Posts by adamah

11

Blog post-- Genesis vs 2nd Peter: Lot wasn't SUPPOSED to be viewed as "righteous", but "unrighteous".

by adamah in

so here's part i (of iii) of an in-depth analysis of the biblical character of lot, examining the contradictory depictions offered in the genesis 13/19 vs 2nd peter's assessment.

i still need to pare the article down, as it's way, way too much info, likely unnecessary to make a relatively simple point.

it's important to be thorough, esp.

adamah

Hello,

I've posted the final article of a three-part series discussing Lot's story found in Genesis, this time examining a compelling alternative to the "sex-crazed homosexual mob theory" which has prevailed for centuries. Instead, I look at a "minority opinion" viewpoint that better explains the mob's odd behavior (and is mentioned in Talmudic discussions), combined with insights provided by modern science (i.e. the psychological and physiological factors, such as mass hysteria, and sleep paralysis, that might explain the natural phenomena behind the supernatural beliefs).

Lot's questionable behavior is also cast in a very different light, based on the Yahwist's known fondness for word play (AKA puns) in this example using the double-meaning of the expression "so we might know them" referring to not only having sexual relations but ALSO ascertaining or acquainting themselves to determine the stranger's true motives for visiting Sodom.

Here's a direct link to the article:

http://awgue.weebly.com/article-pt-3-revisiting-sodom-could-sodoms-mob-behavior-stem-from-fear-of-fallen-angels.html

Thanks in advance for reading, and all comments are welcome, either here or there.

Adam

11

Blog post-- Genesis vs 2nd Peter: Lot wasn't SUPPOSED to be viewed as "righteous", but "unrighteous".

by adamah in

so here's part i (of iii) of an in-depth analysis of the biblical character of lot, examining the contradictory depictions offered in the genesis 13/19 vs 2nd peter's assessment.

i still need to pare the article down, as it's way, way too much info, likely unnecessary to make a relatively simple point.

it's important to be thorough, esp.

adamah

Hi Eden,

Yeah, interesting ideas, but don't lose sight of the forest for the trees here:

2nd Peter is clearly saying that Just and Godly Lot was delivered due to HIS OWN righteousness, which directly contradicts Genesis 19:29 which says Lot was delivered on account of ABRAHAM'S righteousness ( "29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.")

In a section titled, "The Godly will Be Delivered" 2nd Peter 2 says:

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

In a nutshell, Genesis says Lot was delivered due to Abraham's merits, 2nd Peter says it was due to Lot's merits. THAT'S an irresolvable contradiction.

All the more ironic is that 'Peter' warns of false teachers in the opening verses of 2nd Peter 2, right before he offers the Lot eye-brow raiser:

The Danger of False Teachers

1 But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves.2 Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. 3 In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed.

It sure seems like 'pseudo-Peter' is trying to point fingers, accusing others of doing exactly what he's doing: introducing false teachings and doctrines, having perhaps being influenced by Greek intertestamental literature (perhaps the equivalent of Lot's seeing tiny Zoar in the distance, and being tempted to engage in just a little sin, and it snowballed from there?). He likely knew the best defense is an offense, playing the role of the protector of the holy word against in order to disarm suspicions. Methinks 'Peter' doth protest too much, and his excessive 'projection' is only one of his 'tells'.

11

Blog post-- Genesis vs 2nd Peter: Lot wasn't SUPPOSED to be viewed as "righteous", but "unrighteous".

by adamah in

so here's part i (of iii) of an in-depth analysis of the biblical character of lot, examining the contradictory depictions offered in the genesis 13/19 vs 2nd peter's assessment.

i still need to pare the article down, as it's way, way too much info, likely unnecessary to make a relatively simple point.

it's important to be thorough, esp.

adamah

Hi Eden,

Eden: "Just read your second article, thank you!"

Thanks for reading! I'll read yours in a minute.

BTW, the parable of the faithful and wise servant indicates to me that Jesus was perfectly OK with the practice of slavery (like the Torah was), and he apparently didn't object to masters beating or dashing slaves to death for not understanding their orders, since Jesus even premised his parables around the concept, as a teaching aid.

Christians quote "love your neighbor as yourself", not understanding that slaves weren't regarded as one's 'neighbors' in Jesus' day, since the term ddidn't apply to slaves (who were considered as the chattel/property of ones 'neighbors', citizens who were landholders, etc).

Eden: "I'm not sure if I go along with you in your conclusion (I know you're not alone in it) that the apostle Simon Peter wasn't the author of 2 Peter."

Well, there's TONS of evidence from NT scholars based on literary-critical analysis, a historical review of church debates, etc, which are not even related to theological discrepancies (I've identified two biggies: Lot's "righteous" claim, and Noah's "preacher" claim, the latter of which I haven't written about). It's up to each individual to review evidence that led Bible scholars to that conclusion, and writing a comprehensive review of all the evidence would be a HUGE project.

