Posts by kepler

26

How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)

by Wonderment in

how credible are nwt's critiques?

: allin and john 8:58.a few weeks ago we had a discussion surrounding john 8.58. the posters in this forum offered various views in regards to jesus' divine role in scripture.

occasionally, some scholars publish articles where they voice their opinion against the nwt theological renderings.

kepler

Wonderment:

Of the languages I have studied beside English, Greek is far down the list. More of an analyst with a dictionary and grammar than someone with any type of fluency. So I will concede to all that I am not able to argue this matter from a standpoint of grammar much beyond the rudimentary. But all the same, I am not arguing this matter because I am that much more naturally comfortable with notions such as a triune God. My case is simply what I read in the text of John and what, evidently, early church writers saw in the text as well speaking in the same tongue. They appear to spell it out.

It was pointed out elsewhere as well that if Jesus simply asserted that he existed in some form prior to birth, he was not necessarily evoking an idea that was blasphemy. Many, including the Jews of the time, have suggested that we have some existence prior to birth. And the duration of this might have been a speculation as well, an existence that could have extended prior to the time of Abraham - though it seems like a stretch as well for it to come up as a rejoinder in such a context.

But what clearly provoked the rage in Chist's listeners was his choice of words.

Significantly, Origen in breaking all this down does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but simply the Father and Son.He does not suggest that Jesus was the Archangel Michael or a spirit older than Methuselah.

And in the case of Chrysostoms:

"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?"

If you believe that this quote is somehow carefully edited to convey such an idea, then perhaps someone can provide us with an alternate translation of what the first sentence of the quote above must have said.

26

How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)

by Wonderment in

how credible are nwt's critiques?

: allin and john 8:58.a few weeks ago we had a discussion surrounding john 8.58. the posters in this forum offered various views in regards to jesus' divine role in scripture.

occasionally, some scholars publish articles where they voice their opinion against the nwt theological renderings.

kepler

It was remarked in another forum:

" What [is] not take into account is the particular category of usage into which John 8:58 falls as a result of the context in which it is found. As D.A. Carson points out in his book, Exegetical Fallacies, context and usage are much more important than technical, grammatical rules. He calls these kinds of fallacies “grammatical fallacies.” While there are many possibilities when it comes to the use of words that would fall within the parameters of Greek grammar, the proper understanding of terms comes most often through discovering its actual usage in the sacred text....

" “The ‘I am’ formula without the predicate,” or “I am” without anything following it (Gr.—ego eimi) , is used frequently in John’s Gospel and elsewhere in the New Testament, with crucial antecedents in the Old Testament as well. In Mt. 14:27; Mk. 13:6; 14:62; John 4:26, 6:20, 8:24, 8:28, 18:6 and, of course, John 8:58, as we’ve seen, we find this formula used, but each time it is in the context of either some sort of miraculous intervention where Christ is revealing his divine authority, or in the context of an overt statement declaring his divinity in no uncertain terms as we saw in John 8:58. This does not mean this “formula” cannot have other meanings, but it does establish a context in which we find it often relating to Christ’s identity as more than just a man in the New Testament."

For those who are just picking up this discussion, I will repeat one of the earliest arguments I can find in Biblical textual analysis in the Greek community - for which I presume a translation into the vernacular is not required.

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.'

---

John Chrysostoms examined the same text in the same language a century later with the same conclusion.

I suggest that if one is actualy looking for a grammatical problem, one might consider what language or languages these Gospel exchanges might have been undertaken originally. Aramaic with the disciples on the Lake in Matthew? In Hebrew with the high priest in Mark?

66

The wt has now changed Jesus definition of neighboor

by poopie in

jw
friends

the man asked jesus who is my neighbor jesus stated the one who acts mercifully toward other humans.

not good enough for watchtower neighbor must fit in three catagories only according to yesterdays wt wow changed the words of the son of god.

kepler

lanalonger,

I had not read the new interpretation either.

I have little doubt that individual members of the WT&BTS are willing to treat anyone as their neighbor in the same context as the parable in Luke - and I know of some- but I have had both instruction and been on this forum long enough to detect a doctrinal problem on this matter. I remember the topics where brother and neighbor had to be explained, I have heard hundreds of anecdotes.

