Jehovah's-Witnesses forum discussions

Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ WATCHTOWER'S basic premise is false (i.e. copy the earliest form of Christianity and you get it 'right')
/  







 

WATCHTOWER'S basic premise is false (i.e. copy the earliest form of Christianity and you get it 'right')
by Terry 6 months ago 18 Replies latest 6 months ago   watchtower beliefs
5
10
20
Terry
Terry 6 months ago

 Watchtower's so-called 'scholars' (excuse me while I throw up) have a basic premise they have always worked under. Namely, the earliest form of Christianity was the purest and least corrupt. By trying to pattern JW's after this earliest form of "purity of Christian doctrine" the so-called TRUTH is supposed to emerge.

Well--apparently this is a FALSE PREMISE, according to Bart Ehrman.
_____
I'm a member on New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman's Blog (about Early Christianity) because I get information there I cannot otherwise have access to which normally would only be available by attending his classes for students studying for their Masters in Theology.
_____
On a recent blog post, Ehrman has pointed out the split within the community of New Testament scholars. To become an expert, a scholar has to choose one or the other of two main fields of study:
1, The history of early Christian theology and 2. the textual criticism of the New Testament.
These two fields have almost always been kept almost completely distinct from one another. Scholars in one field simply have not worked in the other. Part of the reason is that to master either one of them takes many years of full-time work, and each of us has a limited number of years, months, weeks, days, and hours to devote to our work. Another part of the reason is that scholars by and large (with very rare exceptions) did not see the integral relation of these two fields of inquiry.
________________
___________________________________________________________
The History of Early Christian Theology
◦Early Christianity was incredibly diverse in terms of its theological views.
◦Later theologies about Christ, the trinity, and so on were not espoused by Jesus and his apostles
◦In the early church there were enormous debates over such issues
◦The older view that the “orthodox” doctrines of Christianity had pretty much always been the views of the majority of Christians, and that “heresies” were secondary and late offshoots, was established by the father of church history, Eusebius.
◦This view – in which the victors rewrote the history of the engagement – was the dominant view for 1600 years.
◦It was not successfully challenged until Walter Bauer wrote his book Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity in 1934.
◦No one today accepts Bauer’s view in all its details, but its basic understanding of early Christian theological debates is widely conceded: orthodoxy did not always precede heresy in early Christianity, but in many parts of the church heresy was prior and the “original” form of the faith. It was only in a long and protracted series of debates that one view emerged as dominant in Christianity, and that view then dubbed itself orthodox and claimed (wrongly) that it had always been the dominant and true understanding of the faith, going back to Jesus and his apostles.
◦The term “orthodoxy,” then, cannot refer to the “true” understanding of Christianity, but to the form of Christianity that established itself as dominant; and “heresy” does not refer to “false belief” but to a form of Christianity that was defeated and marginalized, and then squashed.
The Textual Criticism of the New Testament
◦We do not have the original writings of any of the books of the NT, but only later copies, most of them hundreds of years removed from the originals.
◦These thousands of copies we have – far more copies than for any other book in the ancient world – have hundreds of thousands of differences in them. There are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the NT.
◦The vast majority of these differences are meaningless, minute, and immaterial, significant for virtually nothing except to show that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than students can today. And to show that scribes were sometimes careless, inattentive, tired, or even inept.
◦But some of the differences matter a lot for understanding the meaning of a verse, or an entire passage, or even an entire book.
◦These significant variations number in the hundreds, not in the hundreds of thousands, but they are important to know and isolate and analyze, because they show (in most instances) that scribes were changing their texts on occasion (not systematically or rigorously) in order to make the text say what they wanted it to say. Or to put it differently (and more generously), they sometimes changed the text to make it say what they thought it meant.
◦
◦Ehrman continues:
"I hope you can see why these two fields were normally not pursued by the same scholars. They really are two different areas of inquiry, requiring different training and different skill sets and different expertise and involving different historical sources and different data and different (unrelated) methodological approaches.
The idea behind The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture was to combine the two fields. Let me stress that I was not the first person who thought of doing so – not by a long shot. But my predecessors were more or less lone voices. Occasionally someone would write a book that would show the relevance of the history of theological disputes for understanding the textual changes in the NT, but this was a real rarity and almost never was it pursued with single-minded rigor. But that’s what I wanted to do.
When I got into the field of NT Textual Criticism, precisely no one was doing that. Very few textual critics knew anything about early theological controversies (apart from a general knowledge). Or if they did know about them, they didn’t see the relevance for the work they were doing on early Christian manuscripts.
But already as a graduate student I started to see how the fields related to each other. And the reason hit me like a ton of bricks. Early Christian scribes who were copying their texts were personally involved in theological controversies. And these controversies affected the scribes, as they sometimes changed the text in light of the arguments they were having with other Christians of different persuasions, leading scribes occasionally to alter the texts they were copying in order to make them embody more clearly their own theological views, and in order to make the texts less amenable to the views of their opponents. That was the thesis of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture."
_____________________
Watchtower Theology is built on a shaky foundation.
I hope you are NOT surprised :smile:




___________
A good analogy for the above is this:
When the New World Translation was being (cough cough) 'translated,' Fred Franz and the others on the translation committee were using PRECONCEIVED Watchtower beliefs to CHANGE the text and bring it into conformity! Just like the scribes in the 1st century and afterward!
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING of writing down Christian Gospels and copying them---IDEOLOGY has corrupted the ORTHODOX (i.e. correct) teachings of Jesus.)
The Watchtower has been on a Fool's Errand from the get-go.




 +5 / -0
TimDrake1914
TimDrake1914 6 months ago
I also enjoyed that entry from his blog, which I am also a part of. Made me want to read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture as I've really enjoyed reading some of his other books. By the way, Terry, have you read the latest December 2015 WT (Study Edition)? The first two articles of that magazine do a very rough overview on textual criticism, and discuss why we can be confident that the Bible is the word of God. As someone interested in scholarly biblical research, I think you will enjoy laughing at some of the statements made in those two articles. Since you enjoy reading Bart Ehrman's perspectives on our Biblical manuscripts, I'm assuming you share many of his views, as I do, and will have many of the same reactions as I did to the content of those two articles.
 
Israel Ricky Gonzales
Israel Ricky Gonzales 6 months ago
I am enjoying reading Bart Erhman's book Misquoting Jesus. I'm about a third of the way through and looking forward to finishing that book.
 
CalebInFloroda
CalebInFloroda 6 months ago

It does seem illogical and contrary to basic JW thinking to claim that the earliest form of Christianity is the most pure or correct--especially since JWs teach that the truth of Christianity cannot be fully understood until the Last Days.
It also runs contrary to Judaism and Christian thinking. In Judaism, revelation is ongoing. Concepts about G-d found in Torah and the Tanakh are ancient and primitive. G-d grows, advances, and Jews believe that humanity grows and advances with G-d, in a give and take scenario. It is where things end up, Olam Ha Ba, the future World to Come under the Messiah that is the most pure and correct, not where we began from.
Christianity is similar. Jesus promises enlightenment to come after his Passion and Death, not before. The Holy Spirit has the assignment to bring followers into a progressing state of enlightenment, learning to accept things that at the time of Jesus his own apostles were not ready to accept. Only at the culmination of history are all things brought to perfection.
Therefore attempting to build a religion that imitates the start is problematic at best.

 +1 / -0
Mephis
Mephis 6 months ago

It would be interesting if the GB were to actually cite which non-canon writings of early Christianity they had consulted in order to try and emulate early Christianity. Because it really is relying on an ex cathedra pronouncement of what constitutes the 'inspired word' to use just the NT in order to try and re-create original beliefs. Surely if the early christian church found something worth reading, it should be included in the canon of anyone seeking to recreate their beliefs? But of course that can't happen because it leads to awkward questions which have even fewer answers in JWland. There's only so many references to Cedar Point, Ohio the Bible could contain after all...
The idea of 'one truth' came up on Terry's interesting thread on Papias too. There is ample evidence for early Christianity not being one detailed doctrine which all held in common. There are clear hints of that even within the New Testament with the debate over circumcision, the disagreements between converts etc. There's some debate around passages in Luke and how they relate to Marcion's version of it, isn't there?
Personally, I do wonder whether many of the early Christians were waiting for Christ's return within the first couple of generations and it was the failure of that to happen which then led to the move to reading things less literally. So perhaps at least there one could identify similarities between JWs and the early Christian church... Vladimir and Estragon are very patient in their waiting too...
 
Vidiot
Vidiot 6 months ago

I remember when I started to realize that "true" Christianity would be, in fact, 1st-Century Messianic Judaism... which would have looked nothing like WT theology, or, for that matter, any modern-day form of Christianity.
Another little "wait-a-sec" moment.
 
Terry
Terry 6 months ago

TimDrake 1914: have you read the latest December 2015 WT (Study Edition)? The first two articles of that magazine do a very rough overview on textual criticism, and discuss why we can be confident that the Bible is the word of God
________________________
I haven't read it. It is a source of endless palm-to-face smacking how the Watchtower leaders approach dissonant reality. They deconstruct with flights of fancy and reassemble at will. True Worship is not about history or reality, only about trust and loyalty--to the GB. All Hail!
 
Terry
Terry 6 months ago

Ricky G: I am enjoying reading Bart Erhman's book Misquoting Jesus. I'm about a third of the way through and looking forward to finishing that book.
________________




I know a JW who read that book and managed (by cherry-picking on the fly) to enjoy it as a support to the Society's teachings! Very flexible cognitive dissonance on his part!




 
Terry
Terry 6 months ago

CalebInFloroda6 hours ago

It does seem illogical and contrary to basic JW thinking to claim that the earliest form of Christianity is the most pure or correct--especially since JWs teach that the truth of Christianity cannot be fully understood until the Last Days.
_______________________
J-Dubs imitate Systematic Theology and the work of others, largely by filtering and rejiggering.
Their efforts have proved to be illusory and self-destructing over and over. Consequently, in this age of the WWW, the only strategy left at their disposal is
the historic ruse and a grand magisterium of revealed 'truth.'
What the Prophetess Ellen White did for Adventism is now what the GB is for the witlesses.
 
Terry
Terry 6 months ago

Assuming certain things for the sake of argument. . .
Whatever Jesus taught or preached was strictly an oral message.
What people heard was either understood or misunderstood; confused and garbled.
At each point, somebody shaped an opinion based on expectations, tastes, ideology, and preconceived ideas.
The viral transmission of Jesus' essential communication was ever and always one on one, one to one, AS FILTERED through the understanding (misunderstanding) of the teller and the hearer.
Repeat this degradation process thousands of times until somebody writes it down and BOOM! We're off to the races.
At this point, we are on square one.
 
Terry
Terry 6 months ago

Bart continues in today's Blog post:
" Most textual critics back when I started (and probably still today) considered the variants found in our manuscript (that is, the changes from the original, at least so far as we can judge) to be simply chaff to be discarded on the way to finding the kernel of wheat in the pile. What mattered was the original reading (the wheat). Everything else was simply an alteration of the text, a corruption (the chaff.
I came to think that this simply did not have to be the case. The alterations were interesting in and of themselves. They should be studied not simply to help us know what the authors originally wrote, but also to see how (and why) scribes changed the text the way they did.
That may not seem inherently interesting at first (in fact, it did not usually seem interesting for many centuries), but it was, and is, interesting to me. Here is one reason why: we have very little primary source material for what Christians were thinking and believing in the second and third centuries. All of our sources that do survive from the period were written by the very best educated, most highly placed, elite Christians. We are really handicapped in knowing anything beyond what these sources tell us about Christian beliefs and practices.
What if we uncovered another set of sources not written by such highly educated elites? Sources that could reveal information about Christianity during the period. That would be *terrific* for our understanding of Christianity in the period.
And I came to realize that this is precisely what we have in the manuscripts of the New Testament. The people who copied them were of course more highly educated than most people. But they weren’t the very upper-crust of the literary elite. If we could detect their interests, concerns, problems, practices, and beliefs, it would enable us to learn more about a period of great interest, the time between the NT writings and the conversion of Constantine, and then the empire, in the fourth century. That could be really interesting. Or so I thought. And continue to think."
 
Crazyguy
Crazyguy 6 months ago
The Christians were killing each other over opinion and it took the counsel at Nicea and the Roman armies to uphold the one and only opinion after.
 
Terry
Terry 6 months ago
The Watchtower gangsters also threaten your life if dare step outside their narrow framework. Armageddon is a bludgeon and disfellowship is a shun gun.
 
Vidiot
Vidiot 6 months ago



CrazyGuy - "The Christians were killing each other over opinion and it took the counsel at Nicea and the Roman armies to uphold the one and only opinion after."
And clearly, that solved all the problems. :smirk:
 
Terry
Terry 6 months ago

Christianity, with its 40,000 denominations, is more than skilled at compartmentalizing disparate elements of reality into walled-off ghettos of hermetic contamination.
The true believer tiptoes around in Hazmat gear, gingerly avoiding facts which falsify the f premises they choose to regard as beyond proof.
This is not merely a Christian phenomenon, it is a human psychological survival mechanism allowing us to create an alternate world worth living in in case the cruel real one indicates we aren't going to survive.
 +1 / -0
Phizzy
Phizzy 6 months ago

Another problem for the JW Org is that the "earliest form of Christianity" is impossible to determine. They like to give the illusion that there was one single church with one single set of beliefs until the end of the first Century.
Of course, this is nonsense. It is plain even from the canonical writings that very different groups emerged right away after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Groups with divergent and opposing ideas.
There is no "original" or "primitive" Christianity to discover, or to recover.
 
Terry
Terry 6 months ago

A microcosm of the contention is illustrated by the apostles arguing over who would sit at Jesus' right hand in heaven.
Those apostles didn't seem too bright or intellectually redoubtable.
 
Vidiot
Vidiot 6 months ago



Terry - "Those apostles didn't seem too bright or intellectually redoubtable."
Hell, there've been times I even doubted their sanity.
 
Terry
Terry 6 months ago

Now that you mention it--you've got a point!
Perhaps they were like most of the uneducated people you'll find in Appalachia (Deliverance country) who are superstitious, naive, magic-thinking, and easily impressed.
 

5
10
20






Share this topic

2




Related Topics
A.proclaimer
1914, leap years, and sticky math situation
by A.proclaimer 3 months ago
AndersonsInfo
Brownstoner: How the Jehovah’s Witnesses Acquired Some of Brooklyn’s Most Insanely Valuable Properties
by AndersonsInfo a month ago
David_Jay
Orthodox Jews Recognize Christianity as 'Willed By God' as Catholics Call Jewish Covenant "Irrevocable"
by David_Jay a month ago
AndersonsInfo
For your convenience, Trey Bundy sent a list of 16 links to all of CIR's coverage of JWs so far, including radio & TV
by AndersonsInfo 19 days ago
blondie
If a year is really 365 1/4 days why 360 days to calculate 1914
by blondie 3 months ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/464820001/watchtowers-basic-premise-false-e-copy-earliest-form-christianity-you-get-right









Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ BART EHRMAN answers my question
/  







 

BART EHRMAN answers my question
by TerryWalstrom a year ago 66 Replies latest 10 months ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago
As a member on Bart Ehrman's Blog, I am able to ask him direct questions.

Is “Jehovah” in the Bible?

QUESTION:
How firmly grounded in reality is the claim of Jehovah’s Witnesses that the ‘divine name’ (Jehovah) belongs in the New Testament?
RESPONSE
So this is an interesting question, with several possible ramifications. At first I should explain that the divine name “Jehovah” doesn’t belong in *either* Testament, old or new, in the opinion of most critical scholars, outside the ranks of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That’s because Jehovah was not the divine name.
So here’s the deal. In the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament) God is given a number of different designations. Sometimes he is called God (the Hebrew word is El, or more commonly – by far – the plural form of that word, ELOHIM); or The Almighty (SHADDAI), or God Almighty (EL SHADDAI), or Lord (ADONAI), or – well, or lots of other things. But sometimes the God of Israel is actually given his personal name. Like everyone else, he has a name. And his name was יהוה (in English letters, that looks like YHWH).
Written Hebrew, as you probably know…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!?

Written Hebrew, as you probably know, does not use vowels, only consonants. When you speak, of course, you provide the vowels. But ancient Hebrew speakers did not need to see the vowels on the page to know what the vowels were supposed to be. And so only the consonants were written.
Later scribes realized that this made reading the texts very difficult for people who were not absolutely fluent in the language, and so they added vowels to the already written text. They could not very well insert new letters representing the vowels between the consonants, since the consonants were already written on the page and there was no room for letters between them. And so they developed a system of “points” that could be added above and below the consonantal letters to indicate which vowels were to be supplied with each consonant. And so there might be a small dot beneath a letter, or a dot next to a letter, or over a letter, or a small line under a letter, or three dots arranged like an upside down pyramid under a letter, or a small T shape under a letter, and so on – all representing different vowel sounds. You can see a list of Hebrew vowels in a number of places on the Internet, including here: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Two/Vowel_List/vowel_list.html
These “pointed” Hebrew texts are the texts that most of us trained in Hebrew in college or seminary or graduate school learned. I find it hard to read Hebrew in any event, but really really hard without the vowel points. I have colleagues, on the other hand, who read unpointed Hebrew like the newspaper. In fact, they read the newspaper in unpointed Hebrew!
So, back to the question. The original name of God, יהוה (YHWH – remember, Hebrew is written from right to left, so that in English transliteration the first letter Y refers to the Hebrew letter י that is furthest to the right, and so on), consists of four letters. It was consider exceptionally, extraordinarily holy. It was the name of God himself. It was so sacred, so distinct from every other word and name in the Hebrew language, that there came a time when Jews thought that it should never, ever even be pronounced.
The sacred name is sometimes called the Tetragrammaton – literally meaning, “the four letters.” Since it came not to be pronounced, scholars are not absolutely certain how it *was* pronounced back in the days when it was. It is usually thought, though, that when pronounced it was “Yahweh.” And so non-Jewish scholars typically refer to the personal name of God in the Old Testament as Yahweh. He was called “God” or “the Almighty” or the “Lord” – but his name was Yahweh.
What were Jewish readers supposed to do when they were reading a text that had the unpronounceable name YHWH in it? What were they supposed to say at that point? They couldn’t say the name. So were they just supposed to be silent? But how then would anyone know that the tetragrammaton was in the text at that point? Jewish scribes solved that problem when they started adding points to the unpointed Hebrew text. When the divine name occurred, instead of giving it its pronounceable vowel points, they gave it the points that belonged to the word for Lord, ADONAI.
When you add the vowels of ADONAI to the consonants of YHWH, it makes it very hard indeed to say. And this was a sign to a reader not to say the name Yahweh, but to say, instead, ADONAI. So they were reading the tretragrammaton, but they were speaking the word “Lord.”
When modern Bible translators were putting the Bible into modern European languages, they were confronted with this situation. There were various solutions devised to express the Tetragrammaton in English. In a lot of Bibles – you may have noticed this (or you may not have) – there is a difference in the Old Testament between the word “Lord” (first letter capitalized) and the word “LORD” (all four letters capitalized). The first word translates ADONAI and the second word translates the tetragrammaton YHWH. That’s how, when you’re reading a translation, you can tell if the tetragrammaton is being used.
But some translators took the tetragrammaton with the vowels of Adonai and created an English word for it. In some European languages the letters Y and J are equivalents (sound the same), as are W and V (think: German). If you spell the name YHWH as JHVH and add the vowels of ADONAI, you get JEHOVAH. That’s a made-up English word, not a Hebrew word (and not, before this, an English word).
People who claim that JEHOVAH is the divine name are kind of right but not really. The divine name was probably Yahweh. Technically speaking the name Jehovah doesn’t occur in the Old Testament.
And it certainly does not occur in the New Testament, which was not written in Hebrew, so that it never uses the tetragrammaton.
When the Old Testament came to be translated into Greek both Yahweh and Adonai were translated by the Greek word κυριος, which in English letters is KURIOS. It is the Geek word for “Lord.” It is a word that can be used to refer to your employer, your master, your superior, or to God, or … to the personal name of God. And so when the New Testament refers to God as “Lord,” it is not clear if it is calling him by his personal name or if it is designating him as the Lord. But in neither case, in my judgment, does it make sense to translate the term using the made up English word Jehovah."
 +15 / -0
Finkelstein
Finkelstein a year ago

Most JWs aren't even aware of where and how the name Jehovah came to be, ironically it came from Christendom.
(False Religion)



WIKI ....

Jehovah is a Latinization of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה, one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. This vocalization has been transliterated as "Yehowah", while YHWH itself has been transliterated as "Yahweh"
יְהֹוָה appears 6,518 times in the traditional Masoretic Text, in addition to 305 instances of יֱהֹוִה (Jehovih). The earliest available Latin text to use a vocalization similar to Jehovah dates from the 13th century.
Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but there is some evidence that it may already have been in use in Late Antiquity (5th century).[5][6] The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh, however there is disagreement. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ("my Lord").
"Jehovah" was popularized in the English-speaking world by William Tyndale and other pioneer English Protestant translators, but is no longer used in mainstream English translations, with Lord or LORD used instead, generally indicating that the corresponding Hebrew is Yahweh or YHWH.
 +2 / -0
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

Today, I followed up with this response:
walstrom March 10, 2015
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Thank you for covering this topic.
I was a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses for twenty years and am conversant with all the arguments presented by the Watchtower organization bolstering their use of Jehovah in the New Testament.
I’ll simply post three of these proffered arguments for your delectation in order to gauge your scholarly response.
1. About the middle of the first century C.E., the disciple James said to the elders in Jerusalem: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) Does it sound logical to you that James would make such a statement if nobody in the first century knew or used God’s name?
2. When copies of the Septuagint were discovered that used the divine name rather than Ky′ri·os (Lord), it became evident to the (NWT) translators that in Jesus’ day copies of the earlier Scriptures in Greek—and of course those in Hebrew—did contain the divine name.
Apparently, the God-dishonoring tradition of removing the divine name from Greek manuscripts developed only later. What do you think? Would Jesus and his apostles have promoted such a tradition?—Matthew 15:6-9.
3.The AnchorBible Dictionary makes this comment: “There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the O[ld] T[estament] quotations in the N[ew] T[estament] when the NT documents were first penned.” And scholar George Howard says: “Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible [the Septuagint] which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”
________________________
Below are some examples of English translations that have used God’s name in the New Testament:
A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the VaticanManuscript, by Herman Heinfetter (1863)
The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson (1864)
The Epistles of Paul in Modern English, by George Barker Stevens (1898)
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford (1900)
The Christian’s Bible—New Testament, by George N. LeFevre (1928)
The New Testament Letters, by J.W.C. Wand, Bishop of London (1946)
_________________
Is this merely a fetish on the part of Jehovah’s Witnesses to protect their ‘branding’?
How arbitrary and out of step with the scholarly community is the Watchtower organization?
Thank you very much!
 +1 / -0
Finkelstein
Finkelstein a year ago

Does anyone have any old WTS. articles that used Jehovah or relating to when and how the WTS started to use Jehovah ?
Assuming that it was J Rutherford who started this usage to distinguish his religion from other mainstream Christian religions.

Just curious.

 +1 / -0
OrphanCrow
OrphanCrow a year ago

Finklestein: Does anyone have any old WTS. articles that used Jehovah or relating to when and how the WTS started to use Jehovah ?
Charles Russell used the word 'Jehovah' when referring to God.
In the January 1884 Zion's Watchtower, 'Jehovah' is used 61 times.
https://archive.org/search.php?query=zion%20watchtower
All early Russell literature uses the word 'Jehovah'.
However, I believe that it was Da Judge who made the use of the 'name' into what it is today.
 +1 / -0
Finkelstein
Finkelstein a year ago

Thanks OrphanCrow

 
Magnum
Magnum a year ago
Interesting, Terry. I hope he responds to your follow-up. If he does, please let us know.
 
OrphanCrow
OrphanCrow a year ago

Finklestein, I think that the use of the word 'Jehovah', within the Millerite movement, was already well established by the time that Russell got his feet wet in the proverbial muck of bible prophecy.
George Storrs published the Bible Examiner in 1843 until 1880. His text is liberally sprinkled with the word 'Jehovah'.
https://archive.org/stream/18431880BibleExaminerGeorgeStorrs/1843-1880_Bible_Examiner_George_Storrs#page/n1/mode/2up

 
freemindfade
freemindfade a year ago
Great read, I too have looked into all this in the past, when my wife just asked me last night if I could ever see myself learning to love 'Jehovah' I said you have to understand what the means to me when you say that, are you talking about El? Elohim? YHWH? Jehovah is a made up word, and not all to creative at that. Canaanites chief pagan god was 'El' and YHWH was one of their pantheon of gods, so I guess I am sort of like that ancient @$$hole Pharaoh when he said "Who is this Jehovah?".... no seriously, who is he? because no one could really say.
 +3 / -0
Finkelstein
Finkelstein a year ago
Just found some Studies in the Scriptures articles where he use Jehovah. ???
What bible did he mostly use, that is Russell.
I dont think the King James version used Jehovah ??

 
OrphanCrow
OrphanCrow a year ago

I dont think the King James version used Jehovah ??
Yes, the King James version does use 'Jehovah'.
'Jehovah' appears 7 times in the KJV (all in the Old Testament).
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?q=jehovah&hs=1
 
davidmitchell
davidmitchell a year ago

About the middle of the first century C.E., the disciple James said to the elders in Jerusalem:
James said no such thing. Acts was composed towards the close of the first century CE. It is a work of fiction.
Apparently, the God-dishonoring tradition of removing the divine name from Greek manuscripts developed only later.
Manuscript evidence? Any physical evidence at all?

The AnchorBible Dictionary makes this comment...
Once again, where is the evidence of what is stated here? This is supposition. After 70CE and the church concentrated on preaching to the Gentiles, the Jewish name for God would be an obstacle to such preaching apart from being meaningless.

And finally, even if the 'divine name' were in use in the 1st century CE, it certainly was not the direct Greek/Hebrew equivalent of the word 'Jehovah' which is a made-up word.










 +2 / -0
Finkelstein
Finkelstein a year ago

Did Rutherford use the KJV of the bible when he took over the WTS ?
Prior to the development of the NWTL ?

 
davidmitchell
davidmitchell a year ago

I dont think the King James version used Jehovah ?
In the KJV, the word Jehovah is included in four texts:
Exodus 6:3
Psalm 83:18
Isaiah 12:2
Isaiah 26:4.












 +1 / -0
davidmitchell
davidmitchell a year ago

OrphanCrow: 'Jehovah' appears 7 times in the KJV (all in the Old
You will find the actual word occurs four times:
Exodus 6:3
Psalm 83:18
Isaiah 12:2
Isaiah 26:4.

 
OrphanCrow
OrphanCrow a year ago

Did Rutherford use the KJV of the bible when he took over the WTS ?
Yes. I believe that the KJV was used right up until the NWT was published in the 1960s. My dad's old JW bible is a KJV.
davidmitchell: You will find the actual word occurs four times:
Okay. Thanks. :smile:
 
Juan Viejo2
Juan Viejo2 a year ago

Orphan Crow, et al -
Yes, the KJV Bible was used by JWs up and through most of the 1950s. The first segment of the New World Translation was released in 1950, and then segments of the Hebrew Scriptures were released at International Assemblies over the next 8 years. I got my first leather bound NWT in 1960 that had all of the segments and a concordance and footnotes. Even though it was my pride and joy at the time, one day while out in field service I traded my leather bound copy of the NWT for an even nicer and far more valuable leather bound copy of "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare." I've loved the Bard ever since.
There were problems using the NWT in field service and during new Bible studies. Since most people had the KJV, if they grabbed their Bible and wanted to read along with you (just to make sure you weren't trying to sneak something by them), the two versions did not match in many places (John 1:1). The accuracy of the KJV was so ingrained in the public's mind, that hearing verses read from the NWT made them suspicious that we were trying to "change the Bible." Of course, at the time we thought that was ridiculous. It was only later that we discovered that those suspicions were actually quite accurate and the NWT should have been titled, "The Fred Franz Authored and Authorized Version of the 1850 King James Version of the Bible."
JV
 +1 / -0
BluesBrother
BluesBrother a year ago

Excellent , Terry. I liked his clear and readable answer to the origins of "Jehovah" . I would really like to see his response to the recent WTS statements that early copies of the Septuagint did contain the Divine Name.
Please keep us posted
 
cofty
cofty a year ago

Brilliant Terry. Marking to read carefully later. Thanks.
 
bsmart
bsmart a year ago

I remember when the green NWT came out (as a teenager) I was under the impression the writers had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were a recent discovery and it made sense to me. I dont recall it ever being said at an assembly or from the podium. I am pretty sure I heard it in the car while we were going door to door.
Now of course, I know different; no Jehovah in the dead sea scrolls either.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20






Share this topic









Related Topics
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Darkknight757
Stupid Watchtower.
by Darkknight757 a month ago
oppostate
Why using Jehovah for God's name is as good as using Yahweh
by oppostate 8 months ago
opusdei1972
The Watchtower says: The Septuagint became God's Word
by opusdei1972 6 months ago
Terry
Impossible conversation: Jesus and Nicodemus: YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN
by Terry a year ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/156150002/bart-ehrman-answers-my-question









Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ BART EHRMAN answers my question
/  







 

BART EHRMAN answers my question
by TerryWalstrom a year ago 66 Replies latest 10 months ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20
sir82
sir82 a year ago



no Jehovah in the dead sea scrolls either.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it is in there.
A few years back, the Dead Sea Scrolls did a "tour" of various US cities. JWs around here got together in groups to get discounted tickets to fawn over seeing "Jehovah's name" in the documents.
They of course ignored the other 98% of the exhibit and spent their time, slack-jawed, nearly drooling, over those few pieces.

 
OrphanCrow
OrphanCrow a year ago



no Jehovah in the dead sea scrolls either.
Sir82: Actually, I'm pretty sure it is in there.
Ummm...no. If you read Ehrman's response to Terry question, you would realize that 'Jehovah' does not appear at all in the original Hebrew text. 'Jehovah' is a made up word.
The tetragrammaton appears in the dead Sea scrolls, but not the word 'Jehovah'.
 +2 / -0
sir82
sir82 a year ago

Well, there's no English words at all in the DSS!
I took a short cut - I found it quicker to write "they were standing slack-jawed looking at the name Jehovah" instead of "they were standing slack-jawed looking at the 4 Hebrew consonants which, over the course of centuries, came to be transliterated into English by the name Jehovah".

 +2 / -0
Slidin Fast
Slidin Fast a year ago

So using simple logic, if pronouncing the divine name was central to god's purpose, if the sanctification or vindication of his name is central to everything. If god is all powerful and is able to preserve his word over all these Millenia. Why the *!?^ do we not know how to pronounce it? Why do we have to guess and invent?
It really don't add up. But you knew that.
 +1 / -0
Finkelstein
Finkelstein a year ago

How could Jehovah be in the Dead Sea Scrolls ?

The Scrolls are for the most part, written in Hebrew, but there are many written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the common language of the Jews of Palestine for the last two centuries B.C. and of the first two centuries A.D. The discovery of the Scrolls has greatly enhanced our knowledge of these two languages. In addition, there are a few texts written in Greek.
Jehovah is derived from Latin which I described in my earlier post .




 +1 / -0
Phizzy
Phizzy a year ago

I await with interest Bart's reply to your last observation Terry.
Should be revealing !
 
cantleave
cantleave a year ago



Good stuff
 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

Stop and think about it.
Christian means identifying oneself with the MESSIANIC identity of Jesus.
Jehovah's Witness is to attest to something else entirely.
The name JESUS encompasses Christianity while the name Jehovah is to harken toward a different ethos.
 +7 / -0
Dagney
Dagney a year ago

Thanks for starting this discussion with Ehrman.
 