The main factor in 2nd Peter's favor is that most pastors/priests/elders have tons of motivation not to disrupt the status quo, knowing these discrepancies are ignored by 99.99% of the congregants who, even if it were explained to them, would likely see it as no big deal. So these discrepancies are only a big deal to those who think they're a big deal, and able to recognize a discrepancy when they see it. In fact, that's what inspired me to dig deeper: a claim made by a JW that the Bible didn't contain any contradictions, and it was the first example that came to mind.

Eden: "In any case, how would I make my defense that Peter might be WRONG about Lot and YET be the real author of 2 Peter?"

Shouldn't you be telling me how you can do that? :)

Just realize that 'Peter' added information that's not in the Genesis account, as if to support his "righteous Lot" case, ie he claimed Lot's soul was vexed by hearing the filthy speech of the Sodomites day after day, though the Genesis account contains no mention of anything of the sort (and it actually indicates Lot sought out the company of those evil sinners). That concept of being vexed doesn't come up in the earlier works that influenced 'Peter' AFAIK, since Epistle of Clement credits Lot's hospitality to strangers, and 'The Book of Wisdom' just says he was "righteous" without saying what evidence supports the claim.

Adamah

11

Blog post-- Genesis vs 2nd Peter: Lot wasn't SUPPOSED to be viewed as "righteous", but "unrighteous".

by adamah in

so here's part i (of iii) of an in-depth analysis of the biblical character of lot, examining the contradictory depictions offered in the genesis 13/19 vs 2nd peter's assessment.

i still need to pare the article down, as it's way, way too much info, likely unnecessary to make a relatively simple point.

it's important to be thorough, esp.

adamah

Ooops, sorry about that, DeWandelaar: I changed the title of the articles, and apparently that broke the posted links!

I fixed the link above, but in the future it's probably best just to go to the main page and select from the site's pulldown navigation menu (at the top right of each page), as sometimes I'll decide to change the title, and must remember that doing so will break posted links! Doh!

Here's the main page:

http://www.awgue.weebly.com

And here's the correct links that go directly to the articles about Lot's contradictory depiction in Genesis vs 2nd Peter.

Part One: http://awgue.weebly.com/article-pt-1-revisiting-sodom-was-lot-supposed-to-be-viewed-as-a-righteous-man.html

Part Two: http://awgue.weebly.com/article--pt-2-revisiting-sodom-was-lot-supposed-to-be-viewed-as-a-righteous-man.html

It's really a glaring discrepancy which is hard to ignore, esp for JWs GB, who rely on 2nd Peter's example of Lot and Noah to justify their preaching work. The authenticity of the epistle of 2nd Peter is defo on the ropes: I've looked, and haven't found this discrepancy being mentioned by NT scholars as further evidence of chicanery. It's really a biggie, and likely effective: I've already used it with a 70 y.o. JW elder who's looked into the issue, and he's now asking questions which cannot be resolved by the organization. Who knows: he might be some poster's parents or grandfather.

The best approach is to get a JW to defend Lot, perhaps asking the opening question offered in the article. If the person possesses even a shred of decency, they'll be reluctant to defend him, and are somewhat relieved when you show them the proper interpretation of Lot (which, as I point out in the article, is the way most Hebrews have read Lot for 3,000 yrs). However, then the question becomes, what happened in 2nd Peter? I provide a smoking gun of the "Book of Wisdom", a work likely written in Jewish Hellenistic Greek in 1-2BCE, which ALSO is a misattributed work written in Solomon's name (which is laughable, since he didn't write in Hellenistic Greek).

PS: I figured out how to enable comments on the blog, so either there or here is fine. Again, I'd appreciate if you all would let me know if you see typos, grammatical or spelling errors, or suggestions on ways to make it "flow" better, in order to better get the point across. I fear it's too wordy, as it stands, which only dulls the impact of it's message? Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks,

Adam

12

MAN is a late arrival--why blame him for everything?

by Terry in

almost every watchtower publication we've ever seen begins in the garden of eden.

we are told the earth was created for man.

we are told man was given a paradise and that his disobedience introduced to the world sin and death.

adamah

Heh, good point.

You'd think an 'intelligent designer' would start by working out the kinks on the less-complicated and the least-powerful creations and progressively work their way up to the more-powerful ones; they'd start with the inanimate objects (stars, planets, rocks, dirt), then progress to the fairly-benign non-threatening plants, then the more ominous bacteria, then take on the challenge of making small animals (they can bite with their sharp teeth!), then larger animals, and finally the dangerous and crafty humanoids. After working out bugs on the humans (ie that pesky "free will" defect), the designer would finally create the angels, the ones who could completely throw a wrench in the proverbial monkey-works if the process were to be done, say, in reverse. But since we're dealing with a 'perfect' creator (who cannot make ANY mistakes), that concern obviously wouldn't apply!

