Posts by kepler

13

The book of Ruth... destroys the bible

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

lets pretend two things:.

1. god (yhwh) exists.

2. the bible is his word.. now we follow genesis to judges ok... judges resets at chaper 17-21 but for the purposes od this posts lets ignore that.... ruth we are told lives in the time of the judges... ok no problem/ until the end.

kepler

David_Jay,

I'd say that was a great first post. I'm saving it and will look forward to more.

Thank you for your contribution.

13

The book of Ruth... destroys the bible

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

lets pretend two things:.

1. god (yhwh) exists.

2. the bible is his word.. now we follow genesis to judges ok... judges resets at chaper 17-21 but for the purposes od this posts lets ignore that.... ruth we are told lives in the time of the judges... ok no problem/ until the end.

kepler

Personally, I don't know which incidents in the Bible should be set in concrete. But there does seem to be one avenue of reasoning, taken by others, that might shed some light on how records could be so much in conflict - and that's this That the reign of Judges was not consecutive, but in parallel and overlapping - considerably.

What archeological evidence exists for early Israel, seems to indicate that the Kingdoms which arose rose a couple of centuries after the Egyptian New Kingdom state retreated from Canaan - circa 1200. If Egyptian chronologies are compared with the WT's, Moses and Joshua would be arriving in Canaan ( after 40 years of wandering) in the midst of Egyptian hegemony.

There have been several battles of Megiddo. In more recent times (WWI) there was the battle between the British and the Ottomon Turks. In 609 BC there was Pharaoh Necho and King Josiah. But earlier there was Pharoah Thutmose III (~1458 BC - April - about 20 years earlier by other sources) with the Prince of Kadesh. Subsequently for several hundred years there was an Egyptian Levantine empire.

Accounts of the 15th century BC battle:

- hieroglyphic writings on the Hall of Annals in the Temple of Amun-Re at Karnak, Thebes (now Luxor)by the military scribe Tjaneni serving under Thutmose III.

Unfortunately, the original scribes of Ruth and Joshua did not go to such means to preserve their original accounts.

7

Daniel 12:4, A Watchtower's tactic for the naive and unlearned readers who need to believe in some thing

by opusdei1972 in

"but you, daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end.

many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.

(daniel 12:4).

kepler

Regarding my post above, I said, "I suspect Matthew was written before 70 AD..." That was shooting from the hip as I was writing, assuming that some Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple. I would not necessarily say mine was a conservative guess - unless you are convinced that Matthew was writing an account shortly after the events occurred. Because there are very good arguments for saying that Matthew was written after the Temple's fall.

Whatever the original gospel was that seems to be a template for the existing four, Mark seems to have less elaboration than those that follow. Even Mark suggests that a conflict with Rome was looming in the background - and if it had been written in the time that Paul had written his epistles, then he certainly would have cited it.

The point is that the explanation of the referral to desolation and abominations in the Temple could very well have been written after such events had occurred under Roman banners.

7

Daniel 12:4, A Watchtower's tactic for the naive and unlearned readers who need to believe in some thing

by opusdei1972 in

"but you, daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end.

many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.

(daniel 12:4).

kepler

Opusdei,

Thanks for bringing this up.

Whether Daniel was written in the 160s BC or earlier, it certainly has an odd structure. Some of the later chapters seem like re-writes of the same vision - and for what reason remains unclear.

But the notion that Daniel should keep silent about what he saw, heard or learned - I think you hit it on the head.

I won't repeat all the scholastic arguments for the later date for Daniel's authorship, but I would like to cite some, including one or two of my own.

The year of reign statements give many clues and especially the difficulties Daniel has with identifying who Herodotus. Both Greek authors identify the invading Persians frequently as Medes. Thucydides claims that the battle of Marathon where the citizen soldiers of Athens routed the Persians was a defeat of the Medes. This was 490 BC. The king of Persia was Darius.

If the author of Daniel was a witness to the defeat of Babylon, he would be aware of both Babylonian and Persian records ( e.g., Cyrus Cylinder). If the author was living during the time of Persian control of Judea, he would be aware of Persian monarchs because they controlled his life. But if the author or authors lived in a period when Greeks had long held control over Judea and in which Persian and Babylonian history was a distant memory save for Greek telling of it, ...Well, you've got yourself an apocalyptic book for the Bible - to eventually be placed among the Writings of the TaNaKh and not among the books of Law or the Prophets.

There are links in the Bible ( books, chapters and verses) which tie together an apocalyptic vision to which many groups of Christians (understatedly) have seized. These include Daniel, Revelations and Matthew Chapter 24.