DATA-DOG
DATA-DOG a year ago

Great post! I couldn't read it all becuase the edges were cut off. ( my phone perhaps??)
Freemindfade,
I feel your pain. The gulf in thinking/reasoning is so huge between faders and Xdubs, vs JWs, that conversations with any intellectual stimulation or honesty are nearly impossible.
Will you ," learn to love Jehovah"?!?!? WTF does that even mean?!?! NOTHING!! It's impossible to educate a mind that is closed. It's simply not worth the effort! That's why I come here and "cheat" on my spouse, intellectually speaking.
DD
 +3 / -0
Witness My Fury
Witness My Fury a year ago

Looking forward to his next reply.
 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

TODAY'S REPLY on Ehrman's blog:
Bart March 11, 2015

Short responses:
1. “The name” is another way to say the name of God without saying the name of God. You just say, “the name” and you mean “God” or “Yahweh”
2. Yes, there are Septuagint manuscripts that preserve the tetragrammaton. But most don’t.
3. I don’t know of any evidence that NT authors actually used the Hebrew letters for the tetragrammaton in their quotations of the OT. Do these authors actually say what the evidence *is*? I’ve looked at probably all the earliest manuscripts of the NT Gospels and I can’t think of a single stitch of evidence for that claim. But maybe I’m wrong!
 +1 / -0
John Aquila
John Aquila a year ago

So it just dawn on me that for some 45 years I was praying to a made up Name. No different than praying to Mickey Mouse or Scooby-Doo.
There is no way any of my JW relatives will buy this. If I even suggested any of this information, they would reenact the scripture in Mark and have me institutionalize.
Mark 3:21 But when his relatives heard about it, they went out to lay hold of him, for they were saying: “He has gone out of his mind.
 
John Aquila
John Aquila a year ago



Do these authors actually say what the evidence *is*?
From what I can remember, the WTS has never admitted that there is any historical written evidence available that the NT authors used the Hebrew letters for the tetragrammaton. Because it was removed in the 3rd century by apostates guided by the devil.
They said it was “Assumed” that the NT writers used the divine name. Reason being that
1st God’s Son would not be bound by man-made superstitions and
2nd Their love and respect for the Divine name would compel them use the name freely.
 
OrphanCrow
OrphanCrow a year ago

Finkelstein: Did Rutherford use the KJV of the bible when he took over the WTS ?
A bit more about the history of the Bibles used by BibleStudents/JWs over the years:
(from http://pastorrussell.blogspot.ca/2008/08/new-world-translation.html)

In 1884... At first Bibles were purchased from other Bible societies for redistribution .... The King James Version of 1611 in English was used as their basic version for Bible study.
From the time that the magazine The Watchtower began to be published in 1879, the publications of the Watch Tower Society have quoted, cited, and referred to scores of different Bible translations.

In 1896 .....printing rights were obtained from the British Bible translator Joseph B. Rotherham to publish in the United States the revised twelfth edition of his New Testament. On the title page of these printed copies, there appeared the name of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Allegheny, Pennsylvania, the Society’s headquarters being located there at the time. In 1901 arrangements were made for a special printing of the Holman Linear Bible, containing marginal explanatory notes from the Society’s publications of 1895 to 1901. The Bible text itself presented the King James Version and the Revised Version of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. The entire edition of 5,000 copies had been distributed by the year 1903.
The Emphatic Diaglott. In 1902 the Watch Tower Society came to be the copyright owners, sole publishers, and distributors of The Emphatic Diaglott. This version of the Christian Greek Scriptures was prepared by the English-born Bible translator Benjamin Wilson, of Geneva, Illinois. It was completed in 1864. It used the Greek text of J. J. Griesbach, with a literal interlinear English translation and Wilson’s own version to the right using his special signs of emphasis.

A Bible Students Edition. In 1907 the Watch Tower Society published a “Bible Students Edition” of the Bible. This volume contained a clear printing of the King James Version of the Bible and included excellent marginal notes, together with a valuable appendix designed by Jehovah’s Witnesses....

For 30 years the Watch Tower Society engaged outside firms to do the actual printing of its Bibles. However, in December 1926, The Emphatic Diaglott became the first Bible version to be printed on the Society’s own presses at Brooklyn, New York. The printing of this edition of the Christian Greek Scriptures stimulated the hope that a complete Bible would someday be printed on the Society’s presses.
The King James Version. World War II underlined the need for independent publication of the Bible itself. While the global conflict was at its height, the Society succeeded in purchasing plates of the complete King James Version of the Bible. It was on September 18, 1942, at the New World Theocratic Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses, with key assembly point at Cleveland, Ohio, that the Society’s president spoke on the subject “Presenting ‘the Sword of the Spirit.’” As the climax to this address, he released this first complete Bible printed in the Watch Tower Society’s Brooklyn factory....
The American Standard Version. Another important Bible translation is the American Standard Version of 1901. It has the most commendable feature of rendering God’s name as “Jehovah” nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. After long negotiations, the Watch Tower Society was able to purchase, in 1944, the use of the plates of the complete American Standard Version of the Bible for printing on its own presses. On August 10, 1944, at Buffalo, New York, the key city of 17 simultaneous assemblies of Jehovah’s Witnesses linked together by private telephone lines, the Society’s president delighted his large audience by releasing the Watch Tower edition of the American Standard Version. The appendix includes a most helpful expanded “Concordance of Bible Words, Names, and Expressions.” A pocket edition of the same Bible was published in 1958.

The Bible in Living English. In 1972 the Watch Tower Society produced The Bible in Living English, by the late Steven T. Byington. It consistently renders the divine name as “Jehovah.”
 +1 / -0
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

Treating God's Divine personal Name as though it were Holy would mean treating it the same way the Holy of Holy's in the Temple was treated. You wouldn't "go there."
Off limits!
Look how JW's bandy the name about like it is their Uncle Chucky. Jehovah this and Jehovah that--especially attaching it to fake Armageddon predictions that plop embarrassingly flat.
The Watchtower pretends it was silly superstition on the part of Jews to NOT say the name aloud.
The contrast between respect and over-familiarity is quite distinct, don't you think?
 +4 / -0
sir82
sir82 a year ago



Look how JW's bandy the name about like it is their Uncle Chucky. Jehovah this and Jehovah that
Here is a pretty much verbatim clip of every prayer a certain ministerial servant gives:
"Jehovah we thank you Jehovah for this meeting Jehovah and we ask you Jehovah to forgive our sins Jehovah and we pray Jehovah for our brothers Jehovah in other lands Jehovah who cannot meet Jehovah as freely Jehovah as we do Jehovah here Jehovah in Jesus name Jehovah we pray Jehovah amen".

 +2 / -0
Cadellin
Cadellin a year ago

Thank you so much for posting this, Terry. I'm a big fan of Ehrman, having read two of his books. His "awakening" is interesting because he started out as a conservative apologist but delving into the scholarly side of the Bible led him to realize that it is definitely not infallible.
With respect to Jesus using the divine name, I reasoned with my elder husband this way: If Jesus or his apostles had uttered the Tetra., don't you think it would have caused a tremendous accusation by the Pharisees who were looking for any pretense whatsoever with which to accuse them? And wouldn't it have been a wonderful witness for Jesus to stand up to them and defend his use of the Name and decry the Jewish superstition banning it? And wouldn't it be recorded in the Bible as a stirring testimony of courage? Wouldn't that have been totally appropriate for Jesus? And wouldn't he have been put to death for it, since the Pharisees wouldn't have to cook up a false accusation?
His response: Silence.
 +2 / -0
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

If Jesus or his apostles had uttered the Tetra., don't you think it would have caused a tremendous accusation by the Pharisees who were looking for any pretense whatsoever with which to accuse them?
Beautiful reasoning; simple and elegant!
 +1 / -0
Phizzy
Phizzy a year ago
Yup, a few rocks would have bounced off heads, just look at what happened in a Life of Brian !
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20






Share this topic




Topic Summary
as a member on bart ehrman's blog, i am able to ask him direct questions.is jehovah in the bible?.
question:.
how firmly grounded in reality is the claim of jehovahs witnesses that the divine name (jehovah) belongs in the new testament?.




Related Topics
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Darkknight757
Stupid Watchtower.
by Darkknight757 a month ago
oppostate
Why using Jehovah for God's name is as good as using Yahweh
by oppostate 8 months ago
opusdei1972
The Watchtower says: The Septuagint became God's Word
by opusdei1972 6 months ago
Terry
Impossible conversation: Jesus and Nicodemus: YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN
by Terry a year ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/156150002/bart-ehrman-answers-my-question?page=2&size=20







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ BART EHRMAN answers my question
/  







 

BART EHRMAN answers my question
by TerryWalstrom a year ago 66 Replies latest 10 months ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20
Magnum
Magnum a year ago

sir82: Here is a pretty much verbatim clip of every prayer a certain ministerial servant gives:
"Jehovah we thank you Jehovah for this meeting Jehovah and we ask you Jehovah to forgive our sins Jehovah and we pray Jehovah for our brothers Jehovah in other lands Jehovah who cannot meet Jehovah as freely Jehovah as we do Jehovah here Jehovah in Jesus name Jehovah we pray Jehovah amen".
Damn. When I first read that, I sat back and thought "Do I know sir82? Could be be in the last congregation I was in?" We had that exact same situation in our congregation (the brother is now an elder, though). My wife and I actually counted the "Jehovah"s in his prayers. He also used the word "definitely" way too much. One time he used 18 "Jehovah"s and 16 "definitely"s in one prayer.
After I thought about it for a few seconds, though, I realized, nah, no way I know sir82; he's WAY too smart to be one of the elders in my area.
 
Finkelstein
Finkelstein a year ago

Obviously the WTS used Jehovah's Witnesses to differentiate their organization from the rest of Christendom,
but they used a falsely derived name derived from false religion , how ironic.
Hence the playground of religion .
I think Jesus Christ said you are my witnesses , co why didn't the WTS. use the name Christain Witnesses

to fall in line with that scripture. ?
 
DATA-DOG
DATA-DOG a year ago

Why can't they be honest and just call themselves Xian witnesses?? Too much rebranding is a bad thing.
DD
 
Finkelstein
Finkelstein a year ago

Why can't they be honest and just call themselves Xian witnesses??
Most likely Rutherford wanted be connected to the higher (Highest) power than the secondary power of the
son of god. He was a man drive toward power ...... he was " Da Judge" after all.

It was clear that both Russell and Rutherford wanted to distinguish themselves away from mainstream Christendom.
Well they were supposedly exclusively connected to God after all .
No other bible based Christians were by their own propagations. ......and you could read about that in their publications.

 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

Bart
Bart March 12, 2015
Yes, the tradition going back to Papias is that Matthew produced a Gospel in Hebrew. Later Christians thought he meant the Gospel of Matthew that has come down to us. There are very good reasons for thinking that he meant a different book, however, since the two things he says about Matthew are not true of our Matthew. Ours is not simply a collection of Jesus’ sayings (Logia) and it was certainly not originally written in Hebrew, as is almost universally recognized on very solid grounds (e.g., it copied stories from the *Greek* Gospel of Mark)
 +2 / -0
sir82
sir82 a year ago



Yes, the tradition going back to Papias is that Matthew produced a Gospel in Hebrew. Later Christians thought he meant the Gospel of Matthew that has come down to us. There are very good reasons for thinking that he meant a different book, however, since the two things he says about Matthew are not true of our Matthew.
I always wondered how to reconcile that (A "Hebrew gospel by Matthew", yet no Hebrew manuscripts)

Another piece of the puzzle filled in.

 
Phizzy
Phizzy a year ago

Thanks for posting Terry !
Bart's insights show the huge gulf that exists between real Scholarship and the pseudo kind peddled by the JW Org.
 
carla
carla a year ago

Did any of you go out and buy a KJV just to show the 'doors' that jehovah was in fact in their own Bible?
As a ubm I was so excited when my jw bought a KJV because I thought perhaps he was really reading a different version than the NWT. Wow! he was really and truly studying and comparing! alas, it was only to show the doors.
I don't think he does that anymore because I'm sure someone at some door must have used that KJV to point out a few other things wrong with their NWT, at least I can hope so anyway. yeah, leave me to my fantasies...........

 
Pistoff
Pistoff a year ago

Great post, Terry.
Bart's book Misquoting Jesus was the second non-WT book about belief that I read after awakening, the first was The Origin of Satan, by Elaine Pagels.
Bart's speaking and writing are accessible, easy to understand.
It seems to me, being out now, that the name is a bit of a fetish for witnesses, even though as this post makes clear, it is an invention, not a real name, and as such, makes a strong case for the idea that each culture makes it's own name for God.
The witnesses have seized a name made up in the dark ages and made it their own, primarily because they do poor research and misunderstand most of what they read; meanwhile, the rest of the christian world yawned and passed on the use of the 'name'.

The other thing I noticed since leaving is how loaded the use of Jehovah is, watch this:
The faithful and discreet slave are God's channel of communication on earth.
The faithful and discreet slave are Jehovah's channel of communication on earth.
They are saying the exact same thing, but the one using Jehovah is softer and less jarring.

 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

If you stop and think about it since the vowels FORCED into YHWH are arbitrary and the use of Adonai is pulled out of thin air as a model, the correct pronunciation of God's 'name' could well be ANYTHING.
I vote for: “YaHoo WaHoo!”
 +2 / -0
Finkelstein
Finkelstein a year ago

JWs of as late have been boasting how the recent revision of the KJV bible has used the name of God as Jehovah.
" See we were right all along " if they only knew the truth to where the name Jehovah was derived from.

The majority of JWS are poorly educated particularly on bible theology, yet are complacently arrogant of themselves.
Unfortunately mentally indoctrinating people with ignorance is the game the WTS. plays onto people.

 
Perry
Perry a year ago

Bart Ehrman is a tragic figure, and a heretic.
"Ehrman rejects the deity, sinlessness, miracles, and bodily resurrection of Jesus. He believes that the Christian faith is a myth and that at least 19 of the books in the New Testament are forgeries"




- Way of Life



 +1 / -6
Village Idiot
Village Idiot a year ago

@ Perry:



Bart Ehrman is a tragic figure, and a heretic.
"Ehrman rejects the deity, sinlessness, miracles, and bodily resurrection of Jesus. He believes that the Christian faith is a myth and that at least 19 of the books in the New Testament are forgeries"
There are plenty of Atheist, Agnostic and non Judeo-Christian scholars with a deep interest and understanding of the Bible. Those who study mythology don't have to believe in the myths. Your calling them "heretic" is no different than the Watchtower calling us apostates.
 +2 / -0
Finkelstein
Finkelstein a year ago

I find Perry a heretic to intellectual honesty .
But then again he's saved so I guess that doesn't concern him 
 +3 / -0
Phizzy
Phizzy a year ago

All Perry can muster is an Ad Hominem attack on Prof Ehrman that is, as shown, pathetic in itself.
No attempt to address the reasoning and proofs that Prof Ehrman offers. Why not ?
Maybe there are none.
Far from a "tragic" figure Prof Ehrman is an accomplished explainer/teacher of a complex subject, that even a simple poorly educated layman like myself can understand once he gets to work.
The man is a Hero.
 +1 / -0
EdenOne
EdenOne a year ago

To Perry:




Wash your potty mouth and cleanse your brain before you make a pathetic personal attack on Dr. Ehrman's integrity. Just because he was once an evangelical Christian who realized the tragic errors of the Bible, and who could not reconcile anymore the problem of evil with the existence of the Christian God, doesn't make him a dishonest person. Dishonest are those who refuse to acknowledge the super abundant evidence that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of texts created by humans, speaking about a deity they invented to embody their wishes, aspirations and acrimonies. At least Dr. Ehrman was intellectually honest to acknowledge as much as evidence presented itself to him during his academic research. On the other hand, Christian pseudo-scientists refuse evidence, resort to magical thinking and go to absurd lengths to justify what's written in the Bible as factual history and the greatest moral guide ever produced. THAT is where the bold-faced dishonesty lies, in face of all evidence. And you, Perry, are the embodiment of such a blind and coward attitude.
Eden
 +1 / -0
Perry
Perry a year ago

 He writes stuff like a child throwing a tantrum:

"Though Ehrman claims to hold the high ground of scholarship and intellect, he makes childish errors of fact. For example, he says that the belief in the Bible as infallibly inspired began in the 19th century.
“Church historians have traced the view, rather precisely, to the Niagara Conference on the Bible, in the 1870s, held over a number of years to foster belief in the Bible in opposition to liberal theologians who were accepting the results of historical scholarship. In 1878 the conference summarized the true faith in a series of fourteen statements. The very first one -- to be believed above all else -- was not belief in God, or in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was belief in the Bible” (Ehrman, “Jesus Saves, Not the Bible,” newsweek.washingtonpost.com, May 1, 2009).
In fact, the writers of the New Testament taught that the Scripture is infallible. Paul said, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). And Peter wrote, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).
Even if it were true that Paul and Peter didn’t write those epistles, it is still true that whoever wrote them taught the infallibility of biblical inspiration 2,000 years ago!
Further, ancient creeds described the infallible inspiration of Scripture long before 1870. Consider the Westminster Confession of 1646, which stated not only the infallible inspiration but also the providential preservation of Scripture:
“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), BEING IMMEDIATELY INSPIRED BY GOD, and by His singular care and providence, KEPT PURE in all ages, are therefore AUTHENTICAL; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”






IMO, Ehrman seems like he has an axe to grind at God:






Article Excerpt
"In describing his spiritual background, Ehrman describes an event that occurred when his father was dying of cancer. His charismatic youth group leader visited the hospital and “used a bottle of hotel shampoo to ‘anoint’ his father, and tried to persuade his father to confess specific sins” (“Former Fundamentalist ‘Debunks’ Bible,” CNN, May 15, 2009). Ehrman says he was angry at the man for acting “self-righteous” and “hypocritical.” This event, though, does not reflect negatively on a biblicist faith. It simply proves that this particular youth leader was a misguided man. The Bible does not instruct us to anoint people with shampoo."




 
Witness My Fury
Witness My Fury a year ago






People who read and understand the bible tend to be the ones who stop believing in it.
 +1 / -0
OnTheWayOut
OnTheWayOut a year ago

He writes stuff like a child throwing a tantrum:
I immediately thought of what Perry writes when I read that.




 +0 / -1
Terry
Terry 10 months ago

In an honest debate over facts, each side argues the evidence.
In a debate without honest rebuttal, one side argues ad hominem.
"Address the issues under discussion? No way--I'd rather poison the well."
A group of fundamentalist Christians started a YouTube propaganda smear effort called THE BART EHRMAN PROJECT to undermine the Professor personally. You can still see some of their videos. That effort has been abandoned now.
I feel it demonstrates the pettiness and poverty of honest engagement over evidence which has left evangelicals in the sorry state they are in. What is that state? Clinging to pre-Enlightenment ideas despite advancing scholarship.
Why not simply argue the facts and let the viewer decide?
 +1 / -0

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20






Share this topic




Topic Summary
as a member on bart ehrman's blog, i am able to ask him direct questions.is jehovah in the bible?.
question:.
how firmly grounded in reality is the claim of jehovahs witnesses that the divine name (jehovah) belongs in the new testament?.




Related Topics
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Darkknight757
Stupid Watchtower.
by Darkknight757 a month ago
oppostate
Why using Jehovah for God's name is as good as using Yahweh
by oppostate 8 months ago
opusdei1972
The Watchtower says: The Septuagint became God's Word
by opusdei1972 6 months ago
Terry
Impossible conversation: Jesus and Nicodemus: YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN
by Terry a year ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/156150002/bart-ehrman-answers-my-question?page=3&size=20







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ BART EHRMAN answers my question
/  







 

BART EHRMAN answers my question
by TerryWalstrom a year ago 66 Replies latest 10 months ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
5
10
20
Terry
Terry 10 months ago

The following was on Bart Ehrman's Blog this morning:
(Begin quote)
The comment that I sometimes get from readers that I find puzzling or disheartening is when they tell me that if there is something in the Gospels that is not historical, then it cannot be true, and if it is not true, then it is not worth reading. My sense is that many readers will find it puzzling or even disheartening that I find this view puzzling and disheartening. But I do.
It is true that to do the work of the historian requires one to be extremely critical about the sources of information that are available about the past. Some readers seem to think that this is only what atheistic, hard-headed, liberal historians with anti-supernaturalist biases who are out to destroy religion do. But in fact, it is what all historians do. The reason some readers find this approach to the Gospels objectionable is that they simply aren’t accustomed to dealing with the Bible as history.
But even though I do deal with the Bible as a historian, I do not personally think that is theonly way to deal with the Bible, and I find it disheartening when readers think that once the Gospels are shown to have discrepancies, implausibilities, and historical mistakes that we should just get rid of them and move on to other things.
I find that disheartening because the Gospels are so much more than historical sources. They are memories of early Christians about the one they considered to be the most important person ever to walk the planet. Yes, these memories are all distorted, when seen from the perspective of historical reality. But that doesn’t rob them of their value. It simply makes them memories. All memories are distorted.
And yes, the New Testament memories are all different from one another in one way or the other. But that doesn’t mean that we should then throw them all away because they are not trust worthy. Everyone’s memories – even of the same event – will be different from everyone else’s. That’s just how memories work.
And yes again, these memories have all been shaped by the lives, histories, and concerns of the people who recorded them, so that the “present” of these authors affected what they remembered about the past and how they remembered it. But that doesn’t mean that we should just go on to read other books instead. All memories of the past are chosen and shaped by the present.
At the end of the day, I find it very puzzling that so many people think that history is the only thing that matters. For them, if something didn’t happen, it isn’t true. Really? Do we actually live our lives that way? How can we? Do we really spend our lives finding meaning only in the brute facts of what happened before, and in nothing else?
Think about the things that matter to us: our families, friends, work, hobbies, religion, philosophy, country, novels, poetry, music, good food, and good drink. Do we really think that the brute facts about the past are the only things that matter?
To pick one just one of these examples: is literature unimportant because it does not deal with the brute facts of history? Is Dickens’s great novel David Copperfield of no value because its main character didn’t actually live? Well, that’s different you say, because it’s fiction. Yes indeed, it’s fiction. And fiction can be life-transforming because it is full of meaning — even though it never happened. Or consider further: can historical discoveries undermine the power of great literature? Does the earthshattering force of King Lear evaporate if it can be historically proved that someone other than Shakespeare wrote it? Does Dover Beach really fail to grip us with its powerful pathos if we learn that these were not actually the author’s thoughts the last time he was looking out over the English Channel?
Literature speaks to us quite apart from the facts of history. So does music. So does sculpture. So do all the arts. The Gospels are not simply historical records about the past. They are works of art.
They are also written forms of memory. The truth is that most of us cherish our memories – memories of our childhood, of our parents, of our friends, of our romantic relationships, of our accomplishments, of our travels, of our millions of experiences. Other memories, of course, are terribly painful – memories of pain, of suffering, of misunderstandings, of failed relationships, of financial strain, of violence, of lost loved ones, of millions of other experiences.
When we reflect on our past lives, when we remember all that has happened to us, all the people we have known, all the things we have seen, all the places we have visited, all the things we have experienced, we do not decide, before pondering the memory, to fact-check our recall to make sure that we have the brute facts in place. Our lives are not spent establishing the past as it really happened. They are spent calling it back to mind.
When we do so our memories may be frail, and faulty, and even false. But they are how we remember. And that is how we live our lives, with these memories. If someone tells us that something happened to us differently from how we remember, we may change how we think about it. But that’s not usually what happens. More often we’ll simply say that we don’t remember it that way. And we stick to our memories. If we do shift what we think about our remembered past, we don’t jettison our memories, but we transform them.
We live not only with our own memories, but also with the memories of others. We share our lives. Others share their lives with us. The only way to share a life with someone outside of that non-existent nano-second of the present is to share a life of memory. Our presents are affected by these pasts – both ours and those of others. Just as these pasts are molded by our presents. And our reflections about the future are molded by both. Living life is never a matter of isolation – from either our past or the pasts of others. The living and sharing of memories is what makes up our lives.
The Gospels are shared memories of the past. Yes, they can be scrutinized by historians who want to get a better sense of what actually happened in the life of Jesus. That’s what I do for a living. But if they were only that, they would be dry, banal, and frankly rather uninteresting to anyone except those with rather peculiar antiquarian interests. The Gospels are more than historical sources. They are deeply rooted and profound memories of a man whose memories ended up transforming the entire world.
It is easy to make the argument that the historical Jesus did not transform the world. He does not transform the world today. You may wonder how that could possibly be, if Christianity became the religion of the West. Look at it this way. There are two billion people today who are committed to the memory of Jesus. How many of those two billion have what I, as a historian, would consider to be a historically accurate recollection of the basics of Jesus’ real life and ministry? Some thousands? It’s a tiny fraction. The historical Jesus did not make history. The remembered Jesus did.
For me as a historian it goes without saying that we should pay close attention to what can be learned about the historical Jesus. But we should not neglect the remembered Jesus.
Does it matter if Jesus really delivered the Sermon on the Mount the way it is described in Matthew 5-7? It matters to me historically. But if Jesus didn’t deliver the sermon, would it be any less powerful? Not in the least. It is, and in my view deserves to be, one of the greatest accounts of ethical teaching in the history of the planet.
Does it matter if Jesus really healed the sick, cast out demons, and raised the dead? Does it matter if he himself was raised from the dead? But if these stories are not historically accurate, does that rob them of their literary power? Not in my books. They are terrifically moving accounts. Understanding what they are trying to say means understanding some of the most uplifting and influential literature that the planet has ever seen.
Does it matter if Jesus considered himself to be God on earth? As a historian, it matters to me a great deal. But if he did not – and I think he did not – the fact that he was remembered that way by later followers is terrifically important. Without that memory of Jesus, the faith founded on him would never have taken off, the Roman Empire would not have abandoned paganism, and history as we know it would never have transpired.[1] History was changed not because of the brute facts of history, but because of memory.
Memory can certainly be studied to see where it is accurate and where it is frail, or distorted, or even false. It should be studied that way. It needs to be studied that way. I spend most of my life studying it that way. But it should also be studied in a way that appreciates its inherent significance and its power. Memory is what gives meaning to our lives – and not only to our own personal lives, but to the lives of eeryone who has ever lived on this planet. Without it we couldn’t exist as social groups or function as individuals. Memory obviously deserves to be studied in its own right, not only to see what it preserves accurately about the past, but also to see what it can say about those who have it and share it.
Christian memory is particularly and uniquely important. Christian memory transformed our world. Christian memory brought about a revolution in the history of Western Civilization. Christian memory continues to influence billions of lives in our world today. Ultimately, of course, Christian memory goes back to the earliest memories of Jesus. These too need to be studied, both for what they can tell us about the historical person who stands behind the memory, but also about those who came in his wake, who remembered him and passed along their memories to those of us living today.
[1] This is my argument in Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014).
 +4 / -0
suavojr
suavojr 10 months ago

If Jesus or his apostles had uttered the Tetra., don't you think it would have caused a tremendous accusation by the Pharisees who were looking for any pretense whatsoever with which to accuse them?
Now the new Pharisees a.k.a Jdubs, claim true Christians must use the divine name, oh the irony...
 
suavojr
suavojr 10 months ago
BTW Perry can go back to hide now
 
John Aquila
John Aquila 10 months ago

Thanks for posting that Terry, I had never even thought of seeing the Gospels or the Bible the way Bart describes it.

Do we really spend our lives finding meaning only in the brute facts of what happened before, and in nothing else?
Think about the things that matter to us: our families, friends, work, hobbies, religion, philosophy, country, novels, poetry, music, good food, and good drink. Do we really think that the brute facts about the past are the only things that matter?
 
Earnest
Earnest 10 months ago

Well said, Dr Ehrman.
The only bone that I would pick is the insistence that the pronunciation of God's name as Jehovah is wrong. The fact is that 'Jehovah' is English, derived from the Latin, so it becomes irrelevant how the Hebrew was pronounced. This is the name that was used in the earliest English translations to represent the Hebrew name of God. You can use Yahweh if you want but then you are simply transliterating a Hebrew name. Tyndale translated the name into the English 'Jehovah' and so argument about pronunciation is simply a red herring.
Whether or not it was used by the early Christians we don't know. But the suggestion that they would not have used it due to the Jewish prohibition is attributing attitudes to first century Galilee/Judea which we simply know nothing about. We do know the view of the priestly class from Josephus but have no idea what the fishermen, shepherds and tax collectors practiced. They may well have used God's name as frequently as Witnesses do today. We don't know. It is as silly to argue they could not have used the name as to argue they must have done so.

 
Terry
Terry 10 months ago

The purpose of a NAME is to make an additional distinction for clarity.
The genuine, essential difference between BAAL (meaning LORD) and ADONAI (meaning LORD) requires further differentiation--does it not?
If I'm illiterate and need to sign a contract, it is legal for me to "make my mark" by affixing an X on the signature line.
That X represents ME.
That's not the same thing as the NAME by which I am known and called by those who know me. (i.e. TERRY).
X doesn't need to be pronounced to be a legal mark on my contract.
If all X's represent gods, how do we further distinguish the REAL X from the imagined (and thus false) X gods?
________________
Let us be honest . . .
to speculate what MAY or may NOT have been done (pronouncing god's name) in Jesus' day isn't evidence. It isn't fact. It isn't recorded history. Intellectual honesty requires we stick to what can be verified historically.
 +1 / -0
Phizzy
Phizzy 10 months ago

" Intellectual honesty requires we stick to what can be verified historically."
The JW Org position on the use and pronunciation of the Name has nothing in the way of real evidence to support it, the contrary position has much to support it, as far as I can see.
Thanks for posting Prof Ehrman's thoughts above, they tally with mine, in regard to the whole Bible. I view the Bible as an interesting collection of artifacts. We do not have many Writings from the various periods that are so readily available for study and have so much helpful Commentary on them.
Of course, one has to read them with knowledge of the political situation and morals/attitudes of that time, and an understanding of the Agenda of the writer etc etc.
But I find them fascinating, mainly for the insight they give me into human foibles.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
5
10
20






Share this topic




Topic Summary
as a member on bart ehrman's blog, i am able to ask him direct questions.is jehovah in the bible?.
question:.
how firmly grounded in reality is the claim of jehovahs witnesses that the divine name (jehovah) belongs in the new testament?.




Related Topics
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Darkknight757
Stupid Watchtower.
by Darkknight757 a month ago
oppostate
Why using Jehovah for God's name is as good as using Yahweh
by oppostate 8 months ago
opusdei1972
The Watchtower says: The Septuagint became God's Word
by opusdei1972 6 months ago
Terry
Impossible conversation: Jesus and Nicodemus: YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN
by Terry a year ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/156150002/bart-ehrman-answers-my-question?page=4&size=20









Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ God was the cause of the evil
/  







 

God was the cause of the evil
by opusdei1972 a year ago 12 Replies latest a year ago   watchtower bible
5
10
20
opusdei1972
opusdei1972 a year ago

Bart Ehrman noticed, in his book "God's Problem", the fact that God was responsible for Job's pain. To show it, Bart quoted the following verse:
And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him.(Jogb 42:11, ESV)
However, the Watchtower Society mistranslated the hebrew verb "bow" (to bring to pass) so as to mean "to allow to come":

They sympathized with him and comforted him over all the calamity that Jehovah had allowed to come upon him. (Job 42:11, New World Translation)
I don't think that this hebrew verb has the passive meaning of " allow". Note how it was used here:

In the course of time Cain brought (bow) to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, (Gen. 4:3)
The Watchtower tried to show Yahweh less evil ?

 
OneEyedJoe
OneEyedJoe a year ago
If I believed in all that nonsense, I'd just say that the story was written from the perspective of the comforters, which believed that it was god that caused Job's suffering. The reality was that they were wrong, and it was all satan's fault.
 
opusdei1972
opusdei1972 a year ago
According to the book, God let Satan to test Job's loyalty. So Bart noticed that not all was by Satan's guilty, but it was because God wanted too, and the verse 42:11 admits it.

 
freemindfade
freemindfade a year ago

So many things about this YHWH make no sense, you are all powerful, all awesome, and still you have to engage in a wager over this persons loyalty. If YHWH is real we are like less than nothing to him, I loving father would never wager with someone he considers his children, even in a temporary situation.
I believe they are trying to misrepresent it to fit as you say, but the whole story in general is bad. The bible criticizes itself best!
Doesn't YHWH undermine his own supremacy by gambling with his biggest adversary? Lowering himself to this? Its all nonsense.
You may have pointed out something very interesting here though.
 +1 / -0
opusdei1972
opusdei1972 a year ago
freemindfade
freemindfade Thank you, I want to show to the Witnesses how the Bible contains contradictory views on Yahweh God and how the Watchtower translators tried to hide it.

 
freemindfade
freemindfade a year ago
tried to show my family a little and they blasted me. I told my uncle if you had no religion and knowledge of it to begin with , and a bible just fell out of the sky, and you read it in all its original languages, you would see zero harmony and tons of contradiction that men have massaged for out for thousands of years. Sorry witnesses, YHWH and Jesus just don't pan out.
 
Hairtrigger
Hairtrigger a year ago

James 1:13 When under trial let no one say he's being tried by God, for with evil things God does not try anyone nor he himself will be tried.
I'm quoting from memory so it might not be verbatim from the NWT. BUT...
How does that compare with ...the calamity that Jehovah had allowed to come upon him. OR ...for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him.
You allow the Evil one to try an innocent man with boils ,diseases, death to his family, impoverish him ; and then say you aren't hobnobbing with Evil.or allow anyone to be tried by Evil?


