And good luck to those experiencing an mild case of cognitive dissonance, if the concept of a perfect God who makes imperfect creations makes any gob-smacking sense to them!

BTW, what was God thinking, making the serpent the "craftiest" beast of the field like that? It apparently was created to be more clever than the humans, since it was able to trick them. ;)

41

Why is there Evil? Atheist why has Evolution not eliminated it?

by ÁrbolesdeArabia in

jw
friends

.

satanus, i though i did a double post on this same thread, sorry i tried to delete the wrong one!.

adamah

Hello!

I read something recently about the relativity of evil that puts it pretty well:

To the rodent being eaten alive by a large creature with sharp teeth and nasty claws, a common tabby cat is the living embodiment of pure evil. However, to the farmer who bought the cat to address a rodent problem in his grain stores, the cat is good, doing exactly what he got it to do.

However, it turns out the rodent was actually an endangered species of kangaroo rat, and hence the common cat (and it's owner, who lets the cat loose in a protected area) is evil to the environmentalist, who's trying to prevent an endangered species from becoming extinct.

It's all relative, as one organism's 'evil' is another's 'good' (depending on what criteria is employed).

11

Blog post-- Genesis vs 2nd Peter: Lot wasn't SUPPOSED to be viewed as "righteous", but "unrighteous".

by adamah in

so here's part i (of iii) of an in-depth analysis of the biblical character of lot, examining the contradictory depictions offered in the genesis 13/19 vs 2nd peter's assessment.

i still need to pare the article down, as it's way, way too much info, likely unnecessary to make a relatively simple point.

it's important to be thorough, esp.

adamah

Hello,

I've written and posted part 2, which attempts to clear up some loose ends as to why such a mischaracterization could occur:

http://awgue.weebly.com/article--pt-2-revisiting-sodom-was-lot-supposed-to-be-viewed-as-a-righteous-man.html

Eden, that's an interesting observation about Paul not including Lot as a 'righteous man'. Could it be that Paul, like Jesus, was a Jew who was raised studying the Torah and KNEW that Lot was always intended to be interpreted as a reprehensible character? Lot's wife was the only unrighteous one in the story who is destroyed as a result of disobeying a direct angelic order, where the lesson is that the unrighteous shouldn't push their luck, as they're already treading on very thin ice.

Dewandellar, the thing to keep in mind is that 50% of the Torah is laws: it's basically a book of criminal and civil code book-ended on both sides by stories and examples that illustrate why certains laws are needed, and to provide a geneological background that explains how they came to be where they were. That's a common trait of many other ancient historical documents (eg code of hammaurabi also intertwines laws with a story explaining how the kings came to be given authority by the Gods).

So the accounts in the Torah were written to be heard by a Jewish audience in 500BC who WERE subject to the Law of Moses and facing the threat of diaspora, and the authors tried to blend their mythology and legends into the tale that also explained their geneology.

However, that approach potentially introduces HUGE continuity errors into the storyline, the most obvious example being how murder/manslaughter (blood-shed) supposedly wasn't prohibited by YHWH until AFTER the Flood, with Divine authority granted to Noah to enforce the new "no murder allowed" law (in the Noahide Covenant, found in Genesis 9). So God seemingly forgot to prohibit murder AFTER Adam's fall, and even AFTER the Cain and Abel bloodshed incident? YHWH didn't have Divine Foreknowledge to the see that such a rule might be a good idea. It also implies that the pre-flood World existed in a state of anarchy, since someone forgot to delegate authority for men to create a system of self-rule (whoopsie-daisy)!

But looking at it from a legalistic standpoint, the Noahide covenant is broadly interpreted to cover those who came after the Flood: that would include Abram and Lot.

I'll write a future article on that topic, as it's a point that is widely overlooked (as are other discrepancies found in the Flood account, the Garden of Eden, and so on).

mP, I'll be writing the next article on that very point, looking for another explanation underlying Lot's offer to hand his daughters over to the mob (and it's not to rape them, or even to offer them up for sacrifice to their pagan Gods (which some have suggested as a possible motive: that would be REALLY despicable!), but instead, for their safe-keeping. While it doesn't exactly exonerate Lot from his seedy depiction throughout, it might plausibly explain his eyebrow-raising behavior in the episode, and let him partly off the hook. It still doesn't make him righteous, though: in my latest article, I offer the answer offered in the Bible that tells us exactly why Lot was saved.