Matthew 24:15 is the only NT citation of Daniel by name speaking of an abomination in the Temple and whether it was time to run for the hills. But Daniel, if written circa 165 BC, could be speaking of the introduction of Zeus and desecrating rites by the Antiochus IV government. Whether this is what the reference means in Matthew is to this, perhaps, or it could be in anticipation of something that would happen in later decades ( the War with Rome) or perhaps the continuing threat at Rome's deification of its rulers would imply. Incidents in Jerusalem stemming from this Roman behavior are included in the account of Josephus Flavius as events leading to the war he describes. I suspect that Matthew was written before 70 AD, so I am inclined to think that the Roman behavior similar to that of Antiochus IV is more likely than a prophecy or a latter inclusion.

26

The mistranslation of John 8.58

by Wonderment in

john 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.

many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.

others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.

kepler

This is ridiculous.

And I say this because to me this is not a question of whether Jesus was clearly as portrayed in John in all 4 Gospels, but that the words were put down by John in contrast to what the others said - and it was understood for subsequent centuries by the Greek speaking Roman world because they said so themselves. Clearly they struggled over that issue for centuries - and not because someone mistranslated from the Greek texts. To ignore them just discredits any supposed "translation" effort.

John Chrystostom was not the only Greek speaking writer of the early church to comment explicitly on John 8:58 ( circa 375 AD).

Origen (circa 225 AD) did so as well.

In his lengthy writings titled Against Celsus, Book 8, chapter 12 first paragraph is as follows:

'In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us. “If,” says he, “these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offense against God if they worship also His servant.” To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, “I and My Father are one,” and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, “As You and I are one,” he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. “For,” says He, “My Father is in Me, and I in Him.” And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” that he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.” We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not “reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,” as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Again He says, “I am the truth;” and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, “who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,” has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself.'

26

The mistranslation of John 8.58

by Wonderment in

john 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.

many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.

others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.

kepler

There is no supposed mis-translation of John 8:58.

Not unless Greeks of the 1st century were incomprehensible to Greek writers of the 4th. See below as John Chrysostom's statement appears in context.

Discussion of John 8:58-59 is provided in GREEK by John Chrysostom ( Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος), c. 349 – 407,[5] Archbishop of Constantinople) in his 56th homily on the Gospel of John.

Chysostom was one of the first Christian writers that did commentaries line by line of the Scripture. Significantly he remained silent about the OT, and had nothing to say about Revelations. Nonetheless, he analyzed the Gospels and Epistles line by line, initiating a tradition that occupied many scholars since the Reformation, e.g., John Calvin and Albert Barnes (1798-1870) author of the Barnes Bible commentaries written in the US..

In John Chrysostom commentary on the Gospel of John, homily 56:

“Jesus says unto them, Before Abraham was, I Am. Then took they up stones to cast at Him.”

Do you see how He proved Himself to be greater than Abraham? For the man who rejoiced to see His day, and made this an object of earnest desire, plainly did so because it was a day that should be for a benefit, and belonging to one greater than himself. Because they had said, “The carpenter's son” Matthew 13:55, and imagined nothing more concerning Him, He leads them by degrees to an exalted notion of Him. Therefore when they heard the words, “You know not God,” they were not grieved; but when they heard, “before Abraham was, I Am,” as though the nobility of their descent were debased, they became furious, and would have stoned Him.

“He saw My day, and was glad.” He shows, that not unwillingly He came to His Passion, since He praises him who was gladdened at the Cross. For this was the salvation of the world. But they cast stones at Him; so ready were they for murder, and they did this of their own accord, without enquiry.

But wherefore said He not, “Before Abraham was, I was,” instead of “I Am”? As the Father uses this expression, “I Am,” so also does Christ; for it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous. Now if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although this was but a trifling one, had He continually made Himself equal to the Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at Him?

26

The mistranslation of John 8.58

by Wonderment in

john 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.

many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.

others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.

kepler

One problem with this argument about translation.

The controversy had already arisen among Greek speaking clerics of the Roman Empire in the 4th century.

John Chrysostom, for example, writes homilies examining the same verses in John and explains Father and Son as both of the same substance. He explicitly opposes Arianism and argues at length against such interpretations.

Check it out.

But whether you believe him or not, once you read him, you will have hard time believing that this is an issue of interpretation into - unless you believe that it was all over a critique of the King James Bible.