 
Perry
Perry a year ago

The idea that God is evil and satan is good is an old gnostic heresy.
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago
God does kill roughly 1000000x the number of people as Satan does in the Bible.
 
Perry
Perry a year ago

Satan sold ALL of Adams children into slavery of sin and then death.

 
Village Idiot
Village Idiot a year ago

@ Perry: "The idea that God is evil and satan is good is an old gnostic heresy."
I forget where but there is a biblical passage that says that God is the maker of both good and evil.
 
Crazyguy
Crazyguy a year ago

The problem is these writings that are in the bible are copies from older writings and involve other gods and even more then one god. Noah's flood for example is a copy of older stories where by one god Enlil wants to kill off all mankind and another god Enki is the one that saves them by telling Gilgamesh/Anthrasas/Noah to build a boat.
So now when these Jewish writers are trying to make these writings their own and then make them about only one god things are obviously going to get all screwed up.
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

Satan sold ALL of Adams children into slavery of sin and then death.
Did he own us? If not how could he sell us? If he did sell us, who to? God did most of the killing, like 99.99999% of it. Why is Satan the bad guy?
I forget where but there is a biblical passage that says that God is the maker of both good and evil.
Isaiah 45:7, an oldie but a goodie.
 

5
10
20






Share this topic









Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-22-2015 WT Study (God Loves us?)
by blondie 4 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/136860001/god-cause-evil







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus
/  







 

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus
by TerryWalstrom a year ago 52 Replies latest a year ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago






509 B.C.E. to 27 B.C.E.
 In the years of Roman Republic, no man was called a god (or even a king). However, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (Emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of Romans of having a dictator. Surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval! An Emperor, surely was a son of a god, or 'divine.'
The Emperorship, with its divine trappings, was a new trend in the early days of Christianity. Pagan Christian converts brought this ‘divine’ terminology into their new Christian communities and applied these terms onto Jesus. Further, Christians used these terms to promote (“sell”) Jesus to potential pagan converts. Non Pagan congregations (Jewish Christians) had no inclination to absorb Pagan Gentiles, but Paul actually changed Christianity, by letting Pagans switch their allegiances from mythological or human gods to Jesus but continue their practices under a different label. This is easily demonstrated. When the Roman Pantheon was converted into a church, the Pagan idols were replaced by Christian idols; Pagan holidays became Christian, etc.



The Watchtower (bullshit) ‘scholars’ pretend it was creeping apostasy, after the death of the Apostles, which ‘corrupted’ pure Christian teaching. In fact, historically, there never was a pure Christian orthodoxy. Each congregation; each territory; each geographical instance of ecclesia; reflected local, syncretic, heterogeneous opinions.
Few Christian denominations today consider the external influences of pagan Roman converts, as being in many ways the driving force behind the development of a high Christology. (Divinity of Jesus) It is an important social—even political context—for understanding Paul’s language of Lord, Savior, Son of God, gospel, etc.

As Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman has said: “Readers of the Bible who are not trained in history tend not to think in terms of historical context and so simply read the words of these ancient authors as if they were writing in twenty-first century America.  But these authors were not American, and they were not writing in modern times.  They lived in a different part of the world, in a different culture, with different customs, and different assumptions about the world and life in it.  If you pretend that they were writing in our own context, instead of theirs, you take their words out of context.  And anytime you take a text out of context, you change its meaning.”
If you are curious about 1st Century tendencies toward regarding remarkable men as supernaturally endowed, please consider the following.
From the beginning his mother knew that he would be no ordinary person.  Prior to his birth, a heavenly figure appeared to her, announcing that her son would not be a mere mortal but would be divine.  This prophecy was confirmed by the miraculous character of his birth, a birth accompanied by supernatural signs.  The boy was already recognized as a spiritual authority in his youth; his discussions with recognized experts showed his superior knowledge of all things religions. As an adult he left home to engage in an itinerant preaching ministry.  He went from village to town with his message of good news, proclaiming that people should forgo their concerns for the material things of this life, such as how they should dress and what they should eat.  They should instead be concerned with their eternal souls.
He gathered around himself a number of disciples who were amazed by his teaching and his flawless character.  They became convinced that he was no ordinary man, but was the Son of God.  Their faith received striking confirmation in the miraculous things that he did.  He could reportedly predict the future, heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead.  Not everyone proved friendly, however.  At the end of his life, his enemies trumped up charges against him and he was placed on trial before Roman authorities for crimes against the state.
Even after he departed this realm, however, he did not forsake his devoted followers.  Some claimed that he had ascended bodily into heaven; others said that he had appeared to them, alive, afterward, that they had talked with him and touched him and become convinced that he could not be bound by death.  A number of his followers spread the good news about this man, recounting what they had seen him say and do.  Eventually some of these accounts came to be written down in books that circulated throughout the empire.
But I doubt that you have ever read them.  In fact, I suspect you have never heard the name of this miracle-working “Son of God.”  The man I have been referring to is the great neo-Pythagorean teacher and pagan holy man of the first century C.E.,Apollonius of Tyana, a worshiper of the Roman gods, whose life and teachings are still available for us in the writings of his later (third-century) follower Philostratus, in his book The Life of Apollonius.
Apollonius lived at about the time of Jesus.  Even though they never met, the reports about their lives were in many ways similar.  At a later time, Jesus’ followers argued that Jesus was the miracle-working Son of God, and that Apollonius was an impostor, a magician, and a fraud.  Perhaps not surprisingly, Apollonius’s followers made just the opposite claim, asserting that he was the miracle working Son of God, and that Jesus was a fraud.
What is remarkable is that these were not the only two persons in the Greco-Roman world who were thought to have been supernaturally endowed as teachers and miracle workers.  In fact, from the tantalizing but fragmentary records that have survived we know of numerous other persons also said to have performed miracles, to have calmed the storm and multiplied loaves, to have told the future and healed the sick, to have cast out demons and raised the dead, to have been supernaturally born and taken up into heaven at the end of their life.  Even though Jesus may be the only miracle-working Son of God that we know about in our world, he was one of many talked about in the first century.
Clearly, then, if we want to study the stories about Jesus – and about his followers – we need to situate them in their own historical context, in the world of the first Christian century.  The stories about Jesus were told among people who could make sense of them, and the sense they made of them related to their own world, which knew of divine beings who were also human.    The environment in which Jesus was born and in which Christianity emerged is known as the Greco-Roman world.
(Bart Ehrman, ehrmanblog.com)
 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

There are a few things here that are seeming errors, maybe you can clarify for me.
1. As I referenced in another thread and provided secular source supporting, Paul passed on what he received from Judean apostles. He did not allow them to keep their customs and in fact listed the very practices the so called pagan world had and then commended his Ephesian congregation for abandoning those practices.
The real origin of the adoption of gentile customs into Christianity was a papal decree by pope Gregory 1st called, Epistola ad Mellitum which reads as follows:

Gregory I, Letter to Abbot Mellitus, Epsitola 76, PL 77: 1215-1216
Intro: Mellitus was about to join St. Augustine of Canterbury on the mission to England. How to deal with a pagan culture, and its symbols. Gregory I (590-604) recommends a policy of acculturation.
****
Tell Augustine that he should be no means destroy the temples of the gods but rather the idols within those temples. Let him, after he has purified them with holy water, place altars and relics of the saints in them. For, if those temples are well built, they should be converted from the worship of demons to the service of the true God. Thus, seeing that their places of worship are not destroyed, the people will banish error from their hearts and come to places familiar and dear to them in acknowledgement and worship of the true God.
Further, since it has been their custom to slaughter oxen in sacrifice, they should receive some solemnity in exchange. Let them therefore, on the day of the dedication of their churches, or on the feast of the martyrs whose relics are preserved in them, build themselves huts around their one-time temples and celebrate the occasion with religious feasting. They will sacrifice and eat the animals not any more as an offering to the devil, but for the glory of God to whom, as the giver of all things, they will give thanks for having been satiated. Thus, if they are not deprived of all exterior joys, they will more easily taste the interior ones. For surely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds....
Mention this to our brother the bishop, that he may dispose of the matter as he sees fit according to the conditions of time and place
2. Also as I pointed out, the bible and history testifies that Christianity was standardized before Paul's conversion. I also provided the source and scriptures testifying to this fact in the other thread. This source also addressed the fact that the Gentiles had no affect on christisnity. At least not until the pope issued that epistle several hundred years later. My post read as follows, quoting the reference used:



I can certainly do that, I'll provide a few quotes from the book I'm currently reading. I just read a rather large chapter in which was the subject of the plausibility of hellenization of culture explaining the view of Christ. The full title of the book is, "Lord Jesus Christ | Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity" by Larry W. Hurtado. I'm not done with it yet but I'm enjoying it.
Anyway, on beginning on page 230 it states:

"To Repeat an earlier emphasis: the interpretation of Jesus' death attested in Paul's letters, by all accounts, derive from his "predecessors," including Judean circles such as the Jerusalem church. Moreover, as also previously noted, Paul's acquaintance with Jewish Christian beliefs began in the very first few years (ca 30-35 C.E). The only meaningful period of Christian development "before" Paul is at most the very first few months or perhaps years. But Paul's introduction to Jewish Christian beliefs must even be dated prior to his conversion, for his opposition could have been directed only against a prior Jewish Christian phenomenon.Furthermore, Paul claims that the traditions such as he repeats in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 represent not only his own prior missionary message but also the proclamation of Judean leaders (15:11). Scholars may dispute the validity of Paul's claim, of course. But we must also note that those to whom he attributed these traditions (e.g., Peter/Cephas and James) were still very much active and able to speak for themselves. He was not as much at liberty to make specious attributions and claims about the origins of Christian traditions as we modern scholars!"
It should be noted that the above quote is taken from a page where he's addressing the treatment of the Q material toward Christs death. However as the quote itself states he elsewhere made this same assertion in addressing the hellenization issue, which I'm still trying to find in the book.... (It's rather large)
Found it. Okay so he addresses the Hellenists starting on page 206 and there is a great deal of information. Such as the first instance of the above quoted information can be found somewhere here. So what I'm going to do is type out the last paragraph leading up to the summary of the chapter and then some of the summary itself. But remember all the things he asserts up to this point has his references in the footnotes and very detailed reasons for why the assertion is made. What I'm going to put here is a summary, because otherwise I'd be typing all day long.
"Whatever one thinks of the idea that the Hellenist believers of Jerusalem had developed a distinctly radical view of Torah and temple, however, for my purposes here the key question is whether they dissented from the sorts of christological categories and devotional practice that came to expression initially among Judean circles of the early Christian movement. The answer: there is no evidence that the Hellenists as a group had a distinctive Christology, or that they collectively rejected the sort of reverential practices studied in this chapter. But, even if one prefers to think of the Hellenists as some sort of proto-Pauline group that was critical of "the ritual law" and the Jerusalem temple, this does not in itself provide any basis for thinking they also developed a significantly different view of Jesus or a distinctive pattern of devotional practice. Within the limits of our evidence (secondhand reports of Acts and traditions in Paul's letters), it appears that the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenists" in Jerusalem made similar christological statements and engaged in similar devotional practices."
Following this statement is the summary, which is quite lengthy, but on page 215 he says this:
"The most important points to make here are these, by way of summary: The high place of Jesus in the beliefs and religious practice of Judean Christianity that comes across in this evidence confirms how astonishingly early and quickly an impressive devotion to Jesus appeared. This in turn helps to explain why and how it all seems to have been so conventionalized and uncontroversial already by the time of the Pauline mission to the Gentiles in the 50's. As Bengt Holmberg notes, when Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (or perhaps about five years after Jesus' execution), "he there encountered a religious group which had reached a fairly high degree of development in doctrinal tradition, teaching, cultic practice, common life and internal organization."
He then cites his reference in the footnotes.
He goes on to further assert in a few lines that Jesus place in Christian worship was very early, and as we can see from their practices developed prior to the Gentile mission of Paul.




 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

Let's take a look at the process.
A Pagan is not circumcised. A Jewish Christian is horrified. Peter argues against accepting the Pagan.
Paul prevails.  Circumcising was the Law to a Jew. The explanation (the mcguffin!) is a 'vision' was sent
making it 'okay.'  Ha!
Idolatry consisted of sacrificing food to pagan gods.
Paul had no problem with eating food sacrificed to false gods!
Now ask yourself, what was all the fuss about and who won?




 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

Paul started churches among former pagans in Galatia, probably in several different cities.  The gospel he converted them to was the one we know from this letter and others, such as Romans.   A pagan who wants to be made right with the one true God needs to abandon his/her worship of other gods and believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus for their sins and be baptized.   The person does not, and should not, convert to become Jewish.  Jesus’ salvation extends to both Jews and Gentiles equally, by faith.
After Paul left the region other missionaries came with a different gospel message.   They insisted that Jesus was the Jewish messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish law, so that OF COURSE following Jesus meant being Jewish.   Jesus, for these people, was the fulfillment of the covenant promises God had made with the father of the Jews Abraham; the sign of that covenant was circumcision; and when God gave circumcision as the sign to Abraham, he called it an “eternal covenant” – -meaning that it would never change.  To be an heir of the covenant that God had given, and to fulfill the plan that God had set out long ago, a person has to do what God demands of his people.  Males have to be circumcised; males and females have to keep the law.   To follow Jesus a person has to adopt the ways of Judaism.
These other missionaries insisted that Paul has corrupted the original gospel of Jesus’ disciples in Jerusalem.   The original apostles agree that the law must be followed; Paul is a maverick.
Paul can be very angry and sarcastic about the prejudices in other congregations' idea of pure worship. For instance, in Galations  5:12, when he is referring to the missionaries advocating another gospel.  (This is more graphically portrayed in the Greek.).   Literally Paul says that “Would that those who are unsettling you would be cut off.”   But what he’s saying is – to give the idiomatic translation, “Would that those who are unsettling you, when they themselves undergo circumcision, the knife slips and they cut off the whole thing.”
These are examples of a rift or divergence from "settled" true teaching, are they not?




 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

Justin Martyr wrote, “And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus.”
The pagans during the 2nd century thought of Perseus’s birth as a virgin birth, and considering the “celestial intercourse” between the mother and the god, similar to Mary and the Holy Spirit, this would make sense. It would make sense that Danae WAS a virgin because her father kept her locked up because he didn’t want her conceiving any male children. In today’s contemporary age, when we read Greek mythology, it’s never emphasized that Danae was a virgin, not in the way Mary’s virginity is emphasized, so it never occurs to readers, “Perseus was born of a virgin,” but that doesn’t mean that the pagans back in the day didn’t emphasize that idea more, and this quote by Martyr gives an indication that Perseus was thought to have been born of a virgin.
_________________
The ongoing absorption in Jewish Messianic Christianity of Greco-Roman pagan influence seems a no-brainer. The first Gospel in the canon, Matthew, jumps right in with the pagan-influenced 'virgin birth."
Was there a battle going on in the New Testament period over orthodoxy? Sure. It wasn't settled, except in the minds of those wishing (and insisting) it were.
 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

No they are not.
Peter never opposed the gentile mission, or any Gentiles. In galations the confrontation with Peter isn't abiut anything he said. Paul resisted him because he was shying away from the Gentiles out of fear for how Jewish Christians would react. But Peter stopped doing this, and his other actions show he welcomed Gentiles and supported Paul's mission.
The context of galations 5:12 shows that some had come preaching circumcision, as you say. Paul explained this was to undermine Christ and abolish the cross. That is why he made the expression about the slip of the knife, because these people were blaspheming Jesus sacrifice.
As to the eating meat. Paul was very clear. The idol temples had restaurants built onto them where you could get a meal. A Christian could go there and eat a meal, no big deal. But paul warned about a scenario where a Christian seeing this who used to worship in that temple would be "built up" to also eating. The difference was that one ate a meal, the other began to think reverently of the God they once worshipped - in doing so they sinned. The gentile religions did not believe the God was in the idol, they believed the idol represented the God who was elsewhere. Paul was thus making a distinction and explaining how christians should be mindful of each other's consciouses, lest we stumble a fellow into their former idolatrous practice.
 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

Yes, the virgin birth is much older than Christ. But that isn't because it was necessarily founded in paganism. The promise regarding the seed in genesis was well known and represented in every culture. These understood it to be a virgin birth, and that is why each culture features a promised seed delivering a messiah or savior through a virgin birth, or something very similar to the effect.
unfortunately, I don't remember where I read that.
 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

Jonathan Drake: Peter never opposed the gentile mission, or any Gentiles. In galations the confrontation with Peter isn't abiut anything he said.
_____________________
Why then did God have to tell Peter THREE TIMES that it was permitted for him to enter a Gentile home and freely give the gospel to Gentiles? Jews who were still keeping the Law acted as though Gentile homes and Gentile meals were accursed. Conflict came to a head when Peter arrived in Antioch (the first place to use the term, "Christian" we are told.) Paul and Peter were not seeing eye to eye about Christian fellowship. In Antioch, there was epic confrontation between Paul and Peter.
I understand you don't see fellowship as anything other than a cultural problem rather than a matter of core identification of theology. But, the 'body of Christ' is an indivisible concept, is it not? Fellowship as the 'bride' is a symbol of purity and integrity because it is not tarnished in any manner (even cultural.)
Orthodoxy is 'right belief.'  If Jesus' bride was divided into two classes (Jewish/Gentile) because of cultic paranoia, there is no 'rightness' to a 'house divided' which cannot stand.
The first canonical Gospel, Mark, does not have the story of the Virgin birth, and in fact, shows no clue that it is familiar with the stories of the Virgin birth. Mark does not narrate an account of Jesus’ birth.  Mark never says a word about Jesus’ mother being a virgin.  Mark does not presuppose that Jesus had an unusual birth of any kind.   And in Mark (you don’t find this story in Matthew and Luke!!), Jesus’ mother does not seem to know that he is a divinely born son of God.   On the contrary, she thinks he has gone out of his mind.   Mark not only lacks a virgin birth story; it seems to presuppose that they never could have been a virgin birth.  Or Mary would understand who Jesus is.   But she does not.
What to make of this? Simply, there were differing views of the Christian experience by different writers and believers. Is this a 'big deal" or not?
All I'm asserting is that the cultural, historic context is important when examining early Christianity. By the time Constantine tries to pull all the Christian ecclesia together, you practically have a series of fistfights, according to Eusebius. Why? How? Where is the basis for solidarity?
It is a question worth contemplating.
As to scholar Hurtado, I haven't read his book, but it certainly sounds remarkable! I read a few reviews online.
http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/review_Hurtado.pdf

 "One of the less convincing features of Hurtado’s book is his tendency to accept critical orthodoxy throughout. For instance, he includes his chapter on Q before consulting the Synoptic Gospels. Placing Q before the Synoptics is a rather strange procedure since the nature of Q is keenly debated, and some scholars question whether it even existed. Even if Q did exist, the document (or oral tradition) has never been unearthed, and so we do not know (contrary to the confi dent assertions of some!) what was actually contained in the alleged document. Therefore, it is rather speculative to write about the Christology found in Q to say the least. Perhaps Hurtado’s purpose is to demonstrate the plausibility of his theory even if one adopts a Q hypothesis, since he argues that even Q does not point to variant form of Christian belief regarding Jesus Christ. In any case, reading this chapter on Q reminded me that biblical scholars who complain that those who do systematics are guilty of too much speculation should look carefully in the mirror."















 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

Yes his book is very good, I enjoyed the part about q but I was more interested in everything else.
I think I stated in your other thread that it would make sense for Peter to assume that preaching to all nations and tribes and tongues meant the Jews spread all over the empire. The Jews lived all over. I've always felt Peter likely believed this. However, while he was beckoned to go to Cornelius once he accepted he never questioned again, only his actions showed he needed to be corrected.
Your comment about the body of Christ being one and a house devided is true, and if these people were perfect and unaffected by their culture I would agree the gentile dilemma meant something other than it does. However as it stands, they were a people affected by thousands of years of culture that wouldn't be undone just because suddenly it's okay. It would take time to include Gentiles without anyone wondering about it.
As far as the Mark account, the writer assumed knowledge of birth, death and resurrection was known. One way this is shown is by how the Jews use the phrase," son of Mary" instead of son of Joseph when referring to Jesus. This was a derogatory reference inferring his illegitimacy. It's a direct call out to the virgin birth story.
as to the fighting regarding standardization of the church after constsntine, this is because of the warning given by the apostles. As i stated in the other thread, both Peter and Paul left instruction that after their death only oral and written teachings by them be used and remembered. Yet, after they died sects popped up teaching different things, and other books were created. The Christian movement was standardized already before the apostles died. Afterwards, people introduced their own ideas, in the same fashion as those mentioned by Paul in galations. This destandardized Christianity, resulting in varying beliefs which corrupted the original. Then the worship was further corrupted by the pope via my above posted information.




Summarizing, the real standard is the first century example. Any and all writings or teachings developed by people who weren't of the first century apostles is literally trash. Yet that trash came to define Christianity by the time of constsntine and was expounded on by the Catholic Church.




 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

Jonathan Drake: However as it stands, they were a people affected by thousands of years of culture that wouldn't be undone just because suddenly it's okay. It would take time to include Gentiles without anyone wondering about it.
_______________________
Peter had received a direct revelation from God Almighty!
Even though, he had been inculturated by his tradition in Judaism, Peter had immediately begun living as a Gentile! Paul's fury was directed at the HYPOCRISY of living one way and teaching another. Why?
The question of Justification was at stake. This is a foundational orthodox teaching. Belief and acceptance either was or was not all a Christian needed for salvation. This was a huge apostasy in fundamentals.




And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy (2:13).




Peter's defection had a disastrous effect on the Antioch church. The reason for this is that all of the Jews in the church began to follow his example. Peter was a natural leader. No matter what he did, people would follow him.
◾When Jesus asked His disciples who they thought He really was, it was Peter who acted as their spokesman.

◾When the gift of tongues was given at Pentecost, it was Peter who addressed the crowd that gathered.

◾And when Peter decided to go fishing after the resurrection, the disciples were quick to follow him, even though they had been instructed to remain in Jerusalem.

Once again we see people following Peter. The entire Jewish-Christian community began to follow his example of separation from the Gentile believers. Even Barnabas was swept up in this separation. The result was a giant split in the church.
Even worse there was a split over the eating of the Lord's Supper. The one place where unity should have been the most evident had now become the scene of division. Paul calls this action "hypocrisy." They were saying and believing one thing while they were doing another. They were preaching the gospel but they were not living the gospel. They were preaching that faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, but they were living as though Gentiles were second-class Christians.
Peter and Barnabas knew better than to act like this. But they had been intimidated. Peter was intimidated by the disciples of James. Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians were intimidated by Peter's defection. By running away from the problem, Peter had created a far greater problem.
Was this Apostacy on the part of Peter? If so, what could have been worse inasmuch as Peter had been the agent of false Gospel?



"But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all. . . " (Galatians 2:14).
Paul rebuked Peter's false teaching which had split the church. The General Truth of Justification: A man is not justified by the works of the law (Galatians 2:16)
_______________
What I find interesting is this, Peter was acting the way the Governing Body today does. By making door to door witnessing, obedience to the FDS and the Organization the core of salvation, they've made Jesus' sacrifice null and void.
_________________________
Jonathan Drake: Summarizing, the real standard is the first century example. Any and all writings or teachings developed by people who weren't of the first-century apostles is literally trash.
____________________________
Gulp! We DON'T HAVE any first-century manuscripts at all, Jonathan. We only have corrupt LATER approximations developed by people who weren't of the first-century. So, our discussion is pretty much moot 'trash.'



 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

The letters written by Paul are from the mid first century... and he wrote them.
as far as everything else you said it was just a different way of saying the same thing essentially. There is no basis for asserting any of these things you're saying. I already cited a good reference as to why. The issue with Peter had nothing to do with teaching, it was just his actions. Its clearly explained as such. And peters reaction to Cornelius shows he realized God is not partial. Thus to make the assertion you are is a real stretch.
If you read it for what it says, you reach the conclusion that Peter wasnt sure about Gentiles at first. Later understood there was no issue, but had trouble ridding his cultural customs out of his behavior just like other Jewish Christians. To make further assertions and ascribe meaning and indication is to verge on Pesher, which I won't do. It speaks for itself, and it's not saying what your posts are saying.
So I think we'll have to agree to disagree :smile:. But I hope I haven't said anything taken personally by you, I really enjoy your posts even if I don't agree with every detail.
 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago






 
Phizzy
Phizzy a year ago

Another good Thread Terry !
I think the problem Bible believers have is ignoring scholarship on the matter. As Bart Ehrmann points out, they read the Bible as though it is written in the 21st century, not with the recognition that it is at least 2000 years old.
The other connected problem is that they take the writings at face value, and as though they are a homogenous whole, hence the contradictions cannot be seen for what they are, they must be harmonised.
For example, they will use the words of the writer of Acts to explain what Paul wrote, ignoring the time of writing for Acts, and its agenda. Hence we get the idea that there was an Orthodoxy before Paul's conversion, but from a writer, Luke, whose grasp of history and truth are evidently not good.
They also do not seem to recognise the "forgeries" as such, the Books/Letters written under the name of Paul or Peter which were certainly (or almost) written by a much later hand.
This all makes for a totally errant exegesis of the texts.
 
Pistoff
Pistoff a year ago

From Jonathan:
"As far as the Mark account, the writer assumed knowledge of birth, death and resurrection was known. One way this is shown is by how the Jews use the phrase," son of Mary" instead of son of Joseph when referring to Jesus. This was a derogatory reference inferring his illegitimacy. It's a direct call out to the virgin birth story."
This is unsupported and goes against principles of scholarship and common sense.
Mark is nearly universally regarded as the oldest gospel, and does NOT include references to virgin birth.
What does that mean? Is it reasonable to conclude that a document purporting to tell the story of Jesus would leave out important details of his bona fides as son of God?
All of the gospels were written decades after Jesus died; their differences and their similarities tell us their order of writing, but also reflect the beliefs of the groups that authored them, and also the continually evolving mythology of Jesus as the Christ.










 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

From Jonathan:



"As far as the Mark account, the writer assumed knowledge of birth, death and resurrection was known. One way this is shown is by how the Jews use the phrase," son of Mary" instead of son of Joseph when referring to Jesus. This was a derogatory reference inferring his illegitimacy. It's a direct call out to the virgin birth story."
This is unsupported and goes against principles of scholarship and common sense.




The referrence to him as the son of Mary has been theorized to mean this for a long time. It was not normal for a male child to be referred to this way. They would have called him Jesus son of Joseph, not mary. Thus to ignore Joseph shows the public knew about the issue regarding his birth. It's difficult to ignore the implications. I can concede we have no way of knowing FOR SURE this had derogatory intent, but we do know for sure this demonstrates they knew about his birth. No way around it.
it is supported by cultural history, and common sense should tell you that since they never referred to a male this way they were doing it here with Jesus for a reason. Unless you have a better explanation for why this cukture would randomly choose Jesus as the only example of the feminine expression "Son of Mary"? Scholars do actually recognize it as meaning recognition of his birth story, the only contention is whether it was derogatory or not.
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

Thus to ignore Joseph shows the public knew about the issue regarding his birth. It's difficult to ignore the implications. I can concede we have no way of knowing FOR SURE this had derogatory intent, but we do know for sure this demonstrates they knew about his birth.
Why couldn't it just as easily meant the father was unknown or they had a reason for NOT wanting people to know who he was? You are assuming the saying "son of Mary" automatically implies all of these other things and there is no evidence for that.
it is supported by cultural history, and common sense should tell you that since they never referred to a male this way they were doing it here with Jesus for a reason. Unless you have a better explanation for why this cukture would randomly choose Jesus as the only example of the feminine expression "Son of Mary"?
Now you are assuming Jesus was the only person referred as being born of a virgin and as the son of woman. He was not.
 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

@ viv
provide your sources for making the claim that in Jewish culture the phrase "son of <mother>" was ever used regarding another Jew.




also, in Jewish culture, if the father was unknown, this would have made it a derogatory reference to his illigitimacy. Thus your suggestion is one of agreement with my comment. Please provide your reference before further commenting for either of your two positioned plausibilities. Further comments without such will be ignored by me.
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

provide your sources for making the claim that in Jewish culture the phrase "son of <mother>" was ever used regarding another Jew.
The Bible is my source. Jesse and David, from Naomi, Ruth 4:17. In any event. Jesus was also called son of Joseph. Luke 1:27 specifically calls out Joseph as the descendant of David and only mentions Mary as "the virgin".
You've read the book, right? I only ask because, since you said you are hoping to be a NT scholar, you've several time made claims about the Bible that are demonstrably wrong.
also, in Jewish culture, if the father was unknown, this would have made it a derogatory reference to his illigitimacy.
Please provide your citation by actual scholars.
 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago



provide your sources for making the claim that in Jewish culture the phrase "son of <mother>" was ever used regarding another Jew.
The Bible is my source. Jesse and David, from Naomi, Ruth 4:17. In any event. Jesus was also called son of Joseph. Luke 1:27 specifically calls out Joseph as the descendant of David and only mentions Mary as "the virgin".
You've read the book, right? I only ask because, since you said you are hoping to be a NT scholar, you've several time made claims about the Bible that are demonstrably wrong.
also, in Jewish culture, if the father was unknown, this would have made it a derogatory reference to his illigitimacy.
Please provide your citation by actual scholars.
Your reference in Ruth is not an example of the same expression.
they said as a fact, "a son has been born to Naomi" they did not call the boy, "Obed son of Naomi"
"a son has been born to Naomi" in Hebrew is, " lə·nā·‘o·mî bên" it's just words stating a fact.
However the proper expression x son of x was, when a male, always like this, "Jesus son of Joseph" or "Yeshua ben-Yosef". I assume you can see the distinction here.




Thus the biblical reference you provided doesn't even apply. As to my scholarly references asserting this custom, I listed them in the other thread:
Daily Life in the Times of Jesus by Henri Daniel Rops
Lord Jesus Christ - Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.
Would you like the page number and a link to purchase for your own study?




As to your Lukan reference, we are discussing mark. Thus it has no baring. Unlike mark, Luke includes a birth account. It is a separate subject.

 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

Your reference in Ruth is not an example of the same expression.
Citation, please. Remember, there is no direct translation between Hebrew and Greek, so any citation will need expertise in translation between those languages.
they said as a fact, "a son has been born to Naomi" they did not call the boy, "Obed son of Naomi"
Indeed, just as they spoke of Jesus being the son of Mary, Obed was spoken of as being Naomi's son. Any disagreement with this obvious similarity will require you to provide a citation by an expert in translating both Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
However the proper expression x son of x was always when a male like this, "Jesus son of Joseph" or "Yeshua ben-Yosef". I assume you can see the distinction here.
Citation, please, on that being the proper reference. Whoever you cite will need to be an expert in both Hebrew and Greek since the NT was written in Greek and the OT in Hebrew.

Thus the biblical reference you provided doesn't even apply. As to my scholarly references asserting this custom, I listed them in the other thread:
Proper citation requires both a page number and paragraph (as well as edition, in fact). Properly cite your references, please, otherwise it's obvious you're not being serious.
As to your Lukan reference, we are discussing mark. Thus it has no baring. Unlike mark, Luke includes a birth account. It is a separate subject.
We are discussing Jesus, therefore it does. You seem to only want to use scripture that supports your positions then ignore those that don't. Sorry, no cherry picking. You don't get to claim "Jesus was called son of Mary" without also realizing he was also called son of Joseph. In fact, his two genealogies were through Joseph, not Mary.




 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20






Share this topic









Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
Saved_JW
Discussion with a Pioneer: CONCLUSION
by Saved_JW 4 months ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/76190002/using-context-understand-supernatural-jesus







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus
/  







 

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus
by TerryWalstrom a year ago 52 Replies latest a year ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

Im well aware that Jesus was also called son of Joseph in the other gospels, that is not being discussed here. What is being discussed is the out of normal matronymic expression applied to a male child, which didn't happen in their culture, and how this expression infers prior knowledge being expected by the reader of Christ's birth story.
one reference will suffice, lord Jesus- devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity page 319 paragraph 2 - page 322 paragraph 2
i provided you my cited reference. You may ignore if you wish, it seems you like ignoring such when you are incorrect.
Since you are the one who first took a Hebrew expression and compared it to a Greek one, please provide me your citation from an expert showing they are the same expressions being used in Ruth and Mark. If you can do this, I will accept it.
further, please refer to the other thread where I stated any posts by you that lack a reference I will no longer take seriously. It has been shown you own no such works other than a bible and believe you know everything about it because you speak English. Once you find proof the expression in Ruth is the same as the Jewish male connotation of x son of x, pm it to me and I will study it in detail. Until such time, please cease your pseudo intellectual debates.