When instructors ( usually an elder and a brother or two) would come to my house to provide instruction, I remember their response to the earthquake in Haiti. It was merely another sign of how close we were to the End. Yes, but aren't you and the congregation going to participate in raising any aid? No answer and very uncomfortable. Later, when there was an earthquake in Japan of enormous intensity, I happened to locate a WatchTower service on line which like a continuously rolling scroll; it listed the status of all JWs in affected areas as fast as the KHs could report and operated for several days thereafter. A complete census, as it were, of believers. And along with the household pets, there was some mention of mixed marriage spouses.

I got the picture.

But it's heartening to know that the central offices have finally offered clarification on this matter.

Post script for the story in Luke; another reading. The man walks by seeing the injured man on the road and just assumes that the final cataclysm, the Apocalypse has already occurred.

66

The wt has now changed Jesus definition of neighboor

by poopie in

jw
friends

the man asked jesus who is my neighbor jesus stated the one who acts mercifully toward other humans.

not good enough for watchtower neighbor must fit in three catagories only according to yesterdays wt wow changed the words of the son of god.

kepler

NWT already has some notable edits on Luke, but one can imagine what chapter 10:29-37 might look like in the future.

MEMO to Writing Committee:

Fix this:

"But the man was anxious to justify himself and said to Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?'

"... A man was once on his way down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of bandits; they stripped him, beat him and then mae off, leaving him half dead. Now a priest happened to be travelling down the same road, but when he saw him he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite who came to the same place saw him and passed on the other side. But a Samaritan traveler who came on him was moved with compassion when he saw him. He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. He then lifted him onto his own mountand took him to an inn and looked after him...

"Which one of the three, do you think proved himself a neighbor to the man who fell into the bandits' hands?"

"[The man who posed the question] : 'The one who showed pity towards him.' Jesus said to him. 'Go and do the same."

-----

Scenarios:

1. 1st man, a JW correctly identifies no connection as brother or neighbor. End of parable.

2. 2nd man runs across 1st man and they later shake hands, carry publications door to door.

3. 3rd man discovers injured man was JW after all and acts accordingly. Both subsequently anoint themselves.

Will review.

Thanx.

GB

14

Conversation with a Biblical scholar - Richard Dawkins

by CookieMonster in

quite interesting when you look at the bible objectively and the historical records.

it highlights the problems of using the bible as authoritative and validation of history.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxcutg0lvr0.

spoiler: didn't know that the immanuel prophecy attributed to jesus as being born from a virgin is actually a mistranslation.

kepler

Mephis,

Thanks for the note. As a follow up here as well, I looked into the Temple of Solomon on the Wikipedia:

Because of the religious and political sensitivities involved, no archaeological excavations and only limited surface surveys of the Temple Mount have been conducted since Charles Warren's expedition of 1867–70. There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts [ Save Josephus - Kepler]. ]Yet there is no scholarly school of thought that doubts the existence of the First Temple.

There are some other inconsistencies in the article such as the presumed date of construction based on other Jewish sources. One in the 9th century. But the basic problem appears to be a matter of lack of access to the archeological site. It's not so much a matter of Solomon being proved non-existent as an inability to proceed with the tests. So I would still contend that Huddleston's counter's to Dawkins were extremely lethargic for a Biblical scholar.

46

Starlight in a Young Universe

by Perry in

the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.

‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

kepler

Perry,

Reading over your first post, I am not sure what your bottom line is. Is it that some things that are posited by science are so strange or contrary to common sense that they can't be taken seriously? But yet again, you mention several Bible quotes suggestingt the Lord's creation stretched the fabric of space. And then later you say that your faith in Jesus causes you to triumph over scientific hypotheses that seem absurd.

And then there was mention of "Starlight in an early universe." What about it?

It sound a little like how much sugar and cream for one's coffee: just this much. And anyone else's version is absolutely wrong.

Do you use GPS? It's accuracy is based on general relativity corrections. Are there not also devices that are based on quantum mechanics? Does uranium have a natural decay rate and half life that will assure that half of it will be lead in 4.5 billion years? There are other things that can be named to support the case for a science and nature that seems to have properties that defy common sense, but what's the use? What is the straw man that they are being measured against? A creation culminating with Adam and Eve in a garden 6000 years ago? Ten thousand? Which sect's interpretation of scripture?

