical charts first attested on coffin lids in the first intermediate period, about 2100 BC, [give] the names of decan stars that rose every ten days at the same time as the sun...."

Suffice to say that there are several independent methods of determining the existence of an Egyptian civilization prior to 2370 BC. The JW retort on this question assumes that the reader will not look into the matter at any length.

Note also that Egyptian sources are written in stone or clay. So are Mesopotamian ones. The written artifacts from the same Bronze age period obtained from the Canaan, United Kingdom, Judea or Israel or few and far between. Taking the Exodus and Joshua books sequence of events according to the chronology appearing in the Appendix of the NWT (1984) would have Israel arriving in Canaan while it was still an Egyptian territory ruled as a protectorate. Its a couple of centuries off - if the events occurred that way at all. Check out the correspondence in the Amarna archives, if you want to see what I mean. There is also the battle of Megiddo of circa 1450 BC ( some reckonings in the 1480s - but not the gross uncertainties JW spokespeople imply) Admittedly Thutmose tried to put a spin on this one, but note the location. He wasn't doing battle with Joshua, but Canaanitesin rebellion, supported by Syrians, the king of Kadesh. The battle is recorded in several sources, from first hand accounts, including the temple walls at Karnak.

But I am digressing. Let's talk more about floods.

The most ancient direct accounts of an ancient flood and response with an Ark comes not from Israel or Egypt, but from Mesopotamia. And one of the most recent detailed discussions of this is "The Ark before Noah" by Irving Finkel. Mr. Finkel is an Assyrianologist who has spent his career at the British Museum translating Mesopotamian clay tablets, the curator in charge of cuneiform inscriptions. You should check out the account that he recently published from a cylinder disk dating from between 1900-1600 BC. Not necessarily the oldest account of the story, but certainly the most technically detailed. Significantly the animals collected for this round reed-constructed ark "two by two the boat did enter". While there are values and insights added in the Biblical account, one would have to conclude that the Noah story itself is derivative of this one.

I've got to go.

Kepler

2

1 Kings 6:31, Insight from archeology, other translations and the good ole NWT

by kepler in

call this a review of a recent article i noticed in the biblical archeological review, "the puzzling doorways of solomon's temple" by madeleine mumcuoglu and yosef garfinkel, bar july/august 2015, pp.

this is not something that i had been waiting with baited breath to find out about, but sometimes there is a serendipity effect when you are idly reading something over breakfast.. the authors, field archeologists working at the site khirbet qelyala in israel, based on evidence from their dig site, believe they have an explanation for a strange reference in 1 kings 6:31. essentially, according to many current translations,.

"the bible tells us that the doors of the inner shrine of solomon's temple had five mezuzot (singular mezuzah) [and] whatever they were the bible is not referring to the little parchment texts in a case on the doorposts of jewish houses that are called mezuzot.

kepler

Call this a review of a recent article I noticed in the Biblical Archeological Review, "The Puzzling Doorways of Solomon's Temple" by Madeleine Mumcuoglu and Yosef Garfinkel, BAR July/August 2015, pp. 35-41.

This is not something that I had been waiting with baited breath to find out about, but sometimes there is a serendipity effect when you are idly reading something over breakfast.

The authors, field archeologists working at the site Khirbet Qelyala in Israel, based on evidence from their dig site, believe they have an explanation for a strange reference in 1 Kings 6:31. Essentially, according to many current translations,

"The Bible tells us that the doors of the inner shrine of Solomon's Temple had five mezuzot (singular mezuzah) [and] whatever they were the Bible is not referring to the little parchment texts in a case on the doorposts of Jewish houses that are called mezuzot. The word mezuzah is often defined as doorposts."...

A few paragraphs down the authors note the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible and Jewish Publication Society translation provide the same footnote to the sentence, describing the inner shrine gate with its 5 mezuzot: "Meaning of Hebrew uncertain."

To sum up the authors' findings, their excavations at the above site provided a subscale limestone model of a door with five recessed interlocking door frames. This could have been a model of the Solomon temple doorway or one of a similar building. In fact it appears that a number of doorways at shrines in the United Kingdom (Israel-Judah rather than Brits, etc.) displayed this feature - and there is a high likelihood that this is what the original Hebrew passage in 1 Kings is meant to convey. Yet somehow, even among distinguished Hebrew scholars, this has been a test of ingenuity to explain.

To illustrate the problem the authors provide us with translations from five widely read Biblical translations, four of which I am somewhat familiar with - and I will presume that all take line by line translation as a serious undertaking. So here goes:

New American Standard Bible:

"For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made doors of olive wood, the lintel and 5-sided doorposts."

New American Bible:

At the entrance of the sanctuary, doors of olive wood were made, the doorframes had beveled doorposts."

New Jerusalem Bible:

He made the door of the Debir with uprights of wild olive wood and door jambs with 5 indented sections.

Jewish Publication Society Bible:

And for the entrance of the sanctuary he made doors of olive wood, the doorposts within the frame having five angles.

Keter Crown Bible:

For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made olive wood doors with 5 sided door frames.

---

A couple of these look fairly close. "Five indented sections" from the NJB must have been a J. R. R. Tolkien insight, but I have a bias.

And I suppose other people do too.

But this inspired me to look at what was written under divine guidance in the NWT of the 1980s, the one that was perfect but has been recently improved. Are you ready?

New World Translation:

"And the entrance of the innermost room he made with doors of oil-tree wood: side pillars, door posts [and - the parentheses theirs, not mine] a fifth."

--------------

Beside the valiant attempt to explain what the 5 was all about and bracketing an "and" [waw] which may not have been there, I also noticed the reference to "oil-tree wood", I haven't studied much Hebrew, and I would probably obtain a faster explanation for what's going on there by pointing it to out to others who have rather than continuing my homework. But I have done some study of Semitic languages overall. Modern Arabic which has so many common elements in vocabulary and constructions with Hebrew. It think it has something to say about "olive" and "oil". To wit, you might just wonder if the writer of Popeye comic strips could have helped the 1984 Revision tea, that rendered this from the original languages.

In Arabic "oil" is "zayt".

In Arabic "olive oil" is "zayt zaytu:un". Oil of olive or olives, in other words. So in Hebrew, do you suppose....?

So what we actually had in the NWT were someone's incomplete notes in an effort toward that rendering.

Post script - so to speak:

Interesting to note as well, that in Jeremiah, 8:8, scribes are "secretaries" and in NT ( e.g., Luke 20:19) scribes are scribes, When I think of the NWT, I think of Jeremiah 8:8.