 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

Also I direct this to you again Viv, failure to comply will be viewed as discrediting your comments going forward:






Let me ask you again:
1. Do you have or are you pursuing a degree in theology or history?
2. List your sources, as in, list the references YOU own and have read and studied.
My own answers to the above,
1. I have begun pursuing education in scholarly studies, in hopes of becoming s New Testament scholar.
2. Daily Life in the Times of Jesus by Henri Daniel Rops - owned, studied.
Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity by Larry W. Hurtado - owned, studied
The Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited by Michael D. Coogan - owned, currently studied to page 265.
The History of the Hebrews by Frank Knight Sanders - owned, studied (slightly aged)
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, owned
A copy of the bible in each of the following translations: KJV, NIV, NASB, and of course NWT. Each owned and studied with notations from start to end, containing references to Strongs hebrew and Greek index. - all owned, all studied separately and completely.
The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible by James Strong. Owned, used as reference tool
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament words by W.E Vine. Owned, used as reference tool
----
i have studied more books, but as pertaining to this thread, only these have been called on by memory.
please provide the names of the sources you actually own, and have studied yourself.

 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

Im well aware that Jesus was also called son of Joseph in the other gospels, that is not being discussed here. What is being discussed is the out of normal matronymic expression applied to a male child, which didn't happen in their culture, and how this expression infers prior knowledge being expected by the reader of Christ's birth story.
It is being discussed. You want to have a discussion about what in the Bible proves what about Jesus, you don't get to cherry pick the parts that support your position and ignore the rest. Not how it works.
one reference will suffice, lord Jesus- devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity page 319 paragraph 2 - page 322 paragraph 2
i provided you my cited reference. You may ignore if you wish, it seems you like ignoring such when you are incorrect.
Excellent, I own that book, but it's a Kindle version so I will have to find specifically what you are referring to since your page numbers don't match up with Kindle.
In any event, good job on the one source! Now provide the rest if you expect to be taken seriously (as per your request of me). Lead by example.
Also I direct this to you again Viv, failure to comply will be viewed as discrediting your comments going forward:
OK, you're not a scholar. Got it.
 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

You still have not responded as requested. I hope you don't drain your bank buying all the books I listed, kindle versions can still be expensive I.e., the one you bought.
Please don't allow your need to behave this way create a financial hardship.
Since you continue to not list your sources, I again assume you have none, and have only purchased this one because of being called out. I hope you have a good afternoon, and enjoy that book. Btw check out page 332, I believe that's the page where it discusses Jesus being called Emmanuel - enjoy.
quote Viv:
Jesus was never called Emmanuel.

 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

What is being discussed is the out of normal matronymic expression applied to a male child, which didn't happen in their culture, and how this expression infers prior knowledge being expected by the reader of Christ's birth story.
OK, I just read the Hurtado passage in full. He says, plainly, there are multiple possibilites and says why he favors one over the others, which is exactly what I said. He says, and I quote, "At least three possibilities might account for the expression in Mark."
You were supposed to provide a reference that showed no one else was ever referred by who their mother was in Jewish culture (despite the example I provided already existing in the Bible). You instead provided an example saying EXACTLY what I said, "Why couldn't it just as easily meant the father was unknown or they had a reason for NOT wanting people to know who he was?"
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

You still have not responded as requested. I hope you don't drain your bank buying all the books I listed, kindle versions can still be expensive I.e., the one you bought.
Drain my bank account? Of course not. As I said, I already own the book, along with dozens of others. I'm not sure if you are ignorantly implying I'm poor (I'm not) or that I didn't actually own the book (I did). Either way, as you'll learn if you ever progress from amateur to scholar, you will immediately lose credibility if you attempt to make debate personal.
Since you continue to not list your sources, I again assume you have none, and have only purchased this one because of being called out.

I own books by Israel Finkelstein, William Devers, Elaine Pagels, Burton Mack, Bart Earhman, Richard Carrier, Mortimer Adler, Reza Aslan etc., etc.. Stop being ignorant and pretending to know things you don't know.
Btw check out page 332, I believe that's the page where it discusses Jesus being called Emmanuel - enjoy.
Yep, he discuses it in that he says that that claim is unique to Matthew. Jesus was never called Emmanuel in the Bible and Hurtado doesn't dispute that in any way.
 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

The Greek influence had penetrated into Jewish theology as to methodology both in pre and post Apostolic times:




 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago
The most 'disturbing' influence of Greek thought and language is demonstrated by the fact actual words and language of Jesus weren't handled with respectful preservation. The Greek approximations do violence with exactitude of meaning. As the Rabbis taught, "All translations are lies."







 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago
Stoic and Platonic philosophy were Pagan penetrations into Judaism and early Christianity.







 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

@ viv
Since you insist on unnecessary specificity...




Daily Life in the Times of Jesus page 107 para. 2, discussing the naming of Jewish children, says, "The name which was chosen corresponded to our Christian name: the Jews had no surname-it did not exist. This does not mean that the sense of family was not very highly developed among them: it was. A son necessarily bore his father's name, as among the Arabs of today. A man was called, "son of so and so", 'ben' in Hebrew and 'bar' in Aramaic: for example, John ben Zacharius, Jonathan ben Hannan. Or Yeshua Ben Joseph. And eldest son was very often given his grandfather's name to carry on the onomastic tradition of the family and also to distinguish him from his father."




There, this will suffice. A son was always given his fathers name, not his mothers. It was part of their culture. Hence, because your example in Ruth does not follow this proscribed method of naming at all - it is not an example. The boy is not called, Obed ben Naomi. You are wrong. Comparison with Greek is unnecessary, you need only knowledge of some Hebrew and Jewish culture to see clearly the scripture is not naming the child Obed ben Naomi. Hence, matronymic expression used in mark is unique. The reason it's being singled out in Hurtado's book is because it is unique, abnormal in their culture and language. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth discussing - but obviously it is.




Huge difference between, "lenaomi ben" and "Obed ben Naomi". The latter expression is found nowhere in the bible.




You also continue to refuse listing your owned sources and reference works. This tells me you are not really interested in anything but an argument, and have not actually studied anything what so ever. You are not worth responding to, and I mean no offense. You stand discredited, good day and farewell.






https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:23
"...and they will call him Immamuel"
The angel thus applies the name to Jesus. You are, again, wrong.




@terry, I apologize for two of your threads being turned into a pseudo intellectual debate. But as of this post, I will be ignoring any and all further posts by viv in the future that do not include a reference to book title, author, page number and paragraph supporting any and all statements she makes. So, you can likely rest assured it won't happen again.
 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

Remember, the Watchtower Society was 'called out' for employing a 'spiritist' translation in propping up their controversial rendering of John 1:1? Johannes Greber's translation had been cited in support of ". . . and the word was <a>god."
The GB and the writing committee were aware of what they were doing.
I am going to use this as an analogy. Early Christianity was equally aware of Pagan sources creeping into their teaching but found it useful in getting their mission into Gentile territory. Perhaps this is partially a Pauline strategy of "being all things to all people."
Suffice to say, first century Christianity was a coalescence of streams of oral teaching, influences, debate, and stratification inside the community right up through the Nicene Council.  The 'fingerprints' of neo-Platonic Christianity were everywhere in evidence.
http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.htm

 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

There, this will suffice. A son was always given his fathers name, not his mothers. It was part of their culture. Hence, because your example in Ruth does not follow this proscribed method of naming at all - it is not an example.
Whoa, slow down there, turbo dog. We are not discussing what Jesus name was as part of his community, we were discussing, and I'll quote you here, "The referrence to him as the son of Mary". If you want to discuss what his name would have been, that's fine and it's great, but it's an entirely different conversation. As I have shown, he WAS referred to as "son of Joseph" if you want to get into nameing, but, according to you, we are discussing a reference to him, not what his name would have been.
What you've not done is show that no one else, ever, in Jewish history, was referred to as being the son of their mother.
You also continue to refuse listing your owned sources and reference works.
I've been using your sources and the Bible. You assured me they were reliable. Do you now dispute that?
 This tells me you are not really interested in anything but an argument, and have not actually studied anything what so ever.
Given the personal attacks and ignorance you've displayed so far, it's not surprising at all that you would continue that trend. This is, in fact, at least the fifth time you said you were done. I assume at some point you actually will be.
You are not worth responding to, and I mean no offense. You stand discredited, good day and farewell.
Yeah, you keep saying that. So far none of that has been true.
But as of this post, I will be ignoring any and all further posts by viv in the future that do not include a reference to book title, author, page number and paragraph supporting any and all statements she makes.
You forgot edition. If you want to rise above amateur, you'll need to include that. If you are going to steal my idea, at least steal it properly. It just feels like you're not even trying when can't even properly steal an idea.
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

Suffice to say, first century Christianity was a coalescence of streams of oral teaching, influences, debate, and stratification inside the community right up through the Nicene Council.  The 'fingerprints' of neo-Platonic Christianity were everywhere in evidence.
Well said and absolutely correct, Terry. The evidence demonstrating the outside influences on Semitic Hebrew religious evolution, the later Israelite religious evolution and Christian thinking and doctrinal evolution are plain to see for anyone interested in looking. It always amazes me when I see people begin with the conclusion and then try to explain away, twist, misquote, change the meaning of words, ignore passage, cherry pick and resort to insults in an attempt to contort the evidence to fit their pre-conceived notions.



 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

I'm not in the least disturbed by thrashings in a search for verisimilitude.
It is a fine example of how those who care, each in his/her own way, work through tares to winnow the wheat :smile:
We can all learn from each other. It is painful, certainly, because we (I know I do) find it hard to be wrong. But, intellectual honesty requires we suffer for our 'truth.'
Christianity mirrors a history of such battles from 1st century until this very hour.
 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

We can all learn from each other. It is painful, certainly, because we (I know I do) find it hard to be wrong. But, intellectual honesty requires we suffer for our 'truth.'
Win.




I agree with your comment about outside influence being evident through the nicene council. And your previous post addressing john 1:1, the book by Hurtado I just finished talks about it as well. It's kind of crazy how convincing their argument is when you're indoctrinated, but as soon as you put it under a microscope it falls apart fast. As with many of their other doctrines.




 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

Christianity mirrors a history of such battles from 1st century until this very hour.
Well said again, Terry. As Larry Hurtado says in chapter 1 of his Book "Lord Jesus Christ", Christianity was battling for converts and attempting to be relevant as well as gaining converts from non-Jewish cultures, there is no WAY they could not have been influenced by those ideas and religions. An example he gives is the ever increasing language around the Christ/God/Son/Father relationship parallels and is likely a reaction to increase of the same type of language in the popular emperor cult of the Flavians.
Scholars agree that the fingerprints, as you called them, of page, Jewish, polytheistic, Greek, Roman and other religions are all over Christianity. How could they not be,
 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

I was talking to a Seminary student (Dallas Theological Seminary) recently. He was a good-looking, personable, charismatic, (in the Movie Star sense) and intelligent fellow.
I really don't know how I manage to attract these discussions. Or do I?
I spend most days sitting in a Starbucks writing away furiously. Curious people sit nearby and ask questions. I let slip this or that and---BINGO!
Be that as it may . . .
This magic Christian proceeded to confess he was on a personal Sabbatical, an Ad Hoc Rumspringa to reassess his life!
All he had ever known was evangelical certainty, inerrancy of Scripture, and a deep-seated sense of heavenly entitlement--that is--until recently. One day, he was praying and suddenly became aware that he was 'talking to himself.'
I confessed the exact same experience--and a dialogue quickly ensured.
The empty feeling of being a 'fraud,' had haunted him. He was smart enough to step out of himself and see how religious fellowship was a self-reinforcing delusion. This led to an epiphany that Seminary was but an intellectual gasp and grasp at yet another self-reinforcing delusion!
Holy tergiversation, Batman!
We spoke for over an hour. Other patrons stood or sat nearby with eyes wide at the other-worldliness of our recherche!
I've seen him twice since then. He always looks terribly happy to see me, and once more, we plunge into an odd dance. I guess I'm an old man (68) who fits into an Obi Wan template for younger aspiring Jedi. Dunno, really. Suffice to day, I profess only ignorance and experience at sloughing my own skin of absolute certainty---and it works a MIRACLE for the fellow to experience my experience of that journey!
Apparently, there are 'True Believers' out there who aspire to doubt! The melancholy burden of 'proving the numinous' is too great a load to live with. The sense of falseness makes them sick of their own posture in the community of belief.
I call it a 'thirst for authenticity of self.' 
A person of intellectual bent wants to 'solve' the problem as though it were possible by KNOWING THINGS. Others, less honest, want to solve the problem by BELIEVEING THINGS. Lastly, come the wary, weary, wastrels (myself included) who solve the problem by ABANDONING every premise and starting anew.
I too grow angry at sureness because I see it as repugnant, self-satisfied laziness.
But--is it? Dunno. It feels that way at the moment.
Doubt is as comforting as an empty bank account. Belief is writing bad checks.
Hope is applying for a large bank loan by mortgaging the future.
The Seminary guy grows happier each time I see him. He is wondering how to 'come out of the closet' as a non-believer to his Dad and Mom.  Yipes.
He knows a HUGE RECKONING is in store and he'll have to 'explain' the inexplicable.
He wanted advice from Obi wan.
I quoted an old movie adage from WAR GAMES.
"The only way to win is to---NOT PLAY."
I said to him, "You parents and Christian friends either love the authentic you--or they've been lying to themselves by loving the version of you which pretends. Which do you want it to be?"
To NOT have "THAT" conversation (in religious terms) is to be authentic.
My takeaway from this exchange is this.
We are all on a journey. Those who have absolute certainty are betting everything against the odds.
There are 41,000 denominations in Christianity. How lucky can a fellow be to accidentally hit the 'true' one--IF there is a 'true' one?
Perhaps a good life, well-lived, being a service to others is the better trade-off?
Regardless, I use these religious discussions as a reminder of how much volatility
there is in THINKING SOMETHING IS TRUE based on numinous ancient texts :smile:









 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

Lastly, come the wary, weary, wastrels (myself included) who solve the problem by ABANDONING every premise and starting anew.






This is what I have done myself. Which is why the factual statements made in these threads by me are assured. I.e, viv apparently didn't grasp that saying Yeshua ben Yosef is his actual name. That is a example of a name. "Lenaomi ben" is not a name, at all. Historical fact, proven. Known. Unchangable. The surety in responses to my unchangable facts is, indeed, very repugnant to me.
Also I hope you read the rest of that glowing review and not just the part about Q. I can't tell now if you were serious in your opinion of the book.
 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom a year ago

I'm always serious; even when I'm kidding:smile:
As Chaucer said, "Ful ofte in game a sooth I have herd saye!"
 
myelaine
myelaine a year ago

"There are 41,000 denominations in Christianity. How lucky can a fellow be to accidentally hit the 'true' one--IF there is a 'true' one?"...
luck would be on your side Terry.
most of these 41,000 divisions are along the lines of tradition, governance, and organization. In fact, as far as the truth being taught most of the 41,000 are theologically identical.









 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20






Share this topic




Topic Summary
to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).
however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.
surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!




Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
Saved_JW
Discussion with a Pioneer: CONCLUSION
by Saved_JW 4 months ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/76190002/using-context-understand-supernatural-jesus?page=2&size=20







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus
/  







 

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus
by TerryWalstrom a year ago 52 Replies latest a year ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

This is what I have done myself. Which is why the factual statements made in these threads by me are assured. I.e, viv apparently didn't grasp that saying Yeshua ben Yosef is his actual name
Wow. Proclaiming yourself and proclamations to be assured if the first sign of delusional grandeur. Fortunately, we have a record of this most recent episode of duplicity on your behalf. For your benefit,I will quote me quoting you:  We are not discussing what Jesus name was as part of his community, we were discussing, and I'll quote you here, "The referrence to him as the son of Mary". If you want to discuss what his name would have been, that's fine and it's great, but it's an entirely different conversation. As I have shown, he WAS referred to as "son of Joseph" if you want to get into nameing, but, according to you, we are discussing a reference to him, not what his name would have been.
You never said anything about his NAME until you needed to change the subject. If it is delusions of grandeur that prevent you from acknowledging your own words, see a doctor. If it's simply an inability to be wrong because of some belief system, well, you've been caught lying.
The surety in responses to my unchangable facts is, indeed, very repugnant to me.
That sucks for you, eh?
 
Pistoff
Pistoff a year ago

"Also I direct this to you again Viv, failure to comply will be viewed as discrediting your comments going forward:"




You are not as knowledgeable as you think you are, and appear to be a bit of a would be bully.

 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

luck would be on your side Terry.
most of these 41,000 divisions are along the lines of tradition, governance, and organization. In fact, as far as the truth being taught most of the 41,000 are theologically identical.
That presupposes those divisions, no matter how tiny, aren't important or that the divisions are all about tradition and organizations or than Christianity is true or that any of those 41000 denominations are right.
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

You are not as knowledgeable as you think you are, and appear to be a bit of a would be bully.
Yeah, that's hilarious. "Failure to comply" wrapped with personal insults and constant threats to leave in a huff only to come back with more threats of failure to comply with insults and more threats to leave. It's quite comical watching JD attempt to distort research, what the Bible says and his own words (while declaring his words to be assured) in an attempt to justify his belief system.
Apparently "not backing down" is now being a bully. Boo hoo!
 
myelaine
myelaine a year ago

"That presupposes..."
yup :)
xo
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

yup
xo
Well, at least you know you're making stuff up and not hiding it.
 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago



"Also I direct this to you again Viv, failure to comply will be viewed as discrediting your comments going forward:"




You are not as knowledgeable as you think you are, and appear to be a bit of a would be bully.




Not so, if you review all of Viv's comments you will find this individual to be a disrespectful, argumentative, insulting person. I only responded in kind, I did not invite it.
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

Not so, if you review all of Viv's comments you will find this individual to be a disrespectful, argumentative, insulting person. I only responded in kind, I did not invite it.
Look out, we're having a pity party over here.
 
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake a year ago

Viv I don't know if you realize you're doing it, but you are a destructive, negative presence here. I have no problem with people with different opinions and beliefs. But I do have a problem with any who attempt to force that opinion or belief on me.
In both of the threads in which you have responded to me, you positioned so called facts. Some of which I'd concede can be argued, such as el and Yahweh. But you were proven wrong on other subjects and it didn't even register to you, you ignored it and continued to harrass me and instigate an argument rather than have a civil discussion.
I spent about 5 minutes reviewing your treatment of others besides myself, and found you're behavior is a pattern. You're a destructive force here that always seems to end up in an argument because of how you address others. I have flagged all the posts in which you were being instigative and harassing for the sake of it, rather than for any real discussion.
I do apologize however, for the few snide remarks I did make toward you. No matter how you addressed me, I should have remained completely civil. Having said that, I sincerely hope your behavior is reviewed by an admin. I also invite any who read this to review both this thread entirely and this before passing judgment:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/66690001/exactly-what-historic-view-divine-what-being-god-meant-long-ago

 
Simon
Simon a year ago
Viviane: please stop with the insults / non-constructive comments and stick to the topic.
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

Viv I don't know if you realize you're doing it, but you are a destructive, negative presence here. I have no problem with people with different opinions and beliefs. But I do have a problem with any who attempt to force that opinion or belief on me
No one has tried to force any belief on you.
In both of the threads in which you have responded to me, you positioned so called facts. Some of which I'd concede can be argued, such as el and Yahweh. But you were proven wrong on other subjects and it didn't even register to you, you ignored it and continued to harrass me and instigate an argument rather than have a civil discussion.
Regardless of you thinking I was wrong, this is a discussion forum. If you can't handle civil debate without getting personal, you're free to not post to me ever again. In fact, you promised to not respond to me several time yet, here you are claiming harassment. Hardly.
I spent about 5 minutes reviewing your treatment of others besides myself, and found you're behavior is a pattern. You're a destructive force here that always seems to end up in an argument because of how you address others. I have flagged all the posts in which you were being instigative and harassing for the sake of it, rather than for any real discussion.
So quit posting to me, then. No one is forcing you to.
I do apologize however, for the few snide remarks I did make toward you. No matter how you addressed me, I should have remained completely civil. Having said that, I sincerely hope your behavior is reviewed by an admin. I also invite any who read this to review both this thread entirely and this before passing judgment:
Apology accepted. No one ever insulted you, stop trying to have a pity party for yourself. Feel 100% free to stop following me around and complaining to mother and never speak to me again.
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

Viviane: please stop with the insults / non-constructive comments and stick to the topic.
I've not insulted anyone, nor strayed from topic unless directly address by an OT comment, Simon.
EDITED TO ADD...
I can understand how, even though factual, using the word "ignorant" to describe a lack of knowledge can feel insulting. I apologize if that bothered you JD. In the future, should anyone decide to make OT comments about my personal life, education, financial situation, etc., I will not use the word "ignorant" to describe those comments. I'll simply point out politely that it is irrelevant, personal and a subject they don't have any details on and to please refrain from commenting on.
 
Twitch
Twitch a year ago

What Simon said
Thank you sir, for not being a mother but rather a referee in the arena of what should be civilized and considerate discussion. The constant off topic bickering and insults are tiresome, boring and counter productive IMO




 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20






Share this topic




Topic Summary
to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).
however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.
surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!




Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
Saved_JW
Discussion with a Pioneer: CONCLUSION
by Saved_JW 4 months ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/76190002/using-context-understand-supernatural-jesus?page=3&size=20







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ What is the SIGNIFICANCE of the Astounding KORAN Manuscript discovery ?
/  







 

What is the SIGNIFICANCE of the Astounding KORAN Manuscript discovery ?
by TerryWalstrom 7 months ago 13 Replies latest 7 months ago   watchtower beliefs
5
10
20
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom 7 months ago

Bart Ehrman's blog reveals some very interesting facts about the recent discovery of a manuscript of the KORAN.




"In case anyone is missing the significance of that, here is a comparison. The first time we have any two-page manuscript fragment of the New Testament is from around the year 200 CE. That’s 170 years after Jesus’ death in 30 CE. Imagine if we found two pages of text that contain portions, say, of the Sermon on the Mount, in almost exactly the same form as we have them in what is now our Gospel of Matthew, and suppose that these pages received a carbon-14 dating of 30 BCE – 40 CE. Would we be ecstatic, OR WHAT???"
____________
"If these pages of the Qur’an do indeed show that the text of the Qur’an is virtually the same in, say 630-40 CE as it is in 1630-40 as it is in 2015, that would suggest that Muslims are indeed correct that at least in some circles (it would obviously be impossible to prove that it was true in *all* circles), scribes of the Qur’an simply didn’t change it. "




__________________
BART RAISES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION WELL WORTH ASKING:




"If Muslim scholars over the centuries – from the very beginning – made dead sure that when they copied their sacred text they didn’t change anything, why didn’t Christian scribes do the same thing??? "

"Christian scribes did not do the same thing. We have many thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament. They all have mistakes in them. Lots of accidental mistakes (hundreds of thousands) from times that scribes were inept, inattentive, sleepy, or otherwise careless; and even lots of mistakes that appear to be places that scribes altered the text to make them say something other than what it originally said."




"For Christians the New Testament was a sacred book, the Word of God. Why didn’t they *make sure* that it never got changed? I can understand on one level why they didn’t. The scribes who copied it, especially in the early period, were not professionals. In the early centuries, the copyists were simply the local people who happened to be literate who could do a decent job. And they made lots of mistakes and changed the text in places intentionally. But why didn’t anyone go to the trouble of making sure that didn’t happen? It’s a genuine question."
Ehrman goes on to point out an important fact:
New Testament manuscripts all differ from one another and contains many thousands (hundreds of thousands) of differences among them, so that even though we can be relatively sure of what the authors wrote most of the time, there are numerous places of disagreement and some of these places really matter. There are some passages where we will probably never know the exact wording.
That may not be the case with the Qur’an.
"The fact that you do (or do not) know what a book originally said, has no bearing – no bearing at all, not a single bearing – on the question of whether you can trust it or not. It is completely irrelevant to the question. An absolute non sequitur. I wish Christian apologists would learn this, instead of continuously filling people’s heads with nonsense. Being the best-attested book from antiquity has no bearing on the question of whether the things that are said in the New Testament are true. No bearing at all."



"We appear to have evidence – better evidence than, say, for the Gospel of Matthew, or Paul’s letter to the Romans, or the epistle to the Hebrews – that the Qur’an was (at least by some scribes) very accurately copied over the centuries from the time it was produced. Does that “prove” that you can trust what it has to say? Of course not. But for historians it is an absolutely stunning, marvelous, and wonderful discovery nonetheless."







 +3 / -0
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom 7 months ago

Ehrman says this about the process of dating the manuscript:
"Let me say that carbon-14 dating is indeed a science, but it’s not a highly exact science. It dates organic material based on the deterioration of its carbon-14 isotope, and so can give a range of dates that are statistically determined to be of relative accuracy. Even so. This dating is remarkable. The dating was done by a lab devoted to such things in Oxford. It turns out that there is a 95% chance that these pages were produced between 568 and 645 CE. How good is that? The prophet Mohammed, who (in traditional Islamic teaching) was responsible for producing the Qur’an was engaged in his active ministry in 610-632 CE. These pages may have been produced during his lifetime or in a decade or so later."
 
Saintbertholdt
Saintbertholdt 7 months ago

Nice post.
The best example I found of willful tampering is in the Old Testament regarding the height of Goliath.
The Qumran fragments (250 BCE) and Josephus (200 ACE) both contradict the earliest OT manuscripts. Turns out Goliath was about 6 foot 5. Tall but not a Giant.
 
dyakoub
dyakoub 7 months ago

The reason that the Qur'an can maintain a more accurate transcription than the Christian canon, I think is reliant on two things:
1) The differing attitudes towards Christian Scripture and the Qur'n by Christians and Muslim respectively. The Qur'an, in the Islamic tradition is the Perfect Word of God in Arabic revealed by the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad, who recited it and is the Holiest of Holies in the ephemeral world. It was learned by reciters of the first generation (within a culture of oral literature/recitation. On the other hand, the bible 66-77(?) different texts compiled throughout 1,550 years. There was no Christian canon until about the 5th century. Different people followed different scriptures, let alone did anyone memorize "it".
2) The Qur'an is written in verse and thus makes its memorization infinitely easier than Christian scripture (bar the Psalms). Thus, with a group of memorizers there can be consensus as to what the text is supposed to say, and rectification to alterations. The Qur'an is meant to be performed rather than read in the Ambrosian style. This is completely different than the Christian texts which were read in isolation such as monks and copied similarly.
 
John Aquila
John Aquila 7 months ago



Saintbertholdt
Turns out Goliath was about 6 foot 5. Tall but not a Giant.
That means Shaq is taller.
Image result for shaq height
 
oppostate
oppostate 7 months ago






@John Aquila.
Who in their right mind would pick a fight with Shaq? Definitely not me, even if I had a slingshot. He's usually quite smiley, but if he ever gave a look of being upset I'd be running the other way reeeaaaaalllll quick.
==================================




@Terry
Mohammed (the pedophile) was illiterate. Other people wrote the stuff after he died. Originally there were different versions. But Mohammedans being who they are, will chop off one's head for saying different. Heck! Even printing the Qur'an was illegal until the eighteenth century. If you smuggled a printed copy of the Qur'an into the Ottoman Empire your head would roll.
Do I really give a hoot what they found in Birmingham and how old it is. Yes, for historical reasons, it shows how fanatical the early followers were that they'd chop someone up for not towing the party line, and they are still at it over a millennium and a half, blowing each other up in mosques, because some are Sunni and some are Shi'a.
I've no respect for Sharia law, the hadith, nor any Surah.
Recite! Yeah, WTH the guy was an illiterate who liked having sex with a preteen! What a prophet, my foot!




 
JWdaughter
JWdaughter 7 months ago

Dyakoub, absolutely true! If any here have not heard the Quran recited, it is indeed verse-it often actually rhymes. Those who listened and heard would repeat, word for word the words claimed to be from God. Believers checked each other to keep accountability.
The Bible is at times so profound and beautiful and wise, but there is no claim made that it is directly speaking the words from our Creator. The presumption that the Bible that we have today is indeed the scriptures that WERE inspired by God is kind of questionable even among Christians. All that being said, some really good stuff clearly did come through. Too bad none of us know what GOD inspired and what men just wrote off the cuff or pseudonomynously(?) recounted in the gospels and torah.
All that being said, its not a big issue in Islam other than minor bragging rights, maybe, that this "discovery" happened :smile: I never heard of any Muslim question that it was original, though I have seen some websites questioning it (most anti Muslim). No believer debates it much-the long standing custom of recitation has removed that particular issue from being a concern for Muslims.
HADITH (sayings), though, Muslims debate about that like Christians do the Bible, theology, doctrines, christology etc., altogether. OY! It is interesting in that hadith is NOT considered to be inspired at all. It is argued about by muslims like the Bible is by christians.
 
Crazyguy
Crazyguy 7 months ago
How many actual pages were found Terry?
 
JeffT
JeffT 7 months ago
What's the significance? Apparently some cults are more attached to the past than others.
 
TerryWalstrom
TerryWalstrom 7 months ago

CRAZYGUY: How many actual pages were found Terry?
Consisting of two parchment leaves, the manuscript in Birmingham contains parts of what are now Chapters 18 to 20.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-fragments-university-birmingham.html

 
Vidiot
Vidiot 7 months ago



Saintbertholdt - "Turns out Goliath was about 6 foot 5."
Well, considering that Palestinian people 4000 years ago (including Biblical Hebrews)averaged about 5 feet... :smirk:
 
Phizzy
Phizzy 7 months ago

As I said on my Thread about this when the news first broke, it will be interesting to see a comparison done by a competent and trustworthy (i.e "disinterested") Scholar of ancient Arabic as to any differences, if any.
Until then, all is supposition, though I like Prof Ehrman's take on this.
 
JWdaughter
JWdaughter 7 months ago

I rather question the dating. However, the info at this time is a little unclear. If it's that old, cool.
I saw ancient pottery taken from a contemporaneous time that came from the area that had verses written on them. Written verses as we know them n ow go back to that time. Not that big a deal. Very old illuminated(?) Quran pages seem to be all over, so much so that they are framed as art and sold in souks. They fill museums all over the world.

 
fahrvegnugen
fahrvegnugen 7 months ago
I saw a documentary some time ago on some manuscript evidence that an older form of the Koran had contained some references at odds with the current text. I realize that is vague and unhelpful, but I don't remember the particulars. Possibly it was something favorable to Jews, Christians or women.

 

5
10
20






Share this topic









Related Topics
TerryWalstrom
INTERVIEW: with an Elder
by TerryWalstrom 8 months ago
TerryWalstrom
BART EHRMAN answers my question
by TerryWalstrom a year ago
TheWonderofYou
What kind of errors in the Bible?
by TheWonderofYou 8 months ago
Terry
WATCHTOWER'S basic premise is false (i.e. copy the earliest form of Christianity and you get it 'right')
by Terry 6 months ago
AndersonsInfo
For your convenience, Trey Bundy sent a list of 16 links to all of CIR's coverage of JWs so far, including radio & TV
by AndersonsInfo 19 days ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/406040001/what-significance-astounding-koran-manuscript-discovery







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ The best book on biblical archaeology I've ever read
/  







 

The best book on biblical archaeology I've ever read
by marmot a year ago 24 Replies latest a year ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
marmot
marmot a year ago

I'm referring to "The Bible Unearthed : Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of its Sacred Texts" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. I think it should be required reading for anyone who deigns to defend the historicity and literal interpretation of the bible. (I'm looking at you Singlecell)
http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Bible_Unearthed.html?id=lu6ywyJr0CMC&redir_esc=y
 
Viviane
Viviane a year ago

I own that book. It's quite good, I agree.
 
Magnum
Magnum a year ago

I've heard of that one before; might have been on this site. Seems like I remember reading about a fight or feud or something like that between at least one of the authors and another scholar (maybe I'm confusing this book with another). Thanks for the recommendation; I'm adding it to my list now. Would love to read it.
I'm kind of curious. The authors' names indicate they're Jewish. I take it, though, that they're not very religious and that they are more like secular historians.
 