2

Dogma, Fogma or Frogma? What's the best word to describe a concept like FDS or events circa 1914?

by kepler in

an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church.

for instance, a fundamental dogma of christianity is the resurrection, but among sects of christianity, dogmas about other details vary.

nonetheless, they are insisted upon in their basic unavoidable, unchanging form - otherwise there would be no basis for the particular sect's belief other than habit.

kepler

Dogma: an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. For instance, a fundamental dogma of Christianity is the Resurrection, but among sects of Christianity, dogmas about other details vary. Nonetheless, they are insisted upon in their basic unavoidable, unchanging form - otherwise there would be no basis for the particular sect's belief other than habit. When these things are identified, they show up like the Apostle's or the Nicene Creed. Now how about an idea like the Faithful & Discrete Slave? Or the significance of 1914? Or the Overlapping Generation? Do we need a new word to convey the concept of dogmas repeatedly altered by New Light? Just change that first letter to F or Fr and...

If I look back over 100 years of the use of the Faithful & Discreet Slave, I discover it is first invoked in such form as a title bestowed on pyramidologist Charles Taze Russell, more like the Good and Faithful Servant. The "Discreet" part came along later because as Joseph Rutherford's legal counsel Olin R. Moyle was not. He didn't keep his mouth shut or his pen away from paper about things he objected to at Bethel. In this way, Moyle contributed something to the New World Translation of the New Testament and a mutating concept. Evolving further from the original parable, the FDS becomes something akin to the Soviet Politburo. It's not a parable or an individual, but a collective entity to which one or more individuals can be appointed or expelled. Russell became a non-person and could no longer qualify.

It's a tenet all right, but not dogma. For that you have to picture something like Fido cast ten feet tall in stone guarding a bone. This belief is surrounded by fog and is slippery. So it is either Fogma or Frogma. With its leaps of supposition I vote for the latter.

When it comes to 1914, Mr. Russell declared that it was the End, the Armageddon he was searching for. He wasn't sure at first even though a hellacious war had broken out in late July of that year, but October had to be significant. No going back.

That was 100 years ago. One hundred plus years. We know (?) now that Satan fell to Earth and Jesus Christ had arrived incognito or both - or that it was the time of the last generation before ...

I vote for Fogmatism on this one, especially since we live in an era of the Overlapping Generations.

The term "dogma" derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine". In the first century CE, dogma came to signify laws or ordinances adjudged and imposed upon others... Well, that last part rings true for sure.

Now here' another. The sacred scriptures were collected and canonized in an Era of Apostasy a couple of hundred years after Christ was on Earth. Moreover, the Era lasted up until the WT&BTS got under way with little or no guidance from above because the principals were off somewhere else in the heavens and couldn't be present on Earth until very recently - and invisibly. So you've got to admit that it's a wonder we've got that book at all. Nonetheless, from amid all the versions of it, it has to be retranslated - including the NT into present day Greek for the people of that land who never had those words in their possession. Now if that is not selling refrigerators to Eskimos. Perhaps it was on account of the accompanying commentary. They just had to have that.

Fogmatism.

Suggestion: Rename the Watchtower - Perpetual New Light

Meet Baruch the Scribe of Jeremiah - and Nebuchadnezzar's Son

by kepler in

i just found another instance of belshazzar being referred to as the "son of nebuchadnezzar".

it's truly remarkable!

the source, i never would have thought of examining: the book of baruch, included in the septuagint and vulgate - and it is attributed, if taken literally as well, to jeremiah's scribe.

kepler

I just found another instance of Belshazzar being referred to as the "son of Nebuchadnezzar". It's truly remarkable!

The source, I never would have thought of examining: the Book of Baruch, included in the Septuagint and Vulgate - and it is attributed, if taken literally as well, to Jeremiah's scribe. Final chapter 6 is a letter dictated by the prophet; the 1st is introductory commentary where we get clarification of whether "son of Nebuchadnezzar" for Belshazzar was meant in general sense of descendant. Move over, King Nabonidus.

In chapter 6, in the text of the letter, it begins:

"Because of the sins which you have committed before God, you are to be deported by Nebuchadnezzar king of the Babylonians. Once you have reached Babylon you will stay there for many years, as long as 7 generations, after which I shall bring you home in peace. [ 7 generations? What about 70 years?]

Now in Babylon, you will see gods made of silver, of gold, of wood, being carried shoulder high..."

So far so good? Heard that expression a few times.

Now in the first chapter this material is introduced as follows:

Baruch 1:1

This is the text of the book written in Babylon by Baruch son of Neraiah, son of Mahseaih, .... in the 5th year on the on the 7th day of the month, at the time when the Chaldeans had captured Jerusalem and burned it down.