Since most scientific hypotheses are submitted to explain existing natural phenomena and to predict more, the ones that are unsuccessful are discarded or the theories that they support are modified. Hence the Scientific Method. Now assuming one of these hypotheses fails, there might be an opportunity for submitting another hypothesis. But in the case of lot of the supposedly "religious" critique is to reconcile observation with what was already written in the Bible, it gets hard sometimes: The sun stops in its passage above the Earth to assist Joshua in battle. Or that the Earth is set immovable on its foundations. Those are the straight-forward ones. Implicit controversies such dinosaurs and men in a pre-deluge world - you have to really like to stack up houses of cards. One could put together a hypothesis to explain such glaring discrepancies between observations and scriptural text, but how would they serve to predict any other NATURAL phenomena? Unless it's not the point...

14

Conversation with a Biblical scholar - Richard Dawkins

by CookieMonster in

quite interesting when you look at the bible objectively and the historical records.

it highlights the problems of using the bible as authoritative and validation of history.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxcutg0lvr0.

spoiler: didn't know that the immanuel prophecy attributed to jesus as being born from a virgin is actually a mistranslation.

kepler

Listening to the discussion, it came off to me something like a cross-examination by a lawyer ( advocate) of a friendly witness. But when John Huddleston pauses in response to a question about why he needs verification from Assyrian Annals about Biblical Kings and Chronicles relating to the military process of the House of Omri:

"It's a good question." It does not sound fake. I looked for some background on Professor Huddleston and found some explanation of his viewpoint at the school website. See below.

In essence, both Dawkins and Huddleston are coming from the same perspective, but for different reasons. Dawkins the biologist draws conclusions about religious beliefs from his unrelated academic work, but based as well on the necessity to find cause in mechanism. Huddleston studies religious texts as well, but is bound either by profession or considerations of academic integrity to do the same. In the first ten minutes or so, it is difficult to say whether Huddleston actually has a religious persuasion. But maybe he does. He just does not allow it to influence his professional work. So if you are looking for a debate here, it's just not there. Dawkins is simply smart enough to know where archeology and near eastern studies stands to ask his guest the right questions to support his own viewpoint.

Personally, from my own reading of this sort of thing, I am astounded by the lack of evidence for David outside of the Bible too. Yet the fact remains that there was a Kingdom of Judah as well as Israel. Is there an explanation for Judah's existence that completely sidesteps Solomon and David? How about that Temple attributed supposedly to the clan?

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

As a scholar who deals primarily with history, society and culture of the ancient (and sometimes not so ancient) Middle East, I adopt a comparative approach both in my classes and research. Thus, discussion of any text or artifact--biblical, Mesopotamian, Egyptian or otherwise--draws upon its wider ancient environment (for example, understanding biblical wisdom literature, historiography, or prophecy as larger ancient Near Eastern phenomena). In this regard, teaching the Bible in a secular, liberal arts institution can be a subversive enterprise. Any talk of authors, redactors, compilers, and their motivating ideologies situates the biblical text within its human context, and ultimately explains it as a human product, an approach in accord with the humanities. As a historian of religion, I do not presume to get into the mind of the deity in the Bible or speculate about divine motivations aside from what is present in the text. Students frequently ask me, "Why did God, who is omniscient, do X with Abraham and not Y?" I can offer plenty of reasons—literary, social, historical, political, etc.—for why the author or editor might wish to portray the biblical deity in such a fashion, but as an academic in a secular institution I deal with socio-political, literary and other motivating factors, rather than timeless theological truths. For me, it is the human dimension of ancient texts, including the Bible, that make them most appealing as an object of study, and that allows me to ask questions that would otherwise be less relevant from a purely theological perspective. It is my goal to instill in students an appreciation for the underlying strategies and ideologies that inform these ancient writings and the cultures that produced them.

Prior to his career in academia, Professor Huddlestun worked as a professional musician, living in southern Europe and Israel. He also pursued studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew language, Egyptology) before returning to the U.S. to begin graduate work at the University of Michigan.