HowTheBibleWasCreated
HowTheBibleWasCreated a year ago

I own the book and use it as a basis for archeology. As for it's dating of the biblical texts I reject it since it's all based on a 'story' in 2 Kings which really can't be proven. Other then that the book is a good introductory to the reality archeology is uncovering.
Magnum that is Israel Finkelstein vs Willian Dever they always argue about something lol
 
Phizzy
Phizzy a year ago

I think it is, as you say, an excellent introduction for the Layman to the present situation in Biblical archaeology.
I think the central hypothesis of the book, that the early books of the Hebrew Bible were composed at the earliest in the days of Josiah has great merit. Of course, this can only stand until new discoveries change it, if they ever do, they may simply confirm.
The really enlightening part of the book was the explanation that a good number of the places mentioned in Genesis and "later" books , simply did not exist in the time they were supposed to be thriving cities !
It is plain that the early books of the Hebrew Bible are all Historical Fiction written to bolster the image of a very secondary Kingdom, Judah, and to provide it with a mythical great past, figures like David and Solomon being greatly mythologized.
As you say, a thoroughly good read.
 
bohm
bohm a year ago

This is an excellent book; really a bit of a archeological page-turner. I would recommend this for anyone who is interested in how well archeology supports the pre-babylonian OT narrative.
 
Vidiot
Vidiot a year ago



marmot - "I'm referring to 'The Bible Unearthed'... by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman."
I'm betting fundamentalist Christians don't much like these guys.
I may have to read this.
 
Vidiot
Vidiot a year ago



marmot - "I'm referring to 'The Bible Unearthed'... by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman."
I'm betting fundamentalist Christians don't much like these guys.
I may have to read this.
 
Vidiot
Vidiot a year ago



marmot - "I'm referring to 'The Bible Unearthed'... by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman."
I'm betting fundamentalist Christians don't much like these guys.
I may have to read this.
 
Vidiot
Vidiot a year ago



marmot - "I'm referring to 'The Bible Unearthed'... by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman."
I'm betting fundamentalist Christians don't much like these guys.
I may have to read this.
 
never a jw
never a jw a year ago

The book is much better than blindly following the biblical interpretation of fundamentalists religious leaders, but I think is a commercial book designed for the masses with a fair amount of speculation. I enjoyed much more the Introduction to the Hebrew Bible by John J. Collins and the lectures on Introduction to the Old Testament by Yale On Line (free) with professor Christine Hayes (she is very, very good). They take a broader scope (archaeology, Near East religions, paleography, the Bible text itself), and provide explanations that make you feel that you understand a lot better the Bible as a whole, the Bible writers motives, the Bible times and the relation of the Hebrew Bible to other Near Eastern religions.
 
Terry
Terry a year ago

____________________
Let's face it--some topics cannot be discussed. Why? The opposition won't allow it.
Instead of an open debate about X, pretext of bias, prejudice, and malice is used to derail.
A strawman Y replaces X, and off we go!
This is true of race relations, as we all know.
Well, it is definitely true of Israel.
_____________________

I would strongly advise you to read Alan Dershowitz's rebuttal book( The Case for Israel) so you don't
find yourself in a trap inside of an argument with fingers pointed at you as Anti-Semitic
for quoting Finklestein!




This happened to me--and it was NOT pleasant.
http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Dershowitz.htm
_________________________
An academic war broke out with Dershowitz on one side and Finklestein on the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz%E2%80%93Finkelstein_affair
____________________________________
Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-semitism and the Abuse of History
Norman G. Finkelstein



University of California Press 2005
343 Pages $22.50
ISBN: 0-520-24598-9
Review by Noel Kriftcher
(Short excerpt of much larger Review)
"Finkelstein plainly reveals his bias: “In some quarters anger at Israel’s brutal occupation has undoubtedly spilled over to an animus toward Jews generally. But however lamentable, it’s hardly cause for wonder.” By excusing any wrongs done to Israel while lamenting all wrongs done by Israel, he weakens his standing as an objective analyst and thus, the persuasiveness of his argument.
Nor does American Jewry fare any better than Israel in his eyes: “...from this lethal brew of formidable power, chauvinistic arrogance, feigned (or imagined) victimhood, and Holocaust-immunity to criticism has sprung a terrifying recklessness and ruthlessness on the part of American Jewish elites. Alongside Israel, they are the main fomenters of anti-Semitism in the world today.” Evidently, we have met the enemy and he is us!
Once one reviews the “facts” surrounding Israel’s actions and considers Finkelstein’s rebuttal to Dershowitz and others, one is left with an anti-Israel, anti-American Jewry, pro-Palestinian polemic, which makes this a most difficult book to read dispassionately. Professor Finkelstein challenges conventional views of the Middle East but he is so intemperate in the animus he displays toward his various bêtes noires, that unbiased examination becomes virtually unattainable."

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/10/pulling-some-devastating-punches-a-review-of-the-bible-unearthed/
 
OnTheWayOut
OnTheWayOut a year ago

THE BIBLE UNEARTHED was available at my public library. It was totally awesome.
 
Terry
Terry a year ago

Ex-J-dubs have to be very cautious of confirmation bias.
When I was working at Half-Price books in the religion section I began to notice a trend.
Debunking books were followed by apologist books.
Each respective side remained convinced.
All I would urge is that Ex-JW's read BOTH sides of each argument to remain aware of ALL the particulars.
Why?
If you get into a discussion and you don't know what ammunition the other side has--you can be whipsawed.
Remember, intellectual honesty is the willingness to be wrong when presented with the facts.
_________________
When academics (experts) disagree and each side has credentials, I have to back out of a debate because I'm not
as smart as either party. My bias pushes me too far in a certain direction. I would easily allow myself to become
convinced of the argument which emotionally satisfies me.
 
Terry
Terry a year ago

Take a look inside Dershowitz's book (especially Table of Contents)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/047146502X
 
marmot
marmot a year ago

Thanks Terry, as the topic states, it's the best book *I've* ever read (so far). Always open to further information.
As for The Bible Unearthed, putting aside the controversy it does show for certain that some biblical passages are flat-out wrong. For example, the bit about camels not being domesticated at the time of Abraham yet he supposedly owned herds of them was an eye-opener. The lack of any physical or archaeological evidence for the Exodus was another.
 
OnTheWayOut
OnTheWayOut a year ago

Terry, I didn't read it all, but I don't see any criticism of THE BIBLE UNEARTHED (TBU) in the controversy you refer to.
Finkelstein blasts Dershowitz in a book about Israel, not about the content of TBU.
If I quoted Finkelstein from TBU, I would simply say I am not engaging in debate over those politics.
Personally, I see no appeal to their books on that other subject. Seems kind of limited to those interested in the nation of Israel.
Am I missing something?
 
Crazyguy
Crazyguy a year ago

Terry has a point, I have noticed a conserted effort by many including governments to keep things status quo. In the past researchers would not even get funding if they said anything negetive about the bible. But times are a changing I even whatched a show last night were they were discusing the story of Goliath and how his armor the way it was described was that of a Greek hoplite soldier 300-500 years later and not that of a philistine which they have clear evidence of what they wore in Egypt.
 
Phizzy
Phizzy a year ago

I have just glanced down the Thread, but Terry, you have a book by Norman G Finkelstein, the Bible Unearthed is by Israel F. ????
Unconfuse me please .
 
Terry
Terry a year ago

OnTheWayOut:
Terry, I didn't read it all, but I don't see any criticism of THE BIBLE UNEARTHED (TBU) in the controversy you refer to.
Finkelstein blasts Dershowitz in a book about Israel, not about the content of TBU.
________________________

Thanks for bringing that up, Phizzy and OTWO!
Finklestein attacked Dershowitz first and leveled many accusations about him and the book, Case for Israel.
In so doing, Finklestein hurt himself and the gravitas of his own book.
So, when I brought up Finklestein's archeological findings in a debate, I was horrified to have the evidence DISMISSED
by my opponent. The topic switched to defamation and bias rapidly! (The unusual name of Finklestein allowed the confusion, I suppose.)
This is what happens.
Richard Wagner's music becomes synonymous with Anti-Semitism in the minds of certain people.
The baby goes out with the bathwater.
That's what I intended to express in the above paragraphs, but I clogged the drain with too much chatter.
Thanks.
In confusing the two authors and further confusing the topic--more harm than good was done:smile:



 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20






Share this topic









Related Topics
Island Man
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man 2 months ago
fulltimestudent
A Bible study web-site that attempts to share scholarly views - Oxford Biblical Studies Online
by fulltimestudent a month ago
Gorbatchov
2002 radio interview with J.R. Brown, spokesman of WTBTS (The God Show)
by Gorbatchov 2 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments on the 11-8-2015 WT Study
by blondie 4 months ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/289488/best-book-on-biblical-archaeology-ive-ever-read







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ The best book on biblical archaeology I've ever read
/  







 

The best book on biblical archaeology I've ever read
by marmot a year ago 24 Replies latest a year ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
marmot
marmot a year ago

Oh yeah, just caught that too.
 
marmot
marmot a year ago



 
marmot
marmot a year ago



 
marmot
marmot a year ago



 
Finkelstein
Finkelstein a year ago

This book was put into a 4 part mini series on video.
If you would like to view this video you can watch it for free at Dailymotion
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x13mwrw_the-bible-unearthed-1-the-patriarchs_webcam
There is small button on the bottom right side for full screen viewing.
The other 3 parts can be located at the side menu of the web page
Interesting video with a different perspective .

 

«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20






Share this topic




Topic Summary
i'm referring to "the bible unearthed : archaeology's new vision of ancient isreal and the origin of its sacred texts" by israel finkelstein and neil asher silberman.
i think it should be required reading for anyone who deigns to defend the historicity and literal interpretation of the bible.
(i'm looking at you singlecell).




Related Topics
Island Man
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man 2 months ago
fulltimestudent
A Bible study web-site that attempts to share scholarly views - Oxford Biblical Studies Online
by fulltimestudent a month ago
Gorbatchov
2002 radio interview with J.R. Brown, spokesman of WTBTS (The God Show)
by Gorbatchov 2 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments on the 11-8-2015 WT Study
by blondie 4 months ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/289488/best-book-on-biblical-archaeology-ive-ever-read?page=2&size=20







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bible Unearthed?
/  







 

Bible Unearthed?
by badboy 14 years ago 6 Replies latest 14 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
badboy
badboy 14 years ago



I saw in a Ancienct and Medieval History Bookclub catalogue send in a mailshot this book(I think I have got the title right)by Liebenstein?/Goldberg?.
From the description it said that it was a myth that archaeology had proved the Bible,there is no evidence that Exodus happened etc etc.
 
Sirona
Sirona 14 years ago



Archaeology can prove the existence of certain places and certain kings etc. Archaeology cannot prove the bible is inspired.
** http://www.religioustolerance.org **
 
anewperson
anewperson 14 years ago

They are atheists. Although there is no archaeological evidence of the exodus in the Sinai there is said to be evidence that Saudi Arabia is not allowing to be freely examined in the Arabian peninsula itself. Many believe the crossing was from Egypt to Arabia.
 
funkyderek
funkyderek 14 years ago



Although there is no archaeological evidence of the exodus in the Sinai there is said to be evidence that Saudi Arabia is not allowing to be freely examined in the Arabian peninsula itself
So there's a rumour that there might be evidence, but there's a conspiracy to keep that evidence hidden? In other words, there's no evidence.
--
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
 
anewperson
anewperson 14 years ago

F, re-read it. There is no evidence for the Sinai desert but according to some persons there is for the Saudi side. Problem is Arabian authorities have kicked out amateur archaeologists who went there and won't allow in the pro's either.
 
funkyderek
funkyderek 14 years ago



F, re-read it. There is no evidence for the Sinai desert but according to some persons there is for the Saudi side. Problem is Arabian authorities have kicked out amateur archaeologists who went there and won't allow in the pro's either.
But that's not evidence. The possibility of evidence in some as yet unsearched area is not evidence. A belief should not hinge on evidence that may one day be discovered. The areas you mention may be studied one day, but until they are, no conclusions can be drawn from evidence that hasn't been found.
--
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
 
hippikon
hippikon 14 years ago

You go funkyderek
 

5
10
20






Share this topic









Related Topics
Nicholaus Kopernicus
Is it really True Worship?
by Nicholaus Kopernicus 8 months ago
Island Man
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man 2 months ago
Crazyguy
The Exodus confirmed..
by Crazyguy 3 months ago
rosesinbloom
David Splane address bethelites
by rosesinbloom 9 months ago
AndersonsInfo
Brownstoner: How the Jehovah’s Witnesses Acquired Some of Brooklyn’s Most Insanely Valuable Properties
by AndersonsInfo a month ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/25966/bible-unearthed









Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Book Recommendation: The Bible Unearthed
/  







 

Book Recommendation: The Bible Unearthed
by GinnyTosken 15 years ago 15 Replies latest 4 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
GinnyTosken
GinnyTosken 15 years ago



I recently finished reading The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. Here is part of a review that drew my attention to the book:

The book reaches its conclusions from a huge array of archaeological evidence of different kinds, some quite clever, such as the analysis of camel bones; others representing new trends in field archaeology, such as settlement surveys. The Biblical narrative is always interpreted in the light of this physical evidence, producing the clear conclusion that the Bible was almost entirely written in the seventh century B.C., and revised or added to later, by a new political party, only sporadically in power over a polytheistic society, espousing a novel religious idea of monotheism and a unified kingship based on this. Most of the Bible is found to be legend or propaganda favoring that party or its agenda. The Israelites did not come from somewhere else, neither Ur nor Egypt, but are the same people who had been living there for millenia, not much different from any of their neighbors, like the Canaanites. This is pretty much accepted as fact by most experts.
The authors add to this, however, the more controversial position that in fact there was never even a united monarchy: according to their view, this was a deliberate invention serving the interests of some of the kings of Judah (spearheaded by the ambitious Josiah, whom the Bible depicts actually "discovering" the book of Deuteronomy) who dreamed of conquering the northern territory of Israel. Finally, the authors make sense of this theory by advancing their own addition that Judah was an undeveloped rural backwater throughout its history until after the downfall of Israel to the north at the hands of Assyrian conquerers. According to this view, had Israel, which was a far more developed and sophisticated civilization, survived to tell its own version of Jewish history, we would have a very different story.
Among my favorite chapters are "Searching for the Patriarchs" and "Did the Exodus Happen?" The authors present evidence that supports the Biblical accounts and evidence that raises some difficult questions. For example, an Egyptian historian named Manetho writes of a people he calls Hyksos who established themselves in the Nile delta and lived there for about 500 years. He says they were driven from Egypt to the frontiers of Syria and that this people went on to found Jerusalem and build a temple there. The problem is that the Bible dates the Exodus at around 1440 BCE, and the Hyksos were expelled around 1570 BCE. Also complicating matters is the Biblical reference to the Israelites' enforced labor in the construction of the city of Raamses. The first pharaoh named Ramesses came to the throne only in 1320 BCE.
If the authors are correct, their theory helps make sense of many Bible stories, particularly why repeatedly a younger son usually triumphs over an elder. When one realizes that these characters represented tribes and political struggles, the stories make much more sense.
Below is an excerpt for anyone who would like to sample this book. Information in [ ] has been added by me.
Ginny

The relationships of Israel [by Israel, the authors mean the northern 10-tribe kingdom] and Judah with their eastern neighbors are also clearly reflected in the patriarchal narratives. Through the eighth and seventh centuries BCE their contacts with the kingdoms of Ammon and Moab had often been hostile; Israel, in fact, dominated Moab in the early ninth century BCE. It is therefore highly significant--and amusing--how the neighbors to the east are disparaged in the patriarchal genealogies. Genesis 19:30-38 (significantly, a J text ["J" meaning the Jahvist thread, believed to have been influenced by southern priests from Judah]) informs us that those nations were born from an incestuous union. After God overthrew the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his two daughters sought shelter in a cave in the hills. The daughters, unable to find proper husbands in their isolated situation--and desperate to have children--served wine to their father until he became drunk. They then lay with him and eventually gave birth to two sons: Moab and Ammon. No seventh century Judahite looking across the Dead Sea toward the rival kingdoms would have been able to suppress a smile of contempt at a story of such a disreputable ancestry.
The biblical stories of the two brothers Jacob and Esau provide an even clearer case of seventh century perceptions presented in ancient costume. Genesis 25 and 27 (southern, J texts) tell us about the twins--Esau and Jacob--who are about to be born to Isaac and Rebecca. God says to the pregnant Rebecca: "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger" (25:23). As events unfold, we learn that Esau is the elder and Jacob the younger. Hence the description of the two brothers, the fathers of Edom and Israel, serves as a divine legitimation for the political relationship between the two nations in late monarchic times. Jacob-Israel is sensitive and cultured, while Esau-Edom is a more primitive hunter and man of the outdoors. But Edom did not exist as a distinct political entity until a relatively late period. From the Assyrian sources we know that there were no real kings and no state in Edom before the late eighth century BCE. Edom appears in ancient records as a distinct entity only after the conquest of the region by Assyria. And it became a serious rival to Judah only with the beginning of the lucrative Arabian trade. The archaeological evidence is also clear: the first large-scale wave of settlement in Edom accompanied by the establishment of large settlements and fortresses may have started in the late eighth century BCE but reached a peak only in the seventh and early sixth century BCE. Before then, the area was sparsely populated. And excavations at Bozrah--the capital of Late Iron II Edom--revealed that it grew to become a large city only in the Assyrian period.
Thus here too, the stories of Jacob and Esau--of the delicate son and the mighty hunter--are skillfully fashioned as archaizing legends to reflect the rivalries of late monarchic times.
 
Scorpion
Scorpion 15 years ago



Thanks Ginny,
This is interesting reading.
 
TR
TR 15 years ago



Thanks, Ginny. I'll have to pick up this book.
TR
 
uncle_onion
uncle_onion 15 years ago



Hi Ginny
Does the book make mention that th eSumerian legends were VERY similar to the Genesis account?
UO
 
Moridin
Moridin 15 years ago

I've been looking for this book for about six months now and haven't been able to find it in any of the local book stores. I'll probably have to get it online. Thanks for the excerpts.
 
patio34
patio34 15 years ago

Thanks so much for the posting. I'll be sure to that book. It's amazing what's available outside the WTS, isn't it.
 
GinnyTosken
GinnyTosken 15 years ago



Uncle Onion,
The Bible Unearthed focuses on archaeological findings rather than comparative mythology, so little mention is made of the myths of Sumer.
I have, however, read about the striking similarities elsewhere. One book that leaps to mind is The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image by Anne Baring and Jules Cashford. Another is The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara J. Walker.
Below are a few tidbits from the latter book.
Ginny
Under Creation:

Myths of creation generally present a symbolic view of birth. Conditions before creation suggest the uterine environment: darkness, liquid, stirring or churning movement, the "eternal flux" associated with the blood of the Mother (Kali's Ocean of Blood, for example). Often there is a suggestion of one entity inside another. "When there was neither the creation, nor the sun, the moon, the planets, and the earth, and when darkness was enveloped in Darkness, then the Mother, the Formless One, Maha-Kali, the Great Power, was one with Maha-Kala, the Absolute."
The Bible's highly derivative version says "the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the Deep" (Genesis 1:2). The Deep was the Mother's womb, tehom, derived from Tiamat, the Babylonian name of the primordial Goddess . . .
Most creation myths speak of a splitting or opening in the dark, formless Mother. The beginning of the existing world is signaled by the coming of light. Romans made the connection with birth quite clear: Juno Lucina was not only a creatress, but also the Mother who brought "light" to the eyes of the newborn. . . .
Creation/birth was inseparable from the figure of the Mother. The oldest myths made her divider of waters, maker of heaven and earth. When a god came into the picture, he was at first only her subordinate consort, one of the beings she had created; sometimes a disembodied phallus, in the form of a serpent . . .
Often it was said when the god was allowed to create, he became puffed up with pride, and began to ignore his Mother and claim sole authorship of the universe. This angered the Goddess. She punished him, bruised his head with her heel, and sent him down to the underworld. Sumerian creation myths said when the Goddess's son-spouse began to show signs of hubris, she laid the curse of exile on him, saying, "Henceforth thou shalt dwell neither in heaven nor on earth."
About Adam:

Indians of South America said all mankind was made of "moon blood" in the beginning. The same idea prevailed in ancient Mesopotamia, where the Great Goddess Ninhursag made mankind out of clay and infused it with her "blood of life." Under her alternate names of Mammetun or Aruru the Great, the Potter, she taught women to form clay dolls and smear them with menstrual blood as a conception-charm, a piece of magic that underlay the name of Adam, from the feminine adamah, meaning "bloody clay," though scholars more delicately translate it "red earth."
About the Flood

The Biblical flood story, the "deluge," was a late offshoot of a cycle of flood myths known everywhere in the ancient world. Thousands of years before the Bible was written, an ark was built by Sumerian Ziusudra . . .
As long ago as 1872, George Smith translated the Twelve Tablets of Creation from Ashurbanipal's library, and discovered the earlier version of the flood myth. Among the details that religious orthodoxy took care to suppress was the point that the god who caused the flood was disobedient to the Great Mother, who didn't want her earthly children drowned. Mother Ishtar severely punished the disobedient god by cursing him with her "great lightnings." She set her magic rainbow in the heavens to block his access to offerings on earthly altars, "since rashly he caused the flood-storm, and handed over my people to destruction."
Old Testament writers copied other details of the ancient flood myth but could not allow their god to be punished by the Great Whore of Babylon, as if he were a naughty child sent to bed without supper by an angry mother. Thus, they transformed Ishtar's rainbow barrier into a "sign of the covenant" voluntarily set in the heavens by God himself (Genesis 9:13).
Edited by - GinnyTosken on 22 March 2001 10:57:30
Edited by - GinnyTosken on 22 March 2001 11:14:12
 
uncle_onion
uncle_onion 15 years ago



so is the book "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" providing evidence that the Bible acounts are right or is it trying to say some thing else?
UO
 
Tina
Tina 15 years ago

Hi Ginny
 Thanks,it's now on my booklist!! hugs,Tina
 
uncle_onion
uncle_onion 15 years ago



just bought it! Cost me 20 quid from Amazon.co.uk
UO
 
GinnyTosken
GinnyTosken 15 years ago



Uncle Onion,
I hope you enjoy the book as much as I did. While the authors show that the Hebrew Scriptures taken literally do not always match archaeological evidence, I never feel that they are spouting vitriol. If anything, I came away with an awe for a people that early recognized the power of the written word and story. It's amazing to consider that the Hebrew Scriptures come from a people who lived in an area smaller than New Jersey, and who are estimated to have numbered less than 450,000 in the eighth century--fewer than the present population of Oslo, Norway. Who could imagine that this small group would change the face of world history?
Ginny
 
uncle_onion
uncle_onion 15 years ago



Ginny
But is it saying that the Bible is fabrication or is to be taken literaly?
UO
 
GinnyTosken
GinnyTosken 15 years ago



Uncle Onion,
The authors believe that the Hebrew Scriptures are not a literal history, but neither are they complete fabrication. The places and people mentioned in the accounts did exist, but events didn't always happen when and how the Bible says they did.
Ginny
 
transhuman68
transhuman68 4 years ago

 More book review here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
 
transhuman68
transhuman68 4 years ago




 
transhuman68
transhuman68 4 years ago

Suck it up, Larsinger58 !
 

5
10
20






Share this topic









Related Topics
Esse quam videri
Question re: TerryWalstrom post on Reza Aslan
by Esse quam videri a year ago
Legacy
WT for This Sunday...1/26/2014..Were they still in Egypt?
by Legacy 2 years ago
cofty
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty 2 years ago
terrypike
Which school of thought is right about How long were the Israelite's in Egypt 215 or 430 years?
by terrypike a year ago
HowTheBibleWasCreated
How The Bible Was Invented- 5. Jeroboam the son of Nabat also known as Aaron
by HowTheBibleWasCreated 2 years ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/3587/book-recommendation-bible-unearthed









Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
/  







 

El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
by kwintestal 9 years ago 43 Replies latest 9 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
kwintestal
kwintestal 9 years ago

I've been thinking about this for quite a while and I'm not exactly sure how the best way of putting it out there, so if it seems like I'm blabbering at points, I more then likely am and I'm sorry. I'm kind of merging two different thoughts together, historical info I got from the book, "the Bible Unearthed" and personal research and discussions with others regarding "el".
El obviously played an important part in early Hebrew language as it was their word for "god". But, El was a Caananite god, and to them the God of all gods, supreme God father of all things and humankind. Here's the wikipedia entry for El: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29 .
So if the Jew's word for "god" was "El" wouldn't it make sence that their god prior to YHWH was "El"?
Now the book "The Bible Unearthed" shows (or tries to show) through archogical evidence that the bible was created by King Josiah and/or Hezikiah and basically the whole bible (prior to Josiah) was a work of fiction, and it does a good job at proving it.
My thoughts are if the bible was in fact created around the time of Josiah, YHWH beging created at the same time, the language would change around the same time, with the word for God being switched from "el" to variations of "YHWH". Now words that were common wouldn't change, so that's why we have words like "bethel" - house of god, "shekel" - money of god and not "bethyah" or "shekyah".
So how do we find changes in the language? The only way I could think of is changing of names, to include portions of YHWH. In the bible, there are at least 89 names that include "El" in them with their Hebrew translation and at least 30 that use a variation of YHWH. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophory_in_the_Bible
I was thinking that a geneologist or language specialist would almost be able to pinpoint a date (and by pinpoint I mean within a few hundred years) as to when they started using YHWH in their names. It would be interesting if the date would coincide with the rule of Josiah.
Any thoughts on this or other input? Anyone know if this type of study has been done?
Kwin
 
Awakened07
Awakened07 9 years ago

Well, I don't really have a lot of valuable input, but it's an interesting subject you bring up, and likewise the Wikipedia article, although it was missing a lot of citations.
I haven't read the 'Bible unearthed' book, but the History channel program based on the book can be found on YouTube in several parts. Just search for 'bible unearthed'.
I thought of Psalms 82:1 (and 6), where both El and Elohim is used. But if I recall correctly, that verse is understood as these gods being human beings; the judges. Can't remember if this is because the rest of people's faith dictates that it couldn't have meant other gods, or if there are some verses that clearly show that they were human judges.
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

Whereas there is much evidence that El was once regarded in Israel as the supreme god like in Ugaritic mythology (with many similar aspects, such as the bull imagery, or his position as chairman of the assembly of gods), not every single occurrence of 'elohim (which in Biblical Hebrew is the common noun for any god) can be traced back to El worship. In Ugaritic too 'l is a noun applying to any god, not only the name (or title) of El as the Father of gods.
If Josiah enforced the exclusive worship of his (i.e., Jerusalem's) Yhwh, he certainly did not invent the name. Theophoric personal names including some form of Yhwh, yw or yh, are found as early as the 11th century BC (ywchnn = yochanan), and the Mesha stele in the 8th century BC clearly aknowledges Yhwh as Israel's national god. So what the Bible reflects is a particular development of Yhwh's character (merging El and Baal traits, for instance, in the henotheistic phase of Josiah's reform and subsequent deuteronomism, then making the resulting mix the only "God" with Deutero-Isaiah), rather than the creation ex nihilo of a Yhwh deity.

Edit: while Beth-El is certainly related to El worship (even though at some point "Bethel" becomes the name of an autonomous deity, cf. Jeremiah 48:13 and the 5th-century BC Elephantine inscriptions), shekel otoh has nothing to do with El or 'l (the letter "l" is part of the root shql, "to weigh," whence a weight and a currency).
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

You might like to pick up a copy of: The Early History of God Yahweh and the other deities in Ancient Israel http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X Goes into a lot more details, and reference. kind regards Steve btw how to i get this to format correctly, none of the 'return breaks' seem to be working?
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

In addition to whmhg's excellent reference
http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X
you might also check the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Goddesses-Library-Testament-Studies/dp/0826468306
http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Deities-Demons-Bible-Ddd/dp/9004111190
 
Terry
Terry 9 years ago

Now the book "The Bible Unearthed" shows (or tries to show) through archogical evidence that the bible was created by King Josiah and/or Hezikiah and basically the whole bible (prior to Josiah) was a work of fiction, and it does a good job at proving it.
There was a kind of TEMPLATE of ideas which all surrounding nations, tribes, tongues used to retrofit their own embellishments.
Frequently, it was rooted in Astrology mythology.
Think of these hero tales and god tales as plot devices over which layers could be added which pertained to your particular tribe or nation.
The easiest example to point to in history of this is with the Roman Empire.
The Romans had their very own religion with gods and goddesses who did this and that.
However, the Roman religion borrowed huge gulps of pre-existing Greek mythology. In many cases just changing the names of the characters and leaving the particulars intact!
This mythic/religious plagarism was quite common.
If your tongue cannot pronounce the name of a God or goddess you just give them a name change and make it easier.
Sampson's exploits in the O.T. mirror Hercules (Hera-cles) for example.
These religious tales were mostly oral. When they began to be written down they took on a superficial importance.
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

What stood out with me from this book, was the validity given to Baal in Canaan as a legitimate god, the references to a female god as well, and the eventual traits of YHWH, that undeniable encompass the personalities of these other gods. .
I have ordered the other book mentions Yahweh And the Gods And Goddesses of Canaan , thanks for the link!



Steve
 
DeusMauzzim
DeusMauzzim 9 years ago

Besides the other books suggested, and the excellent reply by Narkissoswho is responsible for my post being so short , I would recommend:
Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Regards,
Deus Mauzzim
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Interesting topic and a complex one. But my take from a Biblicalist point of view is that since everyone is descendant from Noah, that it is reasonable that they understood or adapted concepts of the Creator and indeed would have been potential worshipers, or just acknowledge him in the pantheon of these other "gods" who probably can be linked to the principle angels involved.
Case in point the ancient Sumerians concept of VIRGO, a virgin carrying a branch, representing the "virgin mother" is a clear concept of Satan as portrayed in Eden as "the woman and her seed." The branch represents her family tree or her seed. Thus women holding a seed (like Athena) or Virgo, all Mother Goddesses are directly based upon Satan's idenity in Eden as the woman.
So if that concept was so clear and fresh in Sumer and they understood who Virgo was and what happened, then I think it's quite possible for them to have had a concept of El and may have paid some perfuntory worship to him.
Another issue we have to deal with in regard to early worship of YHWH who may have very well been called El just as we say, "God" and everybody knows what/who we're talking about, is MELCHIZEDEK. He was a Canaanite, living at Jerusalem, which apparently was a center of worship of YHWH since he was a king-priest of Yahweh. So is Melchizedek from the time of Abraham was already set up as priest of El/YHWH then we have direct Biblical proof that some of the Canaanites indeed worshipped El and understood who he was.
Finally, the destruction the Jews did in Canaan was a timed event. Canaan had a certain period of time to remain in charge of their land before the Israelites took over. So it's possible that Canaan had been a center of YHWH worship early on and had become totally corrupted and rebelled and so their destruction was connected with this rebellion against YHWH. And other accounts clearly show the Canaanites knew who EL/YHWH was, even if that concept had become corrupted over time.
Or take Greek mythology as another example. Those concepts of the one great father-god figure and the angels coming down and marrying beautiful women, many attribute to the angels marrying women before the flood, etc.
Having noted that, the only true issue here is not whether or not the Canaanites influenced the Jews and their concept of El and YHWH many, many years later, but that the original concepts of the creator, the angels that rebelled, even Satan as handed down by Noah had their own parallel but independent developments.
Sorry for this astrophic. I wanted to just show the ancient Sumerian concept of VIRGO, a woman holding a branch, representing the "woman and her seed" who represents the Mother Goddess, who is Satan/Lillith is ancient mythology. If they knew precisely who Satan was, I would think they would know just as precisely who El was. At least some of them.