1:3 Baruch read text of this book aloud to Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and to all the people who had come to hear...

1:11 Now pray for the long life of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and of his son Belshazzar, that they may endure on earth as long as the heavens endure;...

1:12and that we may lead our lives under the protection of the king of Babylon and of his son Belshazzar, and that we may serve them for a long time and win their favor."

Well, it is hard to make a case one way or another from this translation about whether it's the same author as chapter 5 of Daniel, but certain elements are in common.

Yet there is one big clarification. The author does not know of the existence of Nabonidus. He thinks that Belshazzar as a regent was living circa 582 BC.

In the prayer of Nabonidus which has similarities to the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, the first person narrative seems to lack Nabonidus's name, but it speaks of exile to the Arabian city of Teima. Hence, the modern reader with Babylonian tablets available infers this is Nabonidus recorded elsewhere as having spent considerable time thereabouts. This was an artifact of Qumrum or the Dead Sea.

The problem with all of these stories is that the card deck of much Biblical study is shuffled to make the best match with prevailing orthodoxies - and to emphasize the prophetic nature of Daniel. The defense of chapter 5's genealogy was that the author was referring to Belshazzar as a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar in the same sense as all Jews were sons of Abraham. Just the way people talk in the Mesopotamian valley - You know.

But whoever wrote Baruch begs to differ. Possible reasons:

1. Daniel was written by the same author or authors closely related. So to speak, Baruch does not mention Daniel, but they collaborated or shared the same library sources, whatever date they wrote their books.

2. Baruch's author was not present at the time but interpreted chapter 5 of Daniel accordingly. That creates problems for Baruch's veracity and date of origination. But very likely Baruch was written at a late date. It too has remnants at Qumrum though. And as part of the Septuagint and Vulgate, it says something about incorporation process.

Is it not odd that the text of Baruch is not marshalled to the defense of Daniel's assertions?

Nowadays, Protestant and NWT bibles do not include such deuteron-canonical books in their texts. But there is not a clear explanation as to why. One could suppose that these decisions are based on deliberations where the shortcomings of these works (authenticity or antiquity) were somehow exposed though the cases of Maccabees, for example, and Baruch would be considerably different in nature). Same with adding chapters 13 and 14 to Daniel. But Maccabees puts the prophecies of Daniel in an historical context within the framework of the Bible - and Baruch does much the same to its genealogical claims, besides throwing a window open on the spirituality of the Hellenic period.

Better to leave well enough alone with 2520 years to 1914, etc.

12

Another problem with Daniel

by kepler in

i know, if i got a name associated with anything beside an early 17th century astronomer, it's from picking apart the book of daniel.

much of fundamentalist & apocalyptic thought (sic) arises from explanations of this book's passages and i protest.

we could review other points, but let me note the following discrepancy: the end of chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 9.. chapter 1 begins with the 3rd year of jehoiakim's reign with a nebuchadnezzar raid.

kepler

Vidqun,

Points taken. But for one reason or another I have continued to research this question. And you might find that I did find another instance of Belshazzar being referred to as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. It's truly remarkable!

The source of the reference I never would have thought of examining. It's the Book of Baruch. It appears in the Septuagint and the Vulgate - and it is attributed, if we take things literally here as well, to the scribe of Jeremiah.

In the first chapter of six, including the purported letter from the Prophet.

In chapter 6, in the text of the letter, it begins:

"Because of the sins which you have committed before God, you are to be deported by Nebuchadnezzar king of the Babylonians. Once you have reached Babylon you will stay there for many years, as long as 7 generations, after which I shall bring you home in peace.

Now in Babylon, you will see gods made of silver, of gold, of wood, being carried shoulder high..."

So far so good?

Now in the first chapter this material is introduced as follows:

Baruch 1:1

This is the text of the book written in Babylon by Baruch son of Neraiah, son of Mahseaih, .... in the fifth year on the on the seventh day of the month, at the time when the Chaldaens had captured Jerusalem and burned it down.

1:3 Baruch read text of this book aloud to Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and to all the people who had come to hear...

1:11 Now pray for the long of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and of his son Belshazzar, that they may endure on earth as long as the heavens endure;...

1:12and that we may lead our lives under the protection of the king of Babylon and of his son Belshazzar, and that we may serve them for a long time and win their favor."

Well, it is hard for me to make a case one way or another from this translation about whether it's the same author as chapter 5 of Daniel, but certain elements are in common.

But there is one big clarification. The author does not know of the existence of Nabonidus. He thinks that Belshazzar as a regent was living circa 582 BC.