36

Ridiculous statements in this weeks study article

by the truth is mine in

maybe it is just me but when i read this paragraph all i could do is shake my head and wonder how i used to buy into this crap and how people don't wonder what the hell the writers are thinking'.

"imagine what life would be like if god did not have love for mankind.

we merely have to look at the awful history of this world with its human rulerships under its unloving and wrathful god, satan the devil.

kepler

BluesBrother: Right on.

Though I would like to mull over a passage mentiond.

Years ago, when the above verse in Luke ( 4:6) was pointed out to me, it was during the time when I was taking instruction at home on account of my then fiancée's intent to return to the JW fold. Confronted with this verse and my instructors' insertion of its truth, my first reaction was to look for the other accounts in the Gospels. Matthew had neglected to mention that Satan owned everything. Mark never mentions the incident in the interval between John the Baptist's proclamation and selection of the four first disciples, though enough demons appear in the narrative to seem to substantiate the claim in Matthew. John doesn't mention it either.

I guess that to the other three Gospel writers this matter of ownership wasn't that important. Or they didn't believe the claim in Luke. Or they weren't there to verify the story. For a total package document that's entirely inerrant, it makes you wonder.

My instructors seemed to like the idea that that it entailed though. Everything in the world was worth nothing ( except what they already had or could obtain) and if they played their cards right, they would also inherit everything after the world's rightful owner came back to make His claim. Another leap or two over several decades of JW "thought" and you can get to the F&DS.

Looking at the two incidents of the Temptation, Matthew and Luke differ in other respects.

In Luke, first the world is offered by its keeper, and then Satan asked Jesus to throw himself down from the parapet of the Temple.

In Luke at this point, Satan unceremoniously leaves after exhausting his wiles and Jesus returns to Galilee, subsequently to read the scrolls of Isaiah in the synagogue.

In Matthew, Jesus is first asked to throw himself down at the parapet of the temple and THEN he is taken to a high mountain and given an offer. Matthew does not say how he left the mountain, but angels appeared and looked after Him. Curiously, in both accounts, it is Satan which recites Psalms about the roles of the angels to guard Him.

Ironically, it is Matthew which invokes the Magi at Christ's birth, wise men from the East who we come to realize are originators of much that is dualistic in western thought. Luke has shepherds arriving at the site instead.

So, it all goes back to whether God loves the Creation or not. Theodicy as it were. Why is there suffering? I don't know. And looking at Biblical verses such as the above which seem to contradict each other on key points about key issues, ... Why should I assume that a Satan owns anything, when he makes no appearance in OT and the accounts differ so much in the 4 Gospels if they exist at.

But if we were simply to rely on the remaining values of antiquity, we all might act like Cicero or like Caligula. The lesson is incomplete. As a result of what is recorded in the Bible and what our ancestors did in response, I am confident that our role on Earth is to make it a better place than it was when we arrived here. This would be the case whether the End is ten minutes from now or ten billion years.

7

What's up with the HEBREWS translation?

by TTWSYF in

this book states in verse 8 chapter 1 that the father calls jesus god.

the nwt is very different.

i wonder which one is the most accurate?.

kepler

Interlinear of the Word Study Greek English New Testament compiled by Paul McReynolds et al.

"to but the son the throne of you the God into the age of the age, and the rod of the straightness rod of the kingdom of you"

But then the next sentence/verse speaks of

"You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness, there God, your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

Something for everyone, right? It would appear that NWT editors edited based on the following sentence and their own pre-disposition. But the disposition had to come from somewhere.

When I was instructed in my house by JWs, the Elder wanted to make a point with Hebrews, but we never seemed to reach that point. But it would appear to me that these two lines are confusing in light of the centuries of debate about the Trinity, its existence or no.

Reading elsewhere in Paul's epistles, I am not aware of anything so explicit in behalf of a Trinitarian view. And certainly nothing like the juxtaposition of a sentence so opposed. It seems most Trinitarian argument would rest on the Gospel of John. But like many, since Hebrews is not introduced as Paul's actual work, I would suspect it was written by someone else, including his views - along with someone else's.

Which was which?

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.