Here is another form of the "woman and her seed", Satan as the Mother Goddess in the form of Ceres from Pompei. Notice the sheaf of grain.
alt
Another of Ceres holding a sheaf.
alt
Satan depicted as a woman frquently and consistently in religious art:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/Lilith/aNePics.html
So the Canaanites knew generally or precisely (i.e. Melchizedek) who the creator-god was and had specific concepts of Satan/the Mother Goddess as well. So the Canaanites calling the Creator "El" is not inconsistent with Biblical history, but doesn't mean that Abraham or the Jews needed the Canaanites to develop their concept of YHWH, which would have been handed down to them via Noah as much as he handed those concepts and events in Eden down to everybody.
That's why early on the idea of needing to connect Canaanite religion to YHWH worship fails immediately for "The Bible Unearthed." There's no need for any connection other than the common source through Noah. Further, nobody is saying that there wasn't some YHWH worship going on in Canaan under the name of "El", as long as El had the concept of the great creator-father god figure, which apparently he did. Thus I find Finkelstein's aggressive presumptions about the basis of Jewish worship of YHWH with reference to a foundation in Canaan a bit short-sighted, IMHO. But he's certainly entitled to attempt to make the connection.
JCanon
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

JC,
Leaving aside your original yet anachronistic references to "Satan," I'd just point out that Melchizedek in Genesis 14 is not connected with Yhwh but with 'El `elyôn ("God Most High" in many translations), who is regarded as Yhwh's father in the polytheistic synthesis which forms the background of Deuteronomy 32:8ff (on this passage see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66342/1.ashx).
His name/title and place may relate him to two other distinct Canaanite deities (equally attested in Ugarit), namely Zedeq (cf. Adoni-zedeq as another king of Jerusalem in Joshua 10, and possibly Zadoq as the eponym ancestor of the Jerusalem priesthood) and Shalem (Jerusalem = "city / foundation of Shalem"). It seems that the introduction of Yhwh worship in Jerusalem is quite late (as the divergent Biblical traditions about the city as "Jebusite" down to Joshua or David's times also confirm indirectly).
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 9 years ago

Good posts (well, aside from the one by our resident Messiah). I would also strongly recommend the book Religious Texts From Ugarit by N. Wyatt (2nd edition) which is a comprehensive translation of all mythic, liturgical, and legendary texts found at Ras Shamra. I think of it as my "Canaanite Bible", and it is fully annotated as well with many OT parallels highlighted.
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Hello Narkissos:
WOW! Thanks for pointing to that reference. We don't particularly disagree. There is room for both of our views, just as a matter of semantics and detail. For instance, if someone said that the Jews worshipped Baal. I couldn't disagree, could I? Because some did. But we know from other references that that was a problem for the official religion. So it doesn't matter how many teracotta images of other gods are found all over Israel, we know they are the gods and goddesses of the rebels. But since the Bible mentions this worship of some of other gods doesn't mean there was not a group that believed in one specific god, YHWH with his own "pantheon" of other angels/gods, one chief being Michael, and a main adversarial woman being his now divorced wife, Satan.
Here's an interesting excerpt from the post you linked (thank you!):

When moving from polytheism to monotheism, Judaism came to understand the expression as meaning « son(s) of God », i.e. heavenly being(s) subject to the unique God: ?angels?, good and bad according to the context. So the Greek Septuagint often translates son(s) of (the) god(s) as angels of God. In this perspective the idea of one main, archetypal heavenly Son of Goddevelops, as a sort of chief-angel (or arch-angel). He may be seen as eternal, though not equal to God (cf. Mc 13,22); this tradition merges with another, that of the Wisdompersonified/hypostatized as ?daughter of God? (from Proverbes 8 on).
Now I'm going to try and do this without writing a book. But basically God/YHWH has four attributes, represented by four images in heaven, a man, a lion, a bull and an eagle. These in turn represent love, justice, power and wisdosm, respectively. But a subdivision of these atributes in heaven are attributed to two angels. These two angels are the "covering cherubs" who are on top of the Ark of the Covenant, which represents holy Mount Zion. It's a special place of holiness in heaven. The two angels are specific individuals though. Their images are alternated on the curtains of the sanctuary. One depicted as a cherub with a man's face and the other as a palm tree. These two angels are like husband and wife. The palm-tree angel figure is the feminine one. They represent Michael and who I'll call Lucifera (feminine for Lucifer). So yes Jesus and Satan were once married. Shocked! Don't be. We all know Jesus marries the Bride Class, the church, do we not? Technically, this wife becomes associated with the temple and God's holiness where he dwells, and so the Bride Class actually replace Satan's position in heaven on holy mount zion.
But getting back to the daughter with wisdom. The Mother Goddesses, whom is based upon Satan's identity is connected with focus to the two qualities of god most associated with the feminine side of the androgynous divine being, although all are incorporated in Michael. That is, if you were to sort of separate the four entities of gods qualities, then Michael would take on the masculine ones, that of the bull (power) and the man (love), and Satan would be associated with the other two, the Lion (Justice, legal) and the eagle (wisdom, knowledge).
Now in the garden of Eden, this symbolism of these two angels continue, just as it does in the cosmos. The Sun represents Michael and the the beautiful moon, Satan. In Eden, Adam reflects Michael, the man and lifegiver, and Eve reflects Satan, his helper. Likewise the two trees in the garden where Christ is the Tree of Life and Satan is the Tree of Knowledge. Which brings us back to Satan's core identity, that of being a woman and being beautiful and associated with WISDOM. That's the Mother Goddesses whole thing from the beginning. How knowledge transforms one from human form into a god. "If you eat, you will have knowledge of good and evil and be like god." Even some of her Goddess Figures deal with Wisdom Personified, such as Sophia, upon which the concept of "sophistication" is based.
Remember Satan approached Eve in the Tree of Knowledge. When Isis is depicted as a tree goddess, whe gives her breast as suck to her followers, representing she is the source of special knowledge.

And who could miss that message with the multi-breasted Diana of Ephesus! Those breasts representing her primary function as a goddess of wisdom and knowledge for her followers, based upon the personal identity of Satan in heaven as this incredibly beautiful (i.e. sophisticated) goddess with much knolwedge and wisdom, knowledge that transforms her followers away from the physical and toward the mental, suppressing the physical to attain higher and higher mental states, the whole foundation of the Mysteries.
Diana of Ephsus
alt

But having said that, also in line with Satan being called "the woman and her seed" at Genesis 3:15, there is no way you can separate out that there was no precise concept of Satan in ancient times, since Satan is represented in the Mother Goddess as well as other false gods and goddesses, but emphasizing Satan's own personal spiritual attributes, among them being an angel of great wisdom and beauty.
Narkissos: Leaving aside your original yet anachronistic references to "Satan," I'd just point out that Melchizedek in Genesis 14 is not connected with Yhwh but with 'El `elyôn ("God Most High" in many translations), who is regarded as Yhwh's father in the polytheistic synthesis which forms the background of Deuteronomy 32:8ff (on this passage see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66342/1.ashx ).
But this now comes full circle. The academic propaganda wanting to claim late origin to the concept of "Satan" as well as the adaptation of the YHWH in later times based upon a previously polytheistic influence from Canaan. Some even taking that a step farther by saying there was no original 12 tribes but some of those who would become part of the Jewish nation were made up of Canaanite tribes already there. Now while I enjoy seeing just how may scenarios these scholars can come up with, it doesn't mean it really happened, especially when some of it cannot be proven one way or the other and there is direct written evidence in the Bible to the contrary with its own supporting historical confirmations. So my position would be firmly placed here that after Noah's time, it was quite clear in the minds of those worshipping especially the Mother Goddess that this was in rebellion to YHWH, religion inspired by Satan him/herself. The most ancient concept of the "woman and her seed" that of VIRGO testifies to that if little else.
Further, there are "the Mysteries" that have to be factored into this. Those Satanists who are in the woodwork who cannot make the direct connections to everything they propagandize on the public. Thus while even the Catholic Church follows the Bible and has a concept of Satan, this male force of Evil, with the folkloric and pop-culture concept always being this horned scary person, or the Red Devil with a tail and horns, etc. right there on the Sistine Chapel and in dozens of other paintings of the scene in Eden, Satan is a snake-woman! So in pictures Satan is this snake-woman, but where is the written connection with why this is so?
Look at how often and consistent this is here:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/Lilith/aNePics.html
HERE'S THE SCENE FROM THE SISTINE CHAPEL. WHY ISN'T IT TAUGHT THAT SATAN IS A WOMAN IN CHURCH DOCTRINE?
alt
But again, we come full circle. Those in "the Mysteries" who made the paintings and depict Satan as this woman are more accurately representing the concept of who Satan is on a spiritual level in Heaven, that is as the wife of Michael/Jesus and the "woman and her seed" at Genesis 2:15. This snake-woman is the same "original serpent and DRAGON" mentioned in Revelation. Snake-person is Satan even in the Bible! So even to hint that the idea of "Satan" is a late development is rather humorous, though understandable because of his modern alter-ego representation as this horned Red Devil, etc. That modern image, of course, distracting from the fact that Satan is the personalification of the Mother Goddesses, likely the closest true concept of Satan's spiritual identity. The beautiful Goddess of Wisdom. Wisdom Personified.
So again, looking at the situation from Noah handing down what happened to Eden and how these basic elements concepts are clearly seen, even in Greek mythology, thought distorted, we are a long, long way from deciding because the Canaanites worshipped a God named "El" that that's the basis of Jewish doctrine and adaptation to YHWH. But that's what the Satanists would want people to believe, of course.
Further as you noted, the DETAIL of father and son and daughter and wife and all that is all mixed up and exchangeable. You must know this. So we can't take for face value those assignments at any given point in time, any more than finding teracotta goddesses of Asherah all over Palestine means this was the original Jewish religion and the Bible's history is thus totally invented. There is no way you can prove this. It's just a conflict on what happened between the interpretation of what has been found by archaeologists and the Bible itself. I err on the side of giving the Jewish historians the best benefit of the doubt before simply dismissing that history as made up because it can otherwise seem logically explained by scholars trying to harmonize the historyo of the Jews into everybody elses history without exception.
Finally one more complication. After the Exodus and the Ten Plagues, Egypt and Assyria and like some in Caanan converted to monotheistic Yawism for a time. This was during the time of Akhenaten. The altar Akhenaten built in the middle of Egypt, which he personally claims was from the inspiration of his god, is mentioned in the Bible (Isa. 19:19). So at some point, I myself am looking at this period for evidence of some type of worship of Yahweh or its influence in places like Ugarit (as you mentioned), which was one of the Caananite city-states under the Egyptian suzrainty at the time. So you can see my complication here. I fully allow for the possibility of some forms of YHWH/EL worship at various times in Canaan, and maybe indeed Abraham and others understood this to be the same god, sort of how the Jews and Christians understand they are worshipping the same god and I believe the Muslims are too. Isn't "Allah" Jehovah basically? Isn't there a connection to Allah historically with the YHWH of the Jews? The ultimate creator-god?
So there are lots and lots and lots of explanations and possibilities for the similarities and names and identities of all these gods and goddesses, so much so, a quick presumption that the Jews just invented this during later times to create some type of psychological rescue of the Jews in their current situation just doesn't come to the table until much later, IMHO.
So what? The Caanites worshipped EL/YHWH, the same god as the Jews? The Jews didn't thus invent YHWH? So what? That would explain why God had the Jews go in and execute them at the appointed time. They were rebels of Melchizdekian Yawism/El-ism from way back! ???
Thanks again for the reference!
JCanon
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Narkissos: Thanks again for sharing your comments:
His name/title and place may relate him to two other distinct Canaanite deities (equally attested in Ugarit), namely Zedeq (cf. Adoni-zedeq as another king of Jerusalem in Joshua 10, and possibly Zadoq as the eponym ancestor of the Jerusalem priesthood) and Shalem (Jerusalem = "city / foundation of Shalem"). It seems that the introduction of Yhwh worship in Jerusalem is quite late (as the divergent Biblical traditions about the city as "Jebusite" down to Joshua or David's times also confirm indirectly).
Your point is valid on the specifics, but I think that at some point the blurr between the gods and their identities and duplication and overlap are such that we can take little for face value and have to just compare the similarities to the Biblical scenario of what happened in Eden. Case in point, do you remember a book the WTS once put out called The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop? (Actually, I think it is available online now!) Well in that book as well in some alchemy symbolism, they reflect the concept of the peircing of the head of the serpent on one hand, and horus and his sickle cutting off the feet of Saturn or something. (Actually I should check the facts first). But point being, these original Edenic stories turned into fables and got all twisted around incidental to time, or were deliberately switched around just to make it more mysterious and complex to outsiders.
The Mysteries got reflected in Freemasonry as well so some of those symbolisms, like the sickle is connected with Satan because Satan is supposed to bruise Jesus in the heel. Even the story of Achilles being only vulnerable in his heel is considered to be related to Satan bruising Jesus in the heel, etc. So at some point, it all gets mixed up, so much so it doesn't matter if one god in one culture is a father-god and in another a son-god, or a wife becomes a daughter, though often they are BOTH. In fact, that is part of the trinity doctrine made up of Osiris, Isis and the child Horus, Horus being thought to be some reincarnation of Osiris come back to life, etc.
Even the prodigal son scenario shows up in the Mysteries, as the fretting Dementer mother-goddess crying over her dear Persephone who is now in Hades, like the father crying over his lost son who is dead when he leaves his father's house. Note the parable about the "woman" and the drachma coin, how when she loses it, she frets and cries and searches desperately to find it, like Dementer does with Persephone. So all of this was worked out in advance, the first and second coming, how Israel would reject god but be redeemed at the last minute, the ultimate prodigal son scenario, all mocked in the pagan cult religion.
Even one of Satan's key upsets by Jehovah when he turned the tables on Satan in Eden. You see, it was hard to get rid of Satan without SIN and DEATH attached to it. In heaven it's just DISCUSSION. It's just concepts. How could God execute an angel? and for what? Not liking God's policies. Challenging why he alone must be worshipped and none others? It was complex. So basically Jehovah said, "Okay, I've had enough, let's see you put your money where your mouth is." and God created the physical world where there would be man made in god's image but who would have laws to abide by and if he didn't abide by them there was the penalty of death. But ultimately it was trap since the angels were bound to obey these laws as well, thus Satan was condemned to death for his part in Eden. Still, that wasn't necessarily LEGALLY good enough, since a jury in the majority could be wrong about something, right? So what Jehovah basically did was said this. I'm going to kill everybody! I'm going to call in my lease on every life and that's it. I will kill all my children, including my favorite firstborn son. Now that is what did Satan in. Satan likely was glad he had accomplished that much as a result of his rebellion, the death of Christ. BUT... turns out death is really not that big of a deal if you come back the next day! Death is only a horror and a torment day and night like the fires of Gehenna if you are never to live again. So God turned the tables on Satan with the Ransom Sacrifice, whereby, after killing all his children in order to get rid of Satan, he instilled new rules about whom he could bring back to live again forever. And that new rule was basically, "Whomever I chose!" So God had the last word on that. God could get rid of Satan if he killed everybody, with no legal liability. It was his option since he gave life to take it away. But after killing everybody, obviously he wins if he brings back the ones he wants. That's why the Bible says those who try to hold onto their lives will lose it, that is, to have a life that does not recognize God's sovereignty. But if you decide to die for God's cause, like many people do in any war, then you have the promise you will get your life back. So those who love Jehovah enough to be willing to give up their own lives so that God wouldn't have to deal with Satan any more, get their life back! Case in point, Satan tries to make a mockery of God killing his children, or "passing them through the fire" like this by all that cultic infanticide that was going on in Canaan. Passing the children through the fire imitates how Jehovah passes his children through the fire, but only those that are true gems survive. If you're not spiritually fire-resistant material, then the fire consumes you.
Having noted that, once you study "the Mysteries" and Freemasonry and all that occult worship stuff, you know there is very little you can take for face value and so just because something found in one place where the pantheon was one way, we can't presume that's the case all over and at all times. Thus trying to superimpose that on trying to challenge the Bible's historical account just doesn't work. It doesn't even come close.
If you don't know a lot, then smart people with nice books and lots of fancy words seem convincing. But if you do your own investigation, you not only see other scenarios, you often find where those people are biased or deceptive, with their own anti-Biblical agendas.
JCanon
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

Hey JC,
You're quite fascinating in your own peculiar way...
I'm on a hurry right now because I must leave home in a few minutes and will be away for some time, so I'll just give the link to one old thread where much of the above was already discussed (credits to Leolaia).
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/73244/1.ashx
Cheers to all.
 
kwintestal
kwintestal 9 years ago

Thanks for all the comments. I'll start by seeing what books my local library have of the ones listed.
Kwin
 
Forscher
Forscher 9 years ago

I own a copy of an interesting anthology Canaanite Mythology and Hebrew Epic; Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, edit. by Frank M. Cross, which has some interesting reading on the subject.
However, since I do not subscribe to much of the scholarship which has come out of the Documentary Hypothesis school of thought my thoughts on the matter should be fairly obvious. Using the internal evidence of the Bible itself, it would appear that God chose not to reveal a personal name for himself until just before the Exodus (Exodus 6:3). Since God is quote as saying to Moses on that occasion "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, but by my name the LORD (Jehovah, my note) I did not make myself known to them, RSV, ( ???? ???????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????) it would appear that God chose for some reason not to use a personal name for himself with his worshipers prior to that time. Remember that el is not a name. It is a noun which may refer to a supernatural being, or even a powerful man, just as theos may also be used.
I realize that my rejection of documentary hypothesis thinking runs against the current here, but I feel its foundational atheistic assumptions are counter productive for the purpose of serious biblical scholarship. If one really does believe that there is no god and, hence, no god had anything to do with authoring that book in the first place, then just ignore it and stay out of the field of bible studies entirely. The real insights based on that line of thinking have been few and far between in my opinion, and those few insight only result from the incidental objectivity which resulted from that psuedo-scientific school of scholarship's rejection of any religious dogma's influence on its research. However, its not so objective premise that the Bible is merely another work of man, as well as its quest to prove that premise makes me wonder if those few insights are really worth it.
I realize that Leo and Narkissos disagree with my opinion, and I respect their right to do so. All I ask is that folks respect my right to reject scholarship I see to be based on seriously flawed premises.
Forscher
Respectfully
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

I replied to some comments, but don't want to get too far away from "The Bible Unearthed." Thus one reason why this goes nowhere is because of the very foundation on which Finkelstein starts off in order to first archaeologically discredit the Bible and then come up with an explanation after the fact. But if you don't get to that qualified dismissal or there are errors or omissions in that original premise, then the whole argument falls down.
Thus Finkelstein gains momentum for his argument connected with David and Solomon he doesn't deserve. Now indeed, archaeologically, his position is quite convincing and firm. Key points are that the Canaanite pottery era as he says reaches well into the 10th century BC (999-900 BCE). This indeed conflicts with David who would have ended that period who is currently dated from 1010-970BCE by popular dating (i.e. the WTS is some 67 years earlier!) (page 341: "Both the ceramic and carbon-14 evidence suggests it was still in exitence several decades later--well into the tenth century BCE.") He then gets momentum by noting during the time of Solomon between 970-930BCE Palestine was not developed, there was no centralized government in place to build any great palaces, etc. So he dismisses him as an invention of the Jews later on in history, ostensibly needing the psychological boost. But notice how quickly all this falls through when you insert the original Biblical timeline, or one based on Martin Anstey's interpretation of the 70 weeks prophecy that dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. When you do that, then Solomon's rule is reduced 54 years down to 910-870BCE.
So you see, its not that the palaces themselves were myths here. The palaces were found, they just were not built in the era now assigned to Solomon from 970-930BCE. But, the archaeologist do indeed date these palaces, using RC14 dating. So for those following the Bible more closely for the Bible's own chronology and not the defective chronology of secular dating piggy-backed off the fixed Assyrian Period age based upon a single eclipse they date to 763BCE, then the story changes! Here's another quote from the book, Page 142:
"Finally, a series of samples from the destruction of a stratum at TEL REHOV near Beth-shean, which is contemporary with Megiddo's supposed Solomnic city, gave mid-ninth century dates--long after its reported destruction by Shishak in 926 BCE."
He is talking about Level IV destructive level at Tel Rehov. Here is the actual chart of the RC14 findings:



Now please note that Finkelstein isn't lying when he says it gives "MID-NINTH CENTURY DATES", since basically any dates from 975-925BCE could loose be considered mid-ninth century, with 950BCE and dates closer to that coming to mind. But at this point we question Finkelsteins motives just a bit since archaelogists usually break down the century into quarters, as Kenyon did when he noted that fall of Jericho occurring in the "third quarter of the 14th century BC." But of course, the lower the dating in the range the more dramatically he can dismiss the 925BCE chronology. But when you look at the chart, it clearly does not have a focus from the findings at Rehov in the mid-ninth century. The highest peak of "Relative Propability" stems from a broad range of dates from 918-823BCE, with the peak clearly pointing to dates from 874-867BCE. What is so valuable about this study is that they found when they tested a sample muliple times a random phenomenon occurred where the highest average finding fell near the center of the overall range. That is what we are looking at here. Thus the "true date" the closes to the event, also was closest to the middle of the range. If we find the exact center of the range, therefore of 918-823BCE, you get 870.5. (918 + 823 = 1741. Divide 1741 by 2 = 870.5, which is 871 BCE). So? So 871 BCE falls in the upper half of what would be call mid-ninth century, but Finkelstein contrasts that to 925BCE as being "nearly a century" later. I consider this suspicious, especially since it suggests he is looking at the lower mid-ninth century dating that might extend down to say 840-830BCE which would be nearly a century later than 925BCE. If we consider that, then Finkelstein himself is not focussing on the best available RC14 dating from Rehov from which he quotes. That is, if we use the primary date of focus here, 871BCE, then it really is only 54 years after 925, only a half century away from the 925BCE date.
Having noted that little detail of potential "dishonesty" or misrepresentation, we still have the direct scientific evidence he is speaking of. It is this evidence that we then test against the other chronologies from the Bible concerning this group. One being the date of Shishak's invasion per the witnesses in the 5th of Rehoboam, which would be 993 BCE (some 68 years earlier than 925BCE), and the dating by Martin Anstey based upon 455BCE as the 1st of Cyrus which dates the 5th of Rehoboam to 871BCE. That's right! The best averaged (mid-range) date from the RC14 from Rehov points right to the same year the Bible dates that event.
So what do we have here? We have a theory of revisionism based on the idea that the archaeology dating proves it was invented since the buildings of Solomon didn't appear later and we have RC14 evidence that Shishak's invasion didn't occur either until later closest to 871BCE, but that uses a Biblically incorrect dating for this event falling in 925BCE. When the correct Biblical timeline is used, or even just an alternative Biblical timeline, it lines up with the archaeology and chronology perfectly. David's rule would not begin until 950 BCE which is plenty of time for the Philistine pottery period to continue into the first half of the 10th century BCE as Finkelstein asserts. No problem. And it's not that the palaces claimed to have been built by Solomon was never found. They were indeed, confirming a time in Israel of a centralized government. Further Shishak's invasion listing over 150 cities destroyed isn't the invasion of some underdeveloped rural area of small towns! This is another confirmation that Israel was wealthy and highly developed at the time the buildings were built. The only problem is the DATING. Finkelstein's dating is too early for one thing, and it's not the Bible's timeline for another. The Bible's timeline dates Shishak's invaision in the 39th year of Solomon in 871BCE. (i.e. 455 BCE is a jubilee year that occurs as the 20th jubilee after the Exodus. Thus 19 jubilees earlier we can date the Exodus to 1386BCE. 19 x 49 = 931 years. 931 plus 455 = 1386BCE. Solomon's 4th year is 480 years after the Exodus = 906 BCE, 1386 - 480 = 906. Solomon's rule is thus dated per the Bible from 910-870BCE. Shishak's invasion mentions no Jeroboam and we find Rehoboam still consorting with the "princes of Israel" when they repent. We know that Rehoboam and Jeroboam were appointed together before Solomon's death, so obviously they began their official rules at that time, both of them, though the division of the kingdoms didn't technically take place until after Solomon's death. This explains why the attack on Rehoboam was of the northern cities as well since he was still over this region and the princes of Israel, yet another detail in the Bible that completely escaped Finkelstein's notice!) Therefore, there is no conflict with the chronology and the archaeology when you use the 455BCE dating.
Having noted that, however, with perfect harmony between archaeology and the Bible's true timeline, what basis is there for claiming revisionism now? NONE! You see, if you don't have the established conflict in the timeline, you have no need for a theory of revisionism. And remember this is two-part. It would be different is NO PALACES were found at all. Then you could go ahead and say that's a basis for a myth. But the Solomonic Era did occur, only later than they are dating Solomon! So if you move Solomon down to a later time, the history works and is true. Solomon did build those buildings. So Finkelstein's argument is entirely based on chronology not archaeology! If you believe in another dating system that dates Solomon at least a half century later, then a revisionism argument is groundless.
So in summary, Finkelstein's arguments only work if you use the revised chronology, or if you follow JW chronology which is also based on the revised chronology which adds another 67-68 years! (i.e. 539BCE is their "pivotal date" for the fall of Babylon, the same dating used by the 587BCE chronology for the fall of Jerusalem and found in the VAT4956). But if you believe in another chronology that lowers Solomon's rule to c. 910-870BCE, then there is no archaeological conflict as any basis for revisionism and so Finkelstein's arguments, however, logical if the facts were correct, evaporates for us totally. We like Finkelstein a lot because he develops a lot of the chronology for this period and lines up everything for us (and actually he's kinda cute!), but we can only use his archaeological assessments, the rest is just nonsense if its based on the wrong chronology which it is, or not the strict Biblical chronology, which it isn't. So he ends up a great archaelogist but definitely a Biblical historian lightweight.

Israel Finkelstein



JCanon
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Since some are recommending books, I recommend "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, which is why this concept will have a difficult time getting off the ground.
It's available online, amazingly, at several places, most without the graphics, but this site has some of them:
http://www.piney.com/HislopTOC1.html'
Here are some others on line:
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/
http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/index.htm
At any rate, this was once published and available through the WTS! Not sure if they still carry it.
This book is largely a basis for the WTS focus at one time on "Babylon the Great" and all the connections of ancient Babylon's religion found in modern religion, both pagan and Christian. It is a confused, jumbled mess! There is barely an ancient goddess in one culture that doesn't have a parallel or overlap in another. So identities get duplicated and crossed, distorting the original concepts. The result is different interpretations and variations on these themes. In that case, its hard to take a variation or adaptation, deliberate or otherwise, and then use that as a historical marker and basis for describing the origin of something else in another cultures, especially when that culture has its own well-documented record of its historical origins and traditions, which the Jews have. So if I might just get slightly off the topic a bit of Finkelstein and on the general concept of occult symbolism and how it relates to the Bible, I'd present the current Freemasonry illustration below, where a woman is crying over this pillar and behind her is an angel with a sickle and nearby the hourglass, which is also a Freemasonry symbol.
alt
Explanation? Source? Remember all that stuff about the "dying king" that is reborn in the spring and all that. And how women were weeping over Tammuz, who was supposed to Nimrod? Crying over pillars and stones? That is no different than Mithraism where the young boy kills the bull and is sorry he did it. It's the same story. In other alchemy it shows the person with sickle cutting off the feet of another god and thus related to Satan bruising the heel of Jesus. Thus it is the sickle that has broken the column and Satan is pretending to be sorry about it only to make people not feel it is so murderous, though necessary. This is linked to Christ dying and by his death giving life and paradise to the world. Thus the "dying king" is related to Jesus' death. How everything dies when he dies but is then brought back to life. Very Edenic and Biblical themes, regardless of what the current concept might be.
Originally in Eden, Satan was represented by Eve and the Tree of Knowledge. Notice the book that is opened suggesting wisdom and knowledge. Adam and the tree of Life represented Jesus Christ. In the four living creatures representing Jehovah himself, when it is divided into the two covering cherubs, Christ focus is on the man and the bull, which is love and power, whereas Satan carried the images of the Lion and the Eagle, which were Justice (legal issues) and Wisdom (knowledge). The competition in Eden was smiple. Satan versus Jesus. In Canaan this got represented first as the Lion (Satan) killing the Negro child (Jesus). Another form of that was the Lion and the Bull fighting. In Persia we see the the Lion Killing the Bull, which simply represents Satan trying to Kill Jesus.



This then got converted to the Lion becoming a Persian boy though Mithras is clearly associated with the image of the Lion:



Here is Mithras as the LION GOD
alt

Now some won't buy this at all, and some even criticize Hislop! But the fact remains anybody can interpret this stuff and find common threads. And if the common thread one finds doesn't agree with the same speculative common thread of some other author then that author's argument, which is no stronger than his weakest point of evidence will fall on deaf ears.
Someone mentione that "Satan" is a late invention, as if he isn't part of the Edenic setting from the very beginning. Yet that is only because that person doesn't recognize the cultic and occultic references for Satan in ancient history, and some of those forms emphasizing various themes. You think there are a whole lots of gods but really there are just varying themes of the same principal gods.
Thus even Yahweh, "El" in the Bible is the THUNDER GOD, the God of clouds. And I wonder if some concept of him isn't the basis of the Persian god Ahuramazda! That's because when God is said to ride his celestial chariot, it is carried on the wigs of angels who have wings on the side and also wings that cover their feet!
alt
Is this a distorted, revised concept of Yahweh? The one "true god" who fights against Ahiram, the god of evil?
The Bible doesn't say no other people were worshipping YHWH just because he focussed on the Jews to bring the messiah through them. Other people knew of YHWH, even Baalam! So God talked to other mediums/prophets besides just the ones associated with the Jews! So the Bible just focusses on what is going on with the Jews.
In the meantime, the "deeper things of Satan" are going on, who wages a spiritual and psychological war against Jehovah and Jesus and the more confused he can make it the better!
So again, my position is that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SORT ALL THIS OUT SIMPLY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SIMPLE.
Finkelstein is welcome to give his own version, but it's invalidated for anyone using the 455BCE Biblical chronology, which has completely archaeological compatibility.
Finkelstein, however, loses credibility and is considered biased because of that same archaeological evidence. Kathleen Kenyon, for instance, long ago dismissed the current chronologies about the Exodus and thus the fall of Jericho 40 years later when she dated the fall of Jericho by the Israelites to 1350-1325BCE, getting back to the hard archaeology finally....
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

But Kenyon complicates matters for Finkelstein, because the Exodus is 40 years before the fall of Jericho. If Finkelstein were at least honest and open about it, he would have covered the pros and cons of the dating for the fall of Jericho in relation to the Biblical timeline. That is, using Kenon's earliest date for the fall of Jericho, clearly during or afer the reign of Amenhotep III, Finkelstein would have easily extrapolated the dating for the time of Solmon. That is using 1350BCE as the earliest potential date for the Exodus, the 4th of Solomon would have fallen in 910BCE and thus his rule from 910-874BCE. Even if you don't insert the 6-year co-rulership, he would have come up with the 5th of Rehoboam c. 879BCE, which is right in range with where the RC14 dating places Shishak's invasion!!
So you see, there is a lot of choices here and options that Finkelstein doesn't go into detail about at all, but that he could have and should have, just as a general background reference to his own position. By not doing this, he loses credibility as an un-biased archaeologist, not that it isn't clear he intends to take aim at Christians. Thus here you have an archaeologist drawing a direct reference to Jesus as the greater Solomon, who would be nobody if there was never any great Solomon! If Solomon wasn't anybody, then how could Jesus be? Now I wonder where he got that from? He's not Jewish, is he? If he were Jewish, it would be understandable why the bias would be there since Jews need to dismiss Christ in any way possible.
Further discrediting of Finkelstein also comes with the fact that the only extra-Biblical reference that exists of the pharoah of the Exodus agrees completely with the archaeology. That would be Manetho's reference that Amenhotep III was the pharoah of the Exodus. How did he miss that? Taking that reference as a historical marker, again, you get Solomon dated later to a time when there is no archaeological contradiction.
Thus Finkelstein is soooo far out on a limb, academically speaking and what we know about the Greek Period revisionis and what not, that he's bordering on being a joke (except for his archaeology) as far as his ideas about Biblical revisionism. Funny isn't it how so many people are so quick to claim the Bible is "revised" and there is "revisionism" when the Bible is concerned, but if you DARE even mention, the Babylonians or Persians revised one single thing they call you a raving lunatic fundamentalist! Oh no! Don't use the R-Word (Revisionism) except when discussing the Bible!
I've written Finkelstein and Mazar and that entire college by the way, so they know about the 455BCE chronology, not that they didn't know it before. Jewish rabbinical timelines long ago dated the 4th of Solomon precisely in 906BCE interestingly enough. So it's almost like the rest of the world might take things for face value, but if you're Jewish and thus presumably aware of the Jewish alternatives to the secular timeline, which they contradict (even covered in O. Jonsson's GTR3 where the Jews reduce the Pesian Period!), then it leaves little room but to presume this is just biased anti-Biblical and anti-Christian propaganda at the core, with some archaeology thrown in to help validate it.
Thanks for listening!
JCanon
 
Mum
Mum 9 years ago

I'm not sure whether this was brought up by anyone else, or if you have already researched it:
The Graf-Welhausen theory (JEPD) addresses the different names for G-d in the OT. Probably some of the books others have recommended would have information on it.
Regards,
SandraC
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