I'll be writing a sociological interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah account, relying on known physiological phenomena which might help explain the superstitious beliefs found in the Bible that might explain why the account mentions ALL the town's males (young and old) trying to rape male strangers (which begs the question, why would all the males in town be homosexual?). You'd almost think the legends were correct: there MAY have been a law forcing them to do so, as if it were their civic duty. ;)

Adam

11

Blog post-- Genesis vs 2nd Peter: Lot wasn't SUPPOSED to be viewed as "righteous", but "unrighteous".

by adamah in

so here's part i (of iii) of an in-depth analysis of the biblical character of lot, examining the contradictory depictions offered in the genesis 13/19 vs 2nd peter's assessment.

i still need to pare the article down, as it's way, way too much info, likely unnecessary to make a relatively simple point.

it's important to be thorough, esp.

adamah

Hello!

So here's Part I (of III) of an in-depth analysis of the biblical character of Lot, examining the contradictory depictions offered in the Genesis 13/19 vs 2nd Peter's assessment. I still need to pare the article down, as it's WAY, WAY TOO MUCH info, likely unnecessary to make a relatively simple point. It's important to be thorough, esp. when going up against a few millenia of mischaracterizations of Lot being seen as "righteous" (when Genesis suggests the exact opposite).

http://awgue.weebly.com/article-revisiting-sodom-was-lot-supposed-to-be-viewed-as-a-righteous-man.html

Questions, comments, blatant errors, typos, discussions, etc. are welcome, either here or on the blog (those blog doo-hickies are confusing: I'm still having trouble getting the comments to work, but hopefully I'll get it worked out within a day or so......

Thanks!

Adam

15

Hi, from Adamah

by adamah in

jw
friends

i'm just stopping in to say "hi!

" to everyone (and is this the right forum?

i didn't see a newcomers intro forum, but maybe i missed it).

adamah

Hi, and thanks to all for the words of encouragement. I appreciate it, as I also have family members who are still under the influence of the JWs, and we're all working for the same cause.

I'm knee-deep in an ambitious topic that I mentioned above (and it's rapidly growing into a series, as I've bitten off a HUGE topic, with plenty of moving parts; it's just way too much info for readers to digest in only one page). I hope to have the first article posted later today.

The Lot discrepancy may prove useful to those of you with JW family members sitting on the fence, as the discrepancy is GLARING once you re-read Genesis account without being swayed by 2nd Peter's characterization of a "righteous" Lot. Once it's laid out to JWs, it's pretty hard to ignore the evidence (and the benefit of talking to JWs is they're taught to appreciate OT symbolism, and the hints become unmistakeable once it's pointed out to them).

Oh, I need to add a bio to the blog to offer details of my academic background, personal/professional life, etc, but I don't want to get sidetracked from the Lot article right now (gotta strike while the irons hot, and the inspiration hits).

Adam

15

Hi, from Adamah

by adamah in

jw
friends

i'm just stopping in to say "hi!

" to everyone (and is this the right forum?

i didn't see a newcomers intro forum, but maybe i missed it).

adamah

Hello,

I'm Just stopping in to say "Hi!" to everyone (and is this the right forum? I didn't see a newcomers intro forum, but maybe I missed it). Anyway, I've run across this site over the years when researching JW-related topics (and a special thanks to Leolaia for all the well-researched insights that she's posted over the years).

About me: I was raised in "the truth", but soon figured out that something was rotten in the State of Denmark. I'm now retired, and want to write more articles that may prove helpful to those who are struggling to break free from the JWs.

Along those lines, I've started a new blog to encourage free-thinking, having written a first article on a JW-related topic examining about how both the Sparlock video and Illustrated Bible Story of Lot rely on Ephesians 6, but to come to very different conclusions. Their (ab)use of Ephesians is a classic example of 'eisegesis', forcing the interpretation to fit into some desired doctrinal message vs letting the doctrine arise from the scripture (exegesis).

Here's the article, called "Listen, Obey, Or Be Turned Into a Pillar of Salt":

http://awgue.weebly.com/article-listen-obey-or-be-turned-into-a-pillar-of-salt.html

Rather than post a copy here (is that allowed? If so, I'll post a copy if anyone's interested in reading it here), I provided a link. Your comments are appreciated either here, or over there. I'll be checking in, from time to time (and would appreciate if people point out typos, spelling errors, etc. After all, nobody's human). :)

P.S. I'll be adding more articles in the very near future, within the next day or two.

(I'm currently writing an article about the difference in characterizations of Lot as "righteous" offered in 2nd Peter 2:6-9 vs the actual behavior presented in the Genesis account, which actually reveals that Lot was NEVER intended by readers to be seen as a "righteous" character, but in fact the opposite! I'm also writing another article exploring possible explanations for why Sodom's notorious reputation for inhospitality may have arisen, in the first place).

Thanks!

Adam