Jcannon,
And so i understand you clearly, you reject the theory put forth in the 'The bible unearthed' and side solely with a biblical version of history correct?
regards
Steve
after thought:
after reading your post, isn't the point of evidence to follow it where it leads you rather than trying to shoe horn into a whatever holy book you need to validate?
His view is that the evidence fit a particular view of history that has come from this evidence, however their is no emotional vested interest, if he was completely proven wrong tomorrow, one man ego 'may' be hurt.
This is what i find so amazing, when seeing anyone ( i am not aiming this at you ) tyring to align evidence to fit their own holy book, and the reason are far more suspect than some one just putting a theory out there, what happens when history proves something in the bible wrong??... well huge emotional investments are at stake so we have comments like Richard Hess, saying
 "However, it may be noted that the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 may be symbolic and not refer to a specific date"
which to me show the how the bible leaks.
You would think is a God was going to get a book penned about himself, it would show and prove in every light without fault and how greatly knowledge the author has, yet it fails time and again. But as a man-made book written for political end, it does pretty well.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20






Share this topic









Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Crazyguy
Biblical clues to what God the Jews worshipped
by Crazyguy 2 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Gorbatchov
2002 radio interview with J.R. Brown, spokesman of WTBTS (The God Show)
by Gorbatchov 2 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-22-2015 WT Study (God Loves us?)
by blondie 4 months ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/139354/el-vs-yhwh-el-into-yhwh-those-whove-read-bible-unearthed









Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
/  







 

El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
by kwintestal 9 years ago 43 Replies latest 9 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Wow, I'm glad you expressed what you are getting out of this! You are mistaken.
Jcannon,
And so i understand you clearly, you reject the theory put forth in the 'The bible unearthed' and side solely with a biblical version of history correct?
regards
Steve
No. that is not correct. The "Bible Unearthed" puts forth a theory of why Solomon is dated too early based upon revisionism of Jewish history during a later period, rather than revision of Greek history. That's the only difference. We BOTH agree or don't contradict the RC14 dating say that would date the level IV at Rehov associated with Shishak's invasion to where it points to, the highest probability being to 871BCE. So both of us are claiming revisionism in the historical record. Finkelstein thus basically asserts that the Babylonian and Assyrian chronology are accurate and thus the bases his Bible timeline on that based upon the Battle of Karkar occurring in 853BCE. It's a simple matter then of counting back about 72 years to the 5th of Rehoboam. That's where they get 925BCE. But it is my opinion that misrepresents the Bible's own chronology, which contradicts relative and absolute history for the NB and Persian Periods. So I do not reject at all the archaeological dating, in fact, I'm thankful to Finkelstein for putting it all together, linking the various sites and levels. But his theory is based on the conventional timeline out of Babylon which was revised with the help of the Greeks so his dating comparison is subject to that, regardless.
after thought:
after reading your post, isn't the point of evidence to follow it where it leads you rather than trying to shoe horn into a whatever holy book you need to validate?
I totally agree. But do you think Finkelstein is going to do that? Forget it! For instance, I quoted him from his book where he clearly mentions Rehov's RC14 dating and says that it falls clearly in the "mid-ninth century." He thus uses the scientific information to bash the Bible under the presumption of Shishak's invasion per the Bible falling in 925BCE. But, does he will follow through with his own chronology? The 925BCE dating is based on the fixed dating of the Assyrian Period based upon a single eclipse occurring in 763BCE. The link event from the Assyrian chronology into Biblical chronology is the Battle of Karkar in the 6th of Shalmaneser 90 years after the eclipse which falls in 853BCE. Guess what? 853BCE is just about as close to "mid-ninth century" as you can get! Normally there is about a 72-year gap from the Battle of Karkar to the 5th of Rehoboam, right? (925 - 853 = 72). So how is it now that all the evidence is pointing to (1) that this level was destroyed by Shishak, and (2) that this level was destroyed per RC14 dating around 871, though Finkelsteins extends that to mid-ninth century, and it not contradict the Persian timeline? There is no way to harmonize this. That is, the RC14 dating not only contradicts the 925BCE dating for Shishak but the Battle of Karkar in 853BCE upon which it is based. But do you think Finkelstein will "follow here it leads" and start challenging the fixed Assyrian timeline? Of course not! He cops out totally and in his later book wants to associate the Level IV destruction which he now is clearly showing is consistent with Shishak's invasion, with saying Shishak didn't do this attack, it must have been Hazeal later on, and then basically ignores the primary dating found from RC14 pointint to 876-867 BCE and tries to push this destructive level far enough past the Battle of Karkar in 853BCE so that it doesn't conflict with that very specifix and fixed dating. So he totally abandons Shishak for this level later on. So is he really following the evidence. No! That's why he's a JOKE. He wants it both ways but can't have.
He's a joke because all of this is resolved if you simply downdate everything by 54 years and use the 709BCE eclipse instead. The 763BCE eclipse is already in question even by casual reference on the net by Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC
"June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article: Assyrian eclipse"
So there is plenty of evidence that the Assyrian timeline itself is too early, but Finkelstein prefers to have us believe the Bible writers for some reason wanted to move the glorious time of Omri to the make-believe person of Solomon.
I, on the other hand, can completely escape your challenge of bias by retrodating from the primary date. That is, per the chart, the highest probability date for Shishak's invasion is 876-867BCE with the absolute center of the range provided being 870.5 BCE. I can presume this is the most accurate dating and see what kind of chronology I get if I date Shishak's invasion to 871BCE specifically, year 39 of Solomon as the Bible indicates. That would date the 4th of Solomon to 906BCE and the Exodus in 1386BCE. That in turns dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. That in turn harmonizes with the VAT4956 dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511BCE, dating that would downdate the entire NB Period by 57 years. The closes matched eclipse during the Assyrian Period for that adjustment is the 709BCE eclipse which is 54 years after 763BCE, but it is the conventional third month, with the first month occurring after the equinox, not before as in the case of 763 BCE. So in this case, I can follow the evidence precisely without a blink. Finkelstein cannot. The fact is, he's painted himself into a corner here. He'll have to go with the conventional chronology and ignore the RC14 dating, or go with the RC14 dating and change the Assyrian dating to make things match. In the meantime, since serious Bible students don't use that timeline anyway, it's really not our problem. The archaeology agrees with the Bible's timeline this time, and strongly so.
His view is that the evidence fit a particular view of history that has come from this evidence, however their is no emotional vested interest, if he was completely proven wrong tomorrow, one man ego 'may' be hurt.
Oh, paleeeze! This is an archaeologist. He is supposed to be talking about archaeology. Do you know what he and his co-writer Neil Asher Silberman write about? He has a whole chapter on: "Messianic Visions - David and Solomon, from Judaism to Christianity." Here's a quote: "Yet it is obvious that the great ideological switch that occurred in the postexilic period--namely, the use of David and Solomon as the avatars of later religious belif, rather than dynastic fortune--gave rise to a wide range of interpretations that would be influential among the new religious variations that gradually evolved within Judaism, and later in Christianity." (Page 234, "David and Solomon")
So why is Finkelstein, an archaeologist, suddenly an exegetical interpreter of church doctrine? That's not his field of expertise. But he's entitled like everyone else, sure, but to say he has no "emotional vested interested" is certainly not the case. Problem is, he never gets to square one of making David and Solomon "mythical" if he uses the wrong timeline to do so. The Bible dates Solomon precisely where the archaeology does. Do you realize what that means? It means if the buildings that they found occur during the time Solomon lived per the accurate Bible chronology, then the Bible writers were correct in saying Solomon built these buildings. In which case they were not lying or revising desperately during the postexilic period as Finkelstein is trying to claim! His entire argument is no stronger than the weakest link, the distorted chronology timeline from the Greeks. So where does that argument go now? Since Finkelstein clearly is not going to use the RC14 dating to challenge the fixed Assyrian timeline, even though there is a clear contradiction, we have no choice but to presume he and Silberman's true motive was to get more anti-Biblical and anti-messianic bashing credibility from the discrepancy in the Solomonic dating now contradicted by more and more archaeological evidence. Problem is, all he does is confirm more and more that the Bible's timeline that lowers Solomon's rule to 910-870BCE is precisely correct and thus the 1st of Cyrus should be dated to 455BCE as the Bible indicates. So it's totally a miss here. It only works in the narrow range of how substantiated and stable the Assyrian chronology is, and the VAT4956 alone redates that by 54-57 years automatically by virtue of having both the revised and original dating in the same text. So it's basically over. Finkelstein is just JOKE. His entire theory evaporates into thin air with the very archaeological evidence he presents.
This is what i find so amazing, when seeing anyone ( i am not aiming this at you ) tyring to align evidence to fit their own holy book, and the reason are far more suspect than some one just putting a theory out there, what happens when history proves something in the bible wrong??...
That's just it, the Bible is not wrong. The Bible cross-dates and cross-references lots of chronology, so several prophecies have to line up with actual dated events to be correct. It is such a science now and so absolute it cannot be wrong. Also, there were only a couple of options anyway. It's not like what we have now is going to change completely and then we have to change. It's all ABSOLUTE now.
well huge emotional investments are at stake so we have comments like Richard Hess, saying
"However, it may be noted that the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 may be symbolic and not refer to a specific date" which to me show the how the bible leaks.
You would think is a God was going to get a book penned about himself, it would show and prove in every light without fault and how greatly knowledge the author has, yet it fails time and again. But as a man-made book written for political end, it does pretty well.
The Bible doesn't leak. Those like the WTS and others who find the Bible isn't working out with their timelines then try to ignore or twist things. You might accuse me of the same thing, but I offer you to examine it. In fact, come to think of it, what my chronology does, all my research into all the ancient history, is allows me NOT to have to use the Bible to get the dating I want. For instance, I want Cyrus to begin his rule in 455BCE, right? It's easy for me to get that from the Bible. But I can get that several ways from other sources. For instance, the VAT4956 that dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzer to both 511BCE and 568BCE, dismissing 568BCE as a fake date. That means his 23rd year falls in 525BCE. I then use Josephus to confirm that 70 years expired from the last deportation until the 1st of Cyrus. Year 23 was the year of the last deportation. Thus Cyrus per the VAT4956 and Josephus would date the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. Did I mention Jesus? No. Did I mention the 70 weeks prophecy? No. See. Easy.
Same with the Peloponnesian War eclipse that doesn't work in 431BCE. I found the original in 402BCE which dates the beginning of that war in 403BCE. That means the 30-year peace agreement ends in 394BCE, the 10th year of the War. Xerxes invasion thus falls in 424BCE. I check that for an Olympic year and it works! The Battle of Marathon occurs in 434BCE, 10 years earlier. Darius dies at Marathon in his sixth year. Thus this should be the same year the temple is completed, which began 21 years earlier. 21 plus 434 is 455BCE. See how that works?
Same with Artaxerxes II dying in the 8th year of the war, 396BCE. He ruled for 41 years and thus began his rule in 437BCE. Artaxerxes II and Xerxes were the same king so they began ruling at age 18, the same year their father began to rule. Of course, Persepolis proves that Xerxes was already an adult in the 4th year of Darius when the city was begun, so that doesn't work. Still if we calculate back to the birth of Xerxes he is born in 455BCE, the same year Cyrus began to reign. Thus we know where that legend came from. Xerxes was the first child of Darius and Atossa who was born after Cyrus took over kingship of the entire empire and thus he was the first royal heir under that new empire and thus became king designate ahead of his older brothers. 455 BCE without the Bible as a primary source. Let me count the ways!
So its really just a matter of BEING INFORMED. I share my research and let people make up their own minds. I even write archaeologists like Finkelstein and Mazar and authors like Furuli and let them go their own way. That's all I can do. Besides trying not to laugh sometimes.
JCanon
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

JCanon Thanks for clearing that up. Some interesting points you have highlighted to me, which i will be checking out. My issue with history and the bible is so much of its claimed history just isn't , not that I really want to get into it in this thread, and i am sure this has been debated before on this board. I continue to read up and study. regards Steve
 
drew sagan
drew sagan 9 years ago

Good topic.
 As a side point, why is it Leolaia that you always have to get me excited about a particular book that either is out of print or costs over 75 bucks?
 It's not right I tell you, it's not right!
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Wherehasmyhairgone: JCanon Thanks for clearing that up. Some interesting points you have highlighted to me, which i will be checking out. My issue with history and the bible is so much of its claimed history just isn't , not that I really want to get into it in this thread, and i am sure this has been debated before on this board. I continue to read up and study. regards Steve
That is what you SAY, but you give not a specific example. I know that some things cannot be proven, but far more that is presumed not accurate turns out to be misrepresented. This is a perfect example. For instance Shishak's invasion of primarily the northern cities of Israel is counted as evidence the Bible is not accurate because it represents Shishak attacking Rehoboam in the South and Jeroboam being the good friend of Shishak, so why is the focus in the north? Turns out Rehoboam and Jeroboam began to count their rulerships from the time of the divine appointments, before Solomon died and thus Rehoboam was in his 5th year of co-rulership with Solomon when the attack occurred. Thus the attack on the northern cities was an attack on the entire united kingdom that was still under the rule of Rehoboam.

1 And it came about that, as soon as the kingship of Re·ho·bo´am was firmly established and as soon as he was strong, he left the law of Jehovah, and also all Israel with him. 2 And it came about in the fifth year of King Re·ho·bo´am that Shi´shak the king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, (for they had behaved unfaithfully toward Jehovah,) 3 with twelve hundred chariots and with sixty thousand horsemen; and there was no number to the people that came with him out of Egypt—Lib´y·ans, Suk´ki·im and E·thi·o´pi·ans. 4 And he got to capture the fortified cities that belonged to Judah and finally came as far as Jerusalem.
5 Now as for She·mai´ah the prophet, he came to Re·ho·bo´am and the princes of Judah who had gathered themselves at Jerusalem because of Shi´shak, and he proceeded to say to them: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘Y OU , for your part, have left me, and I, too, for my part, have left YOU to the hand of Shi´shak.’” 6 At that the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said: “Jehovah is righteous.”
According to the above, Shishak attacked the "fortified cities of JUDAH", yet we find "the princes of Israel" still dealing with and subject to Rehoboam during this incident. Further there is no mention of Jeroboam who was king of the 10 tribes of Israel. Also consider the context. Jeroboam set up false worship in Israel when he took over. The archaeological facts show Shishak invaded cities in the north as well. Obviously, since the north is much bigger than the area of the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah, there would be more cities in the north attacked. So what do we learn from this? That the divine appointment of Jeroboam and Rehoboam as kings, which are parallel reigns, is what the rulerships were counted from. Co-rulerships are not at all unusual at this time, in fact, were quite standard. Thus all is resolved once you understand that the 5th year of Rehoboam was still during the very last years of Solomon, in fact, his 39th year, apparently. How do we know this? Comparative chronology. That is, if we correct the 763 BCE eclipse during the Assyrian Period to its original date of 709BCE then the 925BCE date for Shishak's invasion based on the 763BCE eclipse drops down 54 years to 871BCE. Using the Bible's absolute chronology based on when Jesus got baptized in 29CE that establishes 455 BCE as the year the Jews began to rebuild their city, which we date to the 1st of Cyrus, we calculate the Exodus at 19 jubilees earlier to 931BCE. The Exodus and the return of the Jews from Babylon both harmonize with the Jewish jubilee years. In that case, the Exodus occurs in 1386 BCE. Jubilees are every 49 years, the 1st year of every 49 but the 50th after the previous 49. Solomon's 4th year would fall 480 years after the Exodus and thus in 906BCE. That means his rule would be from 910-870 BCE (or 909-869 BCE), thus 871BCE falls during his 39th year. There's an overlap. This also explains, of course, why Shishak would attack the cities in the kingdom of his friend, Jeroboam. He didn't. In fact, he did him a favor by destroying the cities that would have allowed Judah to maintain Judah's control in the north. The result is that all is well. You have a wonderful combination of archaeological and historical continuity between the Bible and a confirmed secular event recorded by Shishak, with absolute complete harmony. The RC14 dating, which is specific to within a few years as you can see, point right at 871BCE as well. So everything should be great, right? NO. Writers and anti-Biblical archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein who didn't realize that Solomon was still ruling at the time point out this discrepancy with the Bible and make it seem as though the Bible doesn't match archaeology. Furthermore, since he's using the wrong chronology which pushes events back some 54 years earlier than when they occurred, he makes even more presumptions. But he has too because the archaeology doesn't fit the 925BCE date! For instance, he claims Israel was not developed at the time and it was just a lot of rural cities. So the question arises, why is Shishak so concerned with conquering all these rural cities and why would he brag about it if these cities were of little account? So Finkelstein, lost to explain it, decides that Shishak must have been interested in conquering the area for later development for agricultural means! See how one stubborn error breeds another. So Finkelstein has to contradict the fact that Shishak invaded many great fortified cities. That's right! Because the evidence shows that this event happened so much later than 925BCE, Finkelstein is forced to abandon the idea (in spite of the evidence presented that link this invasion with Shishak) that Shishak actually did this invasion and claims it must have been done by Hazeal much later, dating that event enough after the battle of Shishak in 853BCE that it makes sense. But when he does that, the RC14 peak dating is abandoned as well! So while he bashes the Bible for being inaccurate using the RC14 dating and claims at this point this proves Sishak's invasion was much later, he abandons this evidence linking Shishak with this invasion entirely, since it doesn't work out with the dating for the Assyrian Period. So he flip-flops. But at this point he is (1) ignoring the archaeological evidence from pottery linking this destruction to Shishak that he claims earlier, (2) He ignores the apparent advanced state of Israel as evidenced by Shishak's inscription that he attacked a highly developed region, and (3) He abandons the specific RC14 dating pointing to an event around 871BCE, which because it doesn't fit the fixed Assyrian chronology, forces him to presume this couldn't have been Shishak at all, but must have Hazael. All that proves that the RC14 dating effectively contradicts the Assyrian chronology, so much so, he has to abandon it. But for Biblicalists like myself who have done the research and know 82 years of fake Persian history was added and thus the timeline is inflated, we just laugh at the archaeologists trying to figure it out wondering when they are going to figure out that the only problem here is the timeline. Move Solomon down 54 years and suddenly the archaeology fits the history perfectly. But persons like yourself, who generally believe some of the Bible's history isn't true, simply because it may be hard to believe, like the miracles that happen, or even that there's a real God, will read Finkelstein and think there is more verification that the Bible is not a true book of history or has been revised and until you really see what the other side says, that becomes a reality for you, but an inaccurate one. But Biblicalists like Finkelstein because he links the destruction of Rehov IV so effectively with the Shishak level of destruction of the palaces at Megiddo and Jezreel, thus there is no argument about that when we use 871BCE from the RC14 to date that event per the Bible to 871BCE. Thus I cannot emphasize enough that Finkelstein's entire argument has little to do with the archaeological facts or the Bible's true timeline, but with the distorted timeline from the Assyrian Period. Once that changes or historians finally discover they can't cover up the Greek Period revisions any more and the history is corrected, then Finkelstein's theories about Biblical revisionism will be nothing, completely fantasy, since the archaeology and history of the Bible will then be completely and perfectly coordinated. Things like this happen with the major events people think are not accurate in the Bible, like even the Exodus, which if you have the right chronology, gets verified quite effectively. So combined with those scholars who distort the chronology or avoid evidence supporting the Bible, many think there is lots and lots of history in the Bible that doesn't work but it's just not true. The Bible may contradict secular records that are suspected of revision, but in the case of the archaeology from the time of the Exodus all the way down to Shishak's invasion, which is dated archaeologically including using RC14 dating, there is perfect harmony. So I speak out against Finkelstein and others who distort the situation and who play both sides of the fence, using evidence to bash the Bible on one hand, then ignoring that same evidence to make it seem that the Assyrian timeline is archaeologically coordinated with the facts, when it is not. If there is any other major historical event that you think has absolutely been proven to be false in the Bible, something we can actually make comparisons with, then let me know. The co-rulerships during the Divided kingdom, I must say, is a large part of the problem and do make a difference in coordinating the facts. So try me! Give me a couple of events that the scholars are saying don't match the facts and we'll see if my research has a different angle on it. You may still choose not to believe the Bible, but at least you would have kept an open mind and heard both sides of the story. It would be a shame to make such a drastic presumption and turn out to be wrong, would it not? JCanon
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

Jcanon,
Just so you don't need to use my ridiculous screen name...my name is Steve

OK first things first. It is not a question of what i believe, if there is no evidence, then why are you believing it.
Well for starters you mention God, my question is which God and why is any more valid than the other, to imply the Christian God is valid, their is no evidence other than the bible to correspond the God in the bible as the alleged creator of our World.
OK lets hit the very beginning Gen 1& 2 , the evidence shows the contrary to the statement made about man origins. To allow this to happen you need to invoke a miracle about God allow incest to allow the humans populate the earth, which is odd way to go about things. So he break one of his own laws to accomplish his purpose, or you need to accept that incest is OK is god says it is, and if that the case Morality is an illusion.
Then you have the Noah flood, and the issue at hand here is than the human population restarted again after the flood in the area where the ark landed, this would show up in our DNA trail, but it simple doesn't exist. That a again leaving ALL the other evidence of the flood itself never happening on a world wide scale.
regards
steve
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 9 years ago

drew sagan....I've scanned these for you, so you can see that it is a good value.












 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 9 years ago

http://s1.amazon.co.uk/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y07Y1449793Y5394694/qid%3D1186257275/202-6604334-7553415
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 9 years ago

Thanks, slim, weird that the UK Amazon site gives the revised book its 1998 title rather than the current one.
 
drew sagan
drew sagan 9 years ago

Thanks for the scans Leolaia, quite helpful.
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Hi Steve. You bring up some interesting perspective!
Jcanon,
OK first things first. It is not a question of what i believe, if there is no evidence, then why are you believing it.
I don't understand precisely. But some things are to be believed in by faith. I was raised a JW and never questioned the Bible but then when I pursued to analyze everything with what we can as far as the facts and science, I became more of a believer.
Well for starters you mention God, my question is which God and why is any more valid than the other, to imply the Christian God is valid, their is no evidence other than the bible to correspond the God in the bible as the alleged creator of our World.
That is certainly a fair question. Many of us a raised believing what the Bible says. But it's a moot question now because I've actually had an experience where I spoke with God personally, so I'm sort of out of that loop. That is, the God I met and spoke with was the same God of the Jewish Bible. So that's why that is not an issue for ME, but I think it's a valid question for others. But certain evidence suggests that God at one time had challenged some of the others gods; Baal at one time and the gods of Egypt at another. When he challenged the gods of Egypt at the time of the Exodus with the Ten Plagues, the next king, Akhenaten, converted to monotheism. So, testing what the other gods can do or are saying in comparison to YHWH is also something that makes him stand out to me. Even the Bible (I'm a Biblicalist) itself is an amazing book. As you know, I consider it to be more reliable history than the secular records, though there is far more compatibility than the archaeologists allow because they don't pay close enough attention to the details.
OK lets hit the very beginning Gen 1& 2 , the evidence shows the contrary to the statement made about man origins. To allow this to happen you need to invoke a miracle about God allow incest to allow the humans populate the earth, which is odd way to go about things. So he break one of his own laws to accomplish his purpose, or you need to accept that incest is OK is god says it is, and if that the case Morality is an illusion.
Well, that's an old issue and rather academic. Eve was made from Adam's rib, so I would say she was a bit closer than a sister. I don't know all the DNA rules, but esoterically, Adam carried the dominant genes we find in all the different "races" today and eve the recessive ones. Adam came from the earth, the rich dark soil, so he would have been dark with Asiatic features. Eve would have been fair, blond, blue-eyed. All the varieties of mankind fall within those two extremes. Even when Adam said, "You will become the mother of everyone living" seems to be something a black man would say to a white woman, because so many of her children would not be white. As far as the laws of incest go, those laws were not put into place until much later. Plus it has been suggested, so close to perfection at first that the genetic anomalies were not an issue early on as they were later. But from your perspective, this would also be academic, that is, the laws against marrying a sister had not been in place at the time.
Then you have the Noah flood, and the issue at hand here is than the human population restarted again after the flood in the area where the ark landed, this would show up in our DNA trail, but it simple doesn't exist. That a again leaving ALL the other evidence of the flood itself never happening on a world wide scale.
regards
steve
I'm not sure what persepctive you are claiming about the DNA, not that medicine knows everything about the early DNA during the time of Noah. I think it is possible for some strands of DNA to be "breeded out" as well, so that it does not show up. If you have a specific article that discusses this that you base this on, I'd be happy to read more on this. Otherwise, I have no real explanation but wouldn't consider it proof either. I mean, after all, the entire human family is the same, everyone is genetically compatible with everybody else, no matter what race. The human family is one, suggesting regardless of some isolated DNA in some groups that there was a common origin.
Thanks for sharing more of your perspective. But actually there are some questions that cannot be answered I don't think at this point. But remember that there were a lot of doubters at the time of the Flood. And reasonable doubters too, after all, it had never rained before and certainly not so much to flood the entire earth. Can you imagine Noah telling them the waters will go so high it will cover the tops of the mountains in case you were able to climb to the top to avoid the water? But when it did begin to rain they all then believed it. Now, those of us with personal experiences with God or who are of the "anointed" who have had the "sign of the son of man" for instance, personally appear to them, we are not in doubt that the God of the Bible is the real, only true God. So that's sort of a blessing. Our faith that it was true became fulfilled with the modern fulfillment of everything the Bible said would happen.
And Jehovah for our sakes and I suppose for even the sake of those who are still doubtful provided the sign for us. When you see the sign, it's amazing because it allows you to explain the scriptures. For instance, you might ask why do those who see the sign "beat themselves in lamentation" as if mourning over someone dead. Then you understand because the sign is of the sleeping dead child. So those kinds of things, for those who accept it and which fits into their belief system, have added reason to have faith in this particular god and that even there is a god and that the Bible does turn out to be his book and a book of truth; though there are many hidden things in the Bible and it remains a closed book of understanding from some. So it's kind of different for an insider than an outsider. It's like if you saw an angel and someone else told you they saw one and described the same angel, you're prone to believe them. Otherwise, you'd presume they were crazy likely. That is, until the angel appeared to you. So there is no middle ground. Those who see miracles and angels, etc. and those who don't. Those who do would like to share that with those who don't but there is no way possible. There is a chasm between the two worlds... " 26 And besides all these things, a great chasm has been fixed between us and YOU people, so that those wanting to go over from here to YOU people cannot, neither may people cross over from there to us.’ (Luke 16:26).
Thanks, again, for sharing your views.
JCanon
Sign of the son of man. which appeared in 1998, proves the god of the Bible is real for those who understand the sign and accept that it is actually from God himself: http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/clouddove.jpg

 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

JCanon,

Unfortunately my newness to the board, i have no idea how to do quotes from your post and able to post my comment under neither, so please bear with me.
Like i said i am not out to 'knock' anyone faith of belief, I to was a JW until i was nearly 30 years old, and would willingly hunt out the atheist and vicar on the ministry to debate them, so i guess i have sat on both sides of the fence.

OK first things first, you said
"But some things are to be believed in by faith. "
Not so, things that require faith ( look up the definition of faith, are things that run contrary to evidence and logic an reasoning, now as God apparently gave us these tools doesn't it seem strange to them ask us to suspend them. Faith is a trump card that can be played any any religion to justify its dogma,,,,, i.e it requires faith to believe that Mohammad went up to heaven on a white horse. even though some claims a hoof print on a certain temple roof is evidence of this.

OK next point,
"But it's a moot question now because I've actually had an experience where I spoke with God personally, so I'm sort of out of that loop."
My question is how do you know that wasn't Satan just pretending to be God to fool you into leaving the 'real' religion? and also your claim is echoed by thousands of others in a variety of different religions throughout the world,. a great many claims it to be Allah, so just because someone tells you they are God, doesn't mean that they are. I will concede that the bible does contain some historical evidence, however a Book from a god that created the universe would need to be far different, and certainly the bible when read from a critical standpoint, shows it human failing, in matters of science, geography etc etc, something i would expect the god of the universe being the inventor of those things would be Right on the mark.
OK next issue.
"Eve was made from Adam's rib, so I would say she was a bit closer than a sister. "
Complete statement of faith..period, considering this 'Eve' and bear in mind their is no evidence for a Eden eve, came from Adam which of come again a statement of faith. Yes their is a evidence for a ultimate what is called mtEve eve, but this is not to be confused with the eve of the bible, i would go into detail here but go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
OK rich dark sailor has nothing to do with adman skin colour, pigmentation and soil colour are apart as far apart as saying fire is hot water ( oilthigh i would say they are probably closer) Are we originally from dust,,well kind of, we are made up of basic compound , hence we are sometimes reference to as carbon life forms.
Your comment about Eve is purely speculative, and actually the blue eye reference is incorrect as all human are start with brown eyes and a error in causes the blue eye effect. So suggesting that would be claiming that God created EVE with errors from day one. http://www.earthlife.net/insects/evolve.html about half way down the page, their are better information resources but from this it gives you an overview of how eye color is determined and why the idea of an Eve with blue eyes is false.
Your comment about incest, sates in effect that morality is relative and if God allows incest one day and out laws it the other, then you have this scenario, Murder is wrong today, but tomorrow if god says its OK , then its no longer wrong.
This unfortunalty leads you into a paradox about morality and god and it is this
Does God say something is wrong because it is wrong or does he say its wrong just because God deems it to be wrong?
Now,
if you say things are wrong because God says so , then morality has no value, because right or wrong can be anything, God changes his mind and all of sudden Murder is OK...or incest. whihc makes morality shallow.
Now , if you say something is wrong because it wrong, and the issue here is that if Gods commands something is wrong because it is wrong, then things being wrong doesn't depend on God. i.e something is wrong and that's WHY God commands them. so at best God in the OT has relative morals!

NOW the claims about perfection again is pure faith statement, no examples in nature exist or any evidence does, so the claims that nearer perfection this wouldn't cause harm is a groundless claim due to the fact that nature doesn't allow it. NOW if you gonna claim that perfection is real, then you need to concede you are believing this against all the evidence and more important because its validates your faith, whihc means your view if no more valid that that of a buddhist or pagan.
One final point on this matter, your statement as the laws were not in place, i would understand from that that this is reference to the exodus commandants not being given at this time, if so my comment would be, did that mean before the 10 commandments murder, rape and incest were something that were permitted by God?
So my final points about DNA, sorry i was a little vague, but here is the issue about the records in our DNA, from the gnome project and extended project since a DNA map of our origin has been laid out
National geographic march 2006 DNA linking to every human in the earth can be traced back to central Africa as you know, now are their some tribes there that although have been isolated from civilisation until now, are shown o be are ancestors and their are the same, (their is a video of a documentary on your tube, although cant find the reference which i will post which explains this in great detail from the leads scientist in this project)
Now if Noah had restarted the human race ( and his sons) what would we expect to find in our DNA well, a areas close to where the ark rested of people sharing DNA that is present is all living humans, but this is not the case, you need to travel much further into Africa and more importantly much further back in time. i will try and find the NG march 2006 on line for you to read, i only have it in written form , although i would be happy to photocopy it for you and send them to you.
Also again you statement about in never rained before the flood again is a statement that is faith based, the evidence opposes this completely, that as well as the suggested water canopy http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.html
As so far as your statement about being anointed and have spoken to god, doesn't it concern you that so many other claims exactly the same but with different Gods, and let they all believe to the point of death some of them that their experience is true and their god is the only true God.

MY final comment about your post, and firstly let me thank you for spending the time is this:
Many claim to see Elvis on a daily basis, we tend to lock them up, why?
The light is something many in all different beliefs see, and to statement that yours is the correct ones is groundless as all the other claims the same, now, think of it this way, God in the OT ordered the death of over 2.5 million people, for his people and his nation, a nation that he no longer cares about, so all those people died in vain. God in the OT had no problems killing children ( a quick read of Lev,deut & number ). SO if you want to service a god that i Happy to create you then visit the mistake of your forefather's on you time and again (i.,e Adam) i would hope you don't punish your children's children for the father mistakes, and if you don't, does that make you more moral that the God you serve?
I did believe, I was a regular pioneer for many years, and did as i was told and stay away from anything that could damage my faith. Then I saw a gaping whole in the entire biblical story and the more i looked into it the bigger it came. .
Again thanks for taking the time to post, and sorry i can't do that clever thing with including your posts in my post...i will learn!..lol
regards

Steve
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Hi Steve,
Unfortunately my newness to the board, i have no idea how to do quotes from your post and able to post my comment under neither, so please bear with me.
It's easy. Just highlight the text you want in quotes and then click on the "white cloud" next to the smiling face in the tool bar and it will put what you highlighted in a quote. But obviously, that's after the text gets on your page. Thus you must block and copy what you want to quote and then paste that into your new REPLY post. Then you can do as I noted above to make a quote. I'll explain further if that wasn't understandable -- you never know how much computer experience a person has.

"But some things are to be believed in by faith. "
Not so, things that require faith ( look up the definition of faith, are things that run contrary to evidence and logic an reasoning, now as God apparently gave us these tools doesn't it seem strange to them ask us to suspend them. Faith is a trump card that can be played any any religion to justify its dogma,,,,, i.e it requires faith to believe that Mohammad went up to heaven on a white horse. even though some claims a hoof print on a certain temple roof is evidence of this.

It may indeed be a trump card, but I think there is "blind faith" and "faith" that has some foundation. But still, one is required to have faith in some things the Bible says that you are not going to get a video confirmation of. Some people don't believe a thing unless they see it themselves, which excludes everything in the past that happened before they were born. So yes, it could be a trump card for some, but I think that's a wide range. I can't PROVE what Abraham said. The Bible says he said some things. I trust the Bible so have "faith" that it's true. "Faith is not a possesion of all people."

OK next point,
"But it's a moot question now because I've actually had an experience where I spoke with God personally, so I'm sort of out of that loop."
My question is how do you know that wasn't Satan just pretending to be God to fool you into leaving the 'real' religion? and also your claim is echoed by thousands of others in a variety of different religions throughout the world,. a great many claims it to be Allah, so just because someone tells you they are God, doesn't mean that they are. I will concede that the bible does contain some historical evidence, however a Book from a god that created the universe would need to be far different, and certainly the bible when read from a critical standpoint, shows it human failing, in matters of science, geography etc etc, something i would expect the god of the universe being the inventor of those things would be Right on the mark.
You make a good point. But again, it's just my own collective assessment that this is a real god AND the god of the Bible. He had features that were mentioned in the Bible, so there was some consistency. For instance the Bible says God has wooly hair. My god had what we'd call today a "natural", a rather medium-sized rounded one, finely combed. So when I saw that, it registered, "Oh, yeah, hair like 'fine wool' that's how they described it when others saw it. So again, people will question and doubt but I'm convinced it was real and this was the God of the Bible.

OK next issue.
"Eve was made from Adam's rib, so I would say she was a bit closer than a sister. "
Complete statement of faith..period, considering this 'Eve' and bear in mind their is no evidence for a Eden eve, came from Adam which of come again a statement of faith. Yes their is a evidence for a ultimate what is called mtEve eve, but this is not to be confused with the eve of the bible, i would go into detail here but go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
Aha! You are wanting PROOF before you believe. Jesus said, "“A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jo´nah the prophet." So I admit there are those who doubt and first want to see some proof before they believe the Bible. Others believe the Bible first and then check to see if there is anything that can absolutely disprove it. So there are two groups. But now, of late, those who first had faith, those thus who had "much" are given "more." The signs that perhaps would convince the nonbelievers are given to those who already believe. That's how it is set up. In fact, God has made it so that even if you knew the details it would be too hard to believe:
" 41 ‘Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.’ ”
I think some people think God owes them some somersaults and magic tricks before they believe the Bible. It's not like. It's more like if you show a tendency to doubt and disbelieve the Bible, especially when no sign beyond the Bible basically is to be given, then God is really just interested in those people who can accommodate the Bible, have faith and then he gives them more confidence that what they believe is true. But for those who reject from the beginning and don't want to believe, God casts them into darkness, leads them to a steep cliff and then Jesus comes up from behind and pushes them over. So while yes, there is an intense effort to gather a certain type of individual into the kingdom and there may need to be some persuasion, there is little interest in another type, the "weeds", the "goats." They are like chaff on the threshing floor which Christ cleans up. So those without the right garments don't get into the kingdom and some that might get in by accident and found lacking are thrown outside.
OK rich dark sailor has nothing to do with adman skin colour, pigmentation and soil colour are apart as far apart as saying fire is hot water ( oilthigh i would say they are probably closer) Are we originally from dust,,well kind of, we are made up of basic compound , hence we are sometimes reference to as carbon life forms.
Adam being MALE and from the EARTH (dark brown) and dominant and Eve being FEMALE and from the bone white bone of Adam is an esoteric reference that Eve was "bone white" and Adam was the color of the earth, red/brown. So you are free to reject that interpretation if you wish. It seems reasonable since genetics breaks down genes into dominant and recessive genes that the male would carry the dominant genes and the female the recessive ones. That's where that comes from.
Your comment about Eve is purely speculative, and actually the blue eye reference is incorrect as all human are start with brown eyes and a error in causes the blue eye effect. So suggesting that would be claiming that God created EVE with errors from day one. http://www.earthlife.net/insects/evolve.html about half way down the page, their are better information resources but from this it gives you an overview of how eye color is determined and why the idea of an Eve with blue eyes is false.
Everybody knows who studies genetics that brown eyes are dominant compared to blue eyes. Brown skin is dominant compared to white skin. It's academic. For instance. If you have one black man and one white man, 200 white women and 200 black women. If the black man marries all the white women, all the children will be mullato. If the white man marries all the black women, all the children will be mullato. The black genes are dominant compared to white. That's what "ethnic cleansing" is all about. The only way a white man can foster a whilte child is with a white woman. Any children he has with any woman other than a white woman will be non-white. A black man will always have black children no matter whom he marries. His children will always be black, no matter what. Blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes are all considered "recessive" genes compared to dark hair, curly hair or brown eyes. That's just the facts of genetics.
Your comment about incest, sates in effect that morality is relative and if God allows incest one day and out laws it the other, then you have this scenario, Murder is wrong today, but tomorrow if god says its OK , then its no longer wrong.
Well now you're getting philosophical here. Satan likes philosophical arguments. God is defined by the "four living creatures" and Christ has the dominant features of the bull (power/virility) and the man (love), whereas Satan (before he rebelled) carried the primary features of the eagle (wisdom/knowledge) and the Lion (justice/legal issues). So Satan brings up some of the same issues. For instance, in order to get rid of Satan, God decided to just kill everybody, including his primary son, Jesus/Michael. That removes any "legal" issues, because God has a right to limit the lifespan of his gift of life. If he kills everybody, then there is no legal challenge. But Satan didn't like this idea so to mock God, Satan inspired infantacide, where worshippers caused their children to "pass through the fire" just as God made all his children "pass through the fire" as well to test them. This turned out an effective means to get rid of Satan, however, without hearing any long, drawn-out legal and philosophical arguments from Satan, though some were permitted at the time of the "battle in heaven" during which I was present via a vision. But it turns out Satan got tricked. You see, God created man with laws to abide by with the penalty of death for disobedience. But death is a relative thing, just as you brought up "murder". Murder is actually a LEGAL term. Killing someone is the actual act, but whether it is murder or not depends on the circumstances. Killing in self defense is not considered murder. When the state executes someone, it is not considered "murder." At any rate, the penalty of death is a subjective thing as well. Because it is only an incredibly horrid thing if you never come back. But if you come back the next day, it's not that big of a deal, is it? That's how God tricked Satan. Satan was willing to die for his cause, but so was Jesus for God's cause. As long as everybody was going to die, that made Satan happy. But he got tricked because God decided he would bring certain of his favorites back to life, making their death only temporary. So ultimately, it's just a little pain. Like a bruise in the heel. Permanent death is like a bruise in the head of a serpent. By the way, Satan was condemned to death not necessarily because of any of his issues he had against god, perhaps similar to yours where you see God's inconsistencies here and there. It was because no matter what Satan was going through, however unhappy or justified, what excuse was there to extend that to mankind and kill billions of innocent people? None. That's where the line was drawn. Satan was the ultimate hypocrit. He was unwilling to die honorably if that was his philosophical position. No instead, he had to kill others in order to hurt God and Christ, thinking he would force god to be consistent with his own laws. He was. Mankind was condemned to death, but Satan at the same time. Only with the Ransom Sacrifice, all those who might have been granted everlasting life, will have that chance again, regardless of what Satan has done.
That's why really, with this second-chance, God views rather prejudicially at someone who would throw away their own life, seeking to find fault with God and his decisions. So for those, those who are looking at the LEGAL issues, yes God comes through. Ultimately I call that group those who believe that "Might Makes Right." If that's what someone wishes, then fine. God has the power, the ultimate power to follow-up on his moral code, so Might Does Make Right, if one insists. Likewise, the LEGAL premise here is does God have a right to create the universe the way he wants if it's his universe.
It's like you. You buy a house. It's a nice house with a nice yard. You decide you will make a rose garden. So you dig up the earth and find the roses you want to plant in it and make it just as you wish. That's the privilege of owning a home, right? But then what if your neighbor looks over the fence and starts criticizing your choices? Or while you're inside looking at Oprah, comes over and pulls up your roses and puts in some marijuana plants that he likes without your permission. What are you going to do? Say, "Oh, wow! If I had known you didn't like roses I would never have planted them. I see you've planted some weed so I guess I'll just have to accept that." Is that what you would do? I don't think so. That's the legal premise in regard to the universe. Ultimately, whether we like it or not, God has a right to do what he pleases.
But because he also understands freedom of choice increases happiness, he made angels and man free moral agents, so that those who liked his way of running the universe would be happier because they chose that. There is a built-in understanding that there is going to be a failure rate for some. In the heavens that was one-third of the angels. But that was a sacrifice god was willing to make in order that the two-thirds that remained BY CHOICE would be at a higher level of hapiness.
Now technically, someone like Satan would say: That's no real choice! And maybe it's not. But if you are given something that you know already that you would have chosen, then why do you care? The government has sentenced me because of speaking about the Bible. As punishment, I will be sent to Hawaii and made to go to the beach everyday and shop and spend at least $100 every day on the homeless. Oh WOW, what a penalty to pay! I'm a slave! On the other hand, I already had on a Hawaiian shirt and my surf board packed so, I ain't gonna complain. The government then comes to me and says, "hey, we reviewed your case and you can appeal." I say, "Ohhhhh, nooooo, thanks, but no appeal! I think the court were just and I deserve this penalty for what I did! I plead guilty and I'd only repeat my offenses, so send me to Hawaii to get what I deserve!!!" It's great. It is said that true freedom does not exist without responsibility.
This unfortunalty leads you into a paradox about morality and god and it is this
For you. Not for me. And that might be the issue with the one-third of the angels who rebelled. They had issues with this god. I'm sure he was disappointed to some extent, but it's not an issue. God basically acquiesces and says, okay. Create your own universe and do what you want. But in mine, this is what I prefer so I'm just exercising my divine right. Hope you don't mind. But without LIFE, there is nothing. So it's rather nice if one is the sort of person that really likes this particular god and the way he does things. But he's not everybody's cup of tea.
God has the type of personality, if I might just say quite superficially, of someone who will just walk up to you and get involved with your personal business. For instance, you're in a bar, sitting alone drinking your drink, and all of a sudden this extremely gregarious person comes over and starts talking to you, complementing you and starts to get into your personal affairs. Some people hate that type of individual. But I like that type of person with the outgoing personality. I collect people like that in my life. But I'm careful not to mix more than one at the same dinner table. They are the kind of people who have charm and are fun and can't just deal with the people at their own table, but has to be involved with the table next to them. It's starts with a nice compliment, then asking them what they are having, then recommending what to have, while everybody else just sits back in wonderment. But generally feels its entertaining. It might seem entrusive to some, but suddenly, dinner is an event! Some people can't stand people like that, but others don't mind. Now I'm not like that generally, I tend to be shy and quiet but not all the time. I'm the kind of person, for some reason, if we're in Vegas and you hit a jackpot, I come over to experience it with you and congratulate you. That irritates the hell out of some people who didn't ask for that. But some people don't mind and wish you luck! So it DOES depend upon what you like. Satan is this stuck-up, upper class diva kind of person who doesn't want to give you the time of day and would be insulted is approached by someone not invited. Some people have that "common touch" so that everybody, rich or poor, just likes them. But some people who are jealous of that, don't like that type of person and feel they are treading on their space.
Does God say something is wrong because it is wrong or does he say its wrong just because God deems it to be wrong?
It's God's choice. He decides. It's his yard, his universe, his right. So its like a good marriage. It's all in the match-up. Some people who are boring to one is simply amazing and fascinating to another.

Now,
if you say things are wrong because God says so , then morality has no value, because right or wrong can be anything, God changes his mind and all of sudden Murder is OK...or incest. whihc makes morality shallow.
Well, I wouldn't say that. If anything, God is consistent with his own program. Though he does trip up people he doesn't like. So one thing that is important, if you want life, is to find out as much as you can about this god and what he likes and what buttons to avoid for the things he doesn't like.
NOW the claims about perfection again is pure faith statement, no examples in nature exist or any evidence does, so the claims that nearer perfection this wouldn't cause harm is a groundless claim due to the fact that nature doesn't allow it. NOW if you gonna claim that perfection is real, then you need to concede you are believing this against all the evidence and more important because its validates your faith, whihc means your view if no more valid that that of a buddhist or pagan.
I have supernatural proof that my god is real: This is the "sign of the son of man" that appears to the anointed. God displayed this to a skyscape photographer so I'd have a photo of it. If a Budhist or Catholic came up with something like this, I'd be impressed.

I have no doubt my god is real and the god of the Bible. This imagery relates to things in the Bible.
One final point on this matter, your statement as the laws were not in place, i would understand from that that this is reference to the exodus commandants not being given at this time, if so my comment would be, did that mean before the 10 commandments murder, rape and incest were something that were permitted by God?
ROFL! Where did murder and rape come in? I don't think rape was ever permitted by God and certainly the wrongness of murder were established when Cain killed Abel. So we are just talking about incest in the early times when the human family first started. God permitted incest at that time, but not later. But God's laws do change with the circumstances. For instance, once the world has reached population zero, obviously because people will not die, then there will be no need for marriage, no need for children. But also no need for the indiviual sexes. So while women are consider the "weaker vessel" compared to men, eventually everyone will be like the angels, being androgynous, with both sexes. And with no fidelity issues for marriage, you can have sex with whomever you want on the planet, every single individual. So laws against adultery will be banished, and since everybody will have the same sex, obviously everybody will be homosexual. See how that works? It's going to be a great time to be had by one and all!
So my final points about DNA, sorry i was a little vague, but here is the issue about the records in our DNA, from the gnome project and extended project since a DNA map of our origin has been laid out

National geographic march 2006 DNA linking to every human in the earth can be traced back to central Africa as you know, now are their some tribes there that although have been isolated from civilisation until now, are shown o be are ancestors and their are the same, (their is a video of a documentary on your tube, although cant find the reference which i will post which explains this in great detail from the leads scientist in this project)
Now if Noah had restarted the human race ( and his sons) what would we expect to find in our DNA well, a areas close to where the ark rested of people sharing DNA that is present is all living humans, but this is not the case, you need to travel much further into Africa and more importantly much further back in time. i will try and find the NG march 2006 on line for you to read, i only have it in written form , although i would be happy to photocopy it for you and send them to you.
Also again you statement about in never rained before the flood again
Yes, I would like to look at the information just out of curiosity. But obviously, certain presumptions are being made that don't fit the historical scenario presented in the Bible. So usually that means there is some unseen error the scientists are making or there are exceptions they can't see around. So it won't go that far. My position would be to look for an obvious explanation and suggest the theory be revised to accommodate what actually happened (what I believe actually happened). But I would like to see what information is there. But obviously, the anomalies or differences might have a very natural explanation. I wouldn't know.
is a statement that is faith based, the evidence opposes this completely, that as well as the suggested water canopy http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.html
First of all, tropical plants found under the artic ice is all the evidence needed to substantiate the canopy. My position is that it was solid ice and created sort of a glass bubble around the earth. There would be no pressure issues involved. Here's what your article noted:
1.
2.A vapor canopy with more than twelve inches of precipitable water would raise the temperature of the earth above boiling (Morton 1979). A vapor canopy of only four inches of water would raise the temperature of the earth to 144 degrees F. It is worth noting that several prominent creationists agree with this conclusion, yet their close colleagues continue to teach that there was a vapor canopy (Morton 2000).
3.A vapor canopy capable of producing the global flood would have increased earth's atmospheric pressure from 15 PSI to 970 PSI.
4.Some creationists try to solve the vapor canopy problems by moving the canopy out of the earth's atmosphere and into orbit. A canopy of orbiting ice would have been unstable (it could only exist in a ring much like Saturn's). It would have cooled the climate (probably just slightly) until it somehow collapsed to cause the flood. Then the release of its gravitational potential energy would have converted all the ice into superheated steam, not into a flood.
#1 and #2 are eliminated because the canopy was ice, so we need only to deal with #3. It says the ice would have been "unstable" but there is not enough specific information about how it was formed to make that presumption. He also suggests one scenario of some. My scenario is that it was solid ice, clear, that would let the sunlight through, and created the same effect as a greenhouse. From the time Noah entered the ark there were seven days before the rains started. I believe that the ice was being superheated at this time and formed rain clouds, think. Thus it was completely dark by the time it started raining. The clouds were think enough to rain for 40 days and 40 nights with enough water to cover the tops of the then known mountains. Whether they were as high as our current ones are not, I don't know. But the tallest mountain peak in the world is under water, even now. So we just don't know enough details. After the flood, the Bible says "winds" were used to help dissipate the water. That could include water spouts that funneled the excess water into outer space. And we know from comets that there is water in outer space because they are covered with ice. Again, as I noted, the tropical plants found under the ice in the artic is consistent with the earth being a tropical place all over which is consistent with the canopy.
As so far as your statement about being anointed and have spoken to god, doesn't it concern you that so many other claims exactly the same but with different Gods, and let they all believe to the point of death some of them that their experience is true and their god is the only true God.

Not really. What I have going for me, besides the physical evidence above for the "sign of the son of man", which is not just something that happened that I think was supernatural, but is mentioned in the Bible, but also the Bible itself and Bible chronology relates that these things would happen in our time. We are in a very unique time in Bible history. For instance, you may have heard of the 70 weeks. 70 weeks is 490 years. If you make up a week of 70 weeks, you'll have seven days that are 490 years each. So in a 3430-year period, you'll have a 7th-70th week. That is, you have one 70th week for each of the seven 490-year periods, but the 7th, which would be a repeat of the theme of sevens, occurs only once in 3430 years. Well the pattern of 70 weeks is FIXED, with the third day of this week being from 455BCE to 36CE, the 70 weeks related to the first coming. IF that is the third day, then the entire week would begin in 1435BCE, but it would end in 1996! So the 7th-70th week of this week is from 1989-1996. So if God starts talking to people during this week, especially in line with some things that are supposed to be happening at this time, then it adds to a person's personal belief that this is credible. 3430 years earlier takes you back to the time of Moses.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/jcovwk1996G.GIF The Jewish Covenant Week Chart.

MY final comment about your post, and firstly let me thank you for spending the time is this:
Many claim to see Elvis on a daily basis, we tend to lock them up, why?
Because they are likely hallucinating, that's why. But in the case of God, some people look out and see the stars and know from that that there must be a god since they see intelligent design and a "BIG BANG" accident just seems less likely to them. Since the Bible's gives an explanation of what we see today, the plants and animals and man, etc. There is reason to consider it might be God's book. It's a judgment call, but for me personally, I have more reason to believe the Bible is true than simply a book of stories of the Jewish people that has no basis in truth. But on that point, even if Armageddon came, which is prophesied in the Bible, you still could claim that nothing in the Bible is true, since Armageddon wouldn't really PROVE that Adam and Eve ever existed. But it would add credibility to the story.
The light is something many in all different beliefs see, and to statement that yours is the correct ones is groundless as all the other claims the same, now, think of it this way, God in the OT ordered the death of over 2.5 million people, for his people and his nation, a nation that he no longer cares about, so all those people died in vain. God in the OT had no problems killing children ( a quick read of Lev,deut & number ). SO if you want to service a god that i Happy to create you then visit the mistake of your forefather's on you time and again (i.,e Adam) i would hope you don't punish your children's children for the father mistakes, and if you don't, does that make you more moral that the God you serve?
Your take on this is interesting. But in God's defense as far the the legal premise. Yes God does bring the error of the parents on the children, but that rule was necessary to apply the Ransom Sacrifice. Thus though through one man all mankind had sinned, it would only take the death of one righteous man to correct that. So while we inherit sin from Adam, we inherit a second chance by Christ's death. If God did not bring the sin upon the children, he could not save them through the Ransom Sacrifice. So you have a choice. To bring the error of the parents onto the children and let all 20 billion children of Adam die without a chance. Or create a rule that connects the error of the father to the children and save them through the ransom sacrifice? As I said, in this way, only one perfect man had to die and give up his right to have his own children and adopt Adam's to save mankind. But that is not possible until the error of the parent is applied to the children. Even the Holocaust mimics what the Jewis women were doing thousands of years ago. They were burning children alive so a time would come when their children in the distant future would experience the same thing. So the message there is that if God would do this to his own people, the Jews, then certainly he's not going to give the gentile rebels any slack. He starts with his own house first and works outward. So the wrath of God is coming and it is a sure thing, just as sure as the holocaust was long ago prophesied.

I did believe, I was a regular pioneer for many years, and did as i was told and stay away from anything that could damage my faith. Then I saw a gaping whole in the entire biblical story and the more i looked into it the bigger it came. .
Again thanks for taking the time to post, and sorry i can't do that clever thing with including your posts in my post...i will learn!..lol
regards
I didn't realize you were a pioneer! Wow! So was I at one point. So I know about that. I can understand your doubts and all that and I don't have much of an answer other than the closer we get to Armageddon the more things the Bible says will affect people on a global level. Right now things are happening in a focussed way with the anointed, with the Jews and with Jehovah's witnesses, but that will expand. Soon Babylon the Great will be affected and that will involve the destruction of all the organized religions, and then after that the political entities ruling today will be destroyed and Christ's kingdom will take over. Now if that really happened, I think most people would not question anything that's in the Bible. But it's great if you can believe before that. I'm glad I'm one who was able to have faith. But I'm quite curious and skeptical in the opposite direction. Just as you doubt the Bible, I doubt anything that is contrary to the Bible, including often mistaken scientists and their theories.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate understanding your point of view. I'm sure you represent a certain demographic out there. A sort of skeptical and frustrated demongraphic trying to sort out everything. It's not easy. But I wouldn't give up hope or close my eyes. Just keep on the watch and don't go to sleep. Our times are too urgent!
JCanon

 
Terry
Terry 9 years ago

Eve was made from Adam's rib, so I would say she was a bit closer than a sister. I don't know all the DNA rules, but esoterically, Adam carried the dominant genes we find in all the different "races" today and eve the recessive ones. Adam came from the earth, the rich dark soil, so he would have been dark with Asiatic features. Eve would have been fair, blond, blue-eyed. All the varieties of mankind fall within those two extremes. Even when Adam said, "You will become the mother of everyone living" seems to be something a black man would say to a white woman, because so many of her children would not be white.
Do you ever go back and read the things you put out here for others to read?
How can we take you seriously when your chain of reasoning is aberrant?
If you present the above as logic how can we take anything you say seriously?
Do you just say the first thing that comes into your mind and go with it?
Talking to God, meeting him and such certainly qualifies you for serious consideration. However, none of us here are psychiatrists, so; we can't give the kind of consideration necessary to your treatment.
What would seem to be a proper diagnosis? I haven't the academic credentials to say for sure.

Diagnostic criteria: Narcissistic personality disorder
At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis (as with many DSM diagnoses, they must form a pervasive pattern; for example, a person who shows these criteria only in one or two relationships or situations would not properly be diagnosed with NPD):
1.has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2.is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3.believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
4.requires excessive admiration
5.strong sense of entitlement
6.takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7.lacks empathy
8.is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
9.arrogantaffect.
The length of your perorations demonstrate a confused and bewildered concentration with scarcely a lucid moment of actual sober analysis.
For example. Please show us all here and now how your mind functions by parsing your reasoning process on this quotation:
Adam came from the earth, the rich dark soil, so he would have been dark with Asiatic features. Eve would have been fair, blond, blue-eyed.
Wikipedia: Adam's name is a reference to red earth or red clay, but it also can be interpreted as 'the one who blushes' or 'turns rosy'.
Enlighten us, please!
If you can't, then; explain why the ravings of person in love with his own brain-spew should merit consideration as any kind of authority deserving of attention?
 
Terry
Terry 9 years ago

But in God's defense as far the the legal premise. Yes God does bring the error of the parents on the children, but that rule was necessary to apply the Ransom Sacrifice. Thus though through one man all mankind had sinned, it would only take the death of one righteous man to correct that. So while we inherit sin from Adam, we inherit a second chance by Christ's death.
Justice. Where is Justice?
If God has a perfect standard and adheres to His own standard that is Justice.
Holding people accountable for their behavior is justice.
Getting what you deserve is Justice.
Grace is unwarranted favor; unmerited and undeserved.
To let humanity off the hook is no more Justice than attributing sin to them at birth!
The wages of sin is Death, right? Adam DIED and paid his DEBT.
So, how is it Justice to hold Adam's children responsible for a Debt which Adam paid already??
It isn't.
The entire premise of the Bible, Salvation and God's righteous standards falls into ruins because there is no Justice demonstrable.
Punishing Adam is Justice. Punishing humanity is injustice.
Punishing a sinless man (Jesus) is injustice.
The whole thing reeks.
 
nvrgnbk
nvrgnbk 9 years ago



Punishing Adam is Justice. Punishing humanity is injustice.
Punishing a sinless man (Jesus) is injustice.
The whole thing reeks.
Four sentences.
More revealing and truthful than fifteen-hundred plus pages of revered ancient text.
The Bible is invalidated internally.
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago



The entire premise of the Bible, Salvation and God's righteous standards falls into ruins because there is no Justice demonstrable.
Punishing Adam is Justice. Punishing humanity is injustice.
Punishing a sinless man (Jesus) is injustice.
The whole thing reeks.
I can see your point, but you don't understand the the big picture, I don't believe.
Think in terms of mankind at the time being MINOR CHILDREN. They repeat the result of their parent's status until they are independent of them and on their own. So it was the minor, unborn children of Adam that suffered from Adam's sin because they were unborn. If they had been born already and of the age of majority, what Adam did would not have affected them.
The Ransom Sacrifice of Christ is, from a legal perspective, exchanged at the unborn level. Christ exchanges all his potential unborn children for those of Adam, that then gives them a right to grow up and be judged on their invididual basis. So in the end, on Judgment Day, all are judged individually as adults, but they benefit from being the adopted children of Jesus, which removes the sin Adam dumped on them.
So everything is quite fair. This is basically a rescue mission, done with all the advantages, which is saving righteous mankind (not the wicked, who would have died anyway) and getting rid of Satan and all those who would rebel and cause trouble. The tough standards are in place partly to make sure that Satan and everyone like Satan who would cause a disturbance of the peace is eliminated. So those who are part of this arrangement don't Judge God's methods, but trusts that this was the best way for all concerned.
JCanon
 
nvrgnbk
nvrgnbk 9 years ago

JCanon:
but you don't understand the the big picture
Terry:

Diagnostic criteria: Narcissistic personality disorder
At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis (as with many DSM diagnoses, they must form a pervasive pattern; for example, a person who shows these criteria only in one or two relationships or situations would not properly be diagnosed with NPD):
1.has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2.is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3.believes that he or she is " special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
4.requires excessive admiration
5.strong sense of entitlement
6.takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7.lacks empathy
8.is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
9.arrogant affect .
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

Jcanon,
Thank you for your reply. and also the quoting advise , hopefully this will work in this post now.
Ok,
It may indeed be a trump card, but I think there is "blind faith" and "faith" that has some foundation. But still, one is required to have faith in some things the Bible says that you are not going to get a video confirmation of. Some people don't believe a thing unless they see it themselves, which excludes everything in the past that happened before they were born. So yes, it could be a trump card for some, but I think that's a wide range. I can't PROVE what Abraham said. The Bible says he said some things. I trust the Bible so have "faith" that it's true. "Faith is not a possession of all people."
Faith has nothing to do with being able to see something or not. Faith as defined http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Now this doesn't mean things you can not see. i.e i can not see the electrons in my PC but i do not need faith in order to know they are there. People who will believe in nothing they can not see are being just a dogmatic as those who claims a higher insight. The claims to be from God, its claims to be written from God, but this is just circular logic i hope you can see that. Forget what Abraham said, how about whether Abraham actually exisited, again outside of the bible their is no evidence of his existence. So you need faith ( which is a belief without evidence) that Abraham exisited. Now bear in mind evidence is not necessarily something you can see or observes directly it can also be indirect evidence.
You make a good point. But again, it's just my own collective assessment that this is a real god AND the god of the Bible. He had features that were mentioned in the Bible, so there was some consistency. For instance the Bible says God has wooly hair. My god had what we'd call today a "natural", a rather medium-sized rounded one, finely combed. So when I saw that, it registered, "Oh, yeah, hair like 'fine wool' that's how they described it when others saw it. So again, people will question and doubt but I'm convinced it was real and this was the God of the Bible.
I am slightly at a loss at this statement, except for the scripture that says no man has ever seen God. And God on one hands according to you need you to have faith and believe in him without any evidence and on the other hand then reveals himself to you, so why to you and not to everyone else? ( I am sure you do not know Gods mind) But why doesn't just reveal himself to everyone then everyone will believe, in fact if he is all powerful, why not just make everyone able to believe he exists, its certainly doesn't affect this issue of sovereignty in the bible.

Aha! You are wanting PROOF before you believe.
You say that like its a bad thing! Wanting proof for something when that something defies logic and reason ( apparent God given qualities) proof gives us the ability to evaluate the claims, otherwise I can make a statement that I am God and am here on this board to show you all that you need to follow (insert relevant belief) no based on the idea that wanting proof is a negative trait then you 'have to' accept what i am saying and follow me. otherwise you are using you own reasoning to determine what i am saying is false.

That's how it is set up. In fact, God has made it so that even if you knew the details it would be too hard to believe:
" 41 ‘Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.’ ”
I think some people think God owes them some somersaults and magic tricks before they believe the Bible. It's not like. It's more like if you show a tendency to doubt and disbelieve the Bible, especially when no sign beyond the Bible basically is to be given, then God is really just interested in those people who can accommodate the Bible, have faith and then he gives them more confidence that what they believe is true. But for those who reject from the beginning and don't want to believe, God casts them into darkness, leads them to a steep cliff and then Jesus comes up from behind and pushes them over. So while yes, there is an intense effort to gather a certain type of individual into the kingdom and there may need to be some persuasion, there is little interest in another type, the "weeds", the "goats." They are like chaff on the threshing floor which Christ cleans up. So those without the right garments don't get into the kingdom and some that might get in by accident and found lacking are thrown outside.
If you want someone to follow you, would you make it impossible for them to believe in you? would a father wanting his child to believe he was his father, ensure that he never saw him, and all the evidence point away from him, then punish him with death because the son doesn't believe his father is who he claims he is. Doesn't that strike you as very sadistic?
There is a comment that says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However as God apparently though out biblical claimed history regular suspended the natural laws to provide a miracle, But here the rub. So tomorrow too large feet come down from the sky and scientists can not explain this, and the voice says.. everyone on earth I am God and i need you to know that the true religion that represents me is Islam. NOW what would happen? I would put money on the fact that Muslims would become unbearable to live with, and every other religion would denounce this as a work of the devil, why, because proof and evidence is not the concern of religion it is what feels right to the individual. Now your comment about God being only interested in people who can accommodate the bible, the kinds of qualities that require this are, the ability to believe in something because someone says so, an unquestioning disposition, to name a few. But reason and logic's things that gives us the ability to create morality are considered bad traits by this reasoning.
Adam being MALE and from the EARTH (dark brown) and dominant and Eve being FEMALE and from the bone white bone of Adam is an esoteric reference that Eve was "bone white" and Adam was the color of the earth, red/brown. So you are free to reject that interpretation if you wish. It seems reasonable since genetics breaks down genes into dominant and recessive genes that the male would carry the dominant genes and the female the recessive ones. That's where that comes from.
You have no basis other than a personal opinion in this. I do not need to interpret this at all, the bible make no claims as to the skin color of adman or eve. Dominant and recessive genes have nothing to do with what you are proposing here. I will make available the article i mentioned and provide some other references over the next few days for you to understand the way in whihc DNA traits are seen.
Well now you're getting philosophical here. Satan likes philosophical arguments. God is defined by the "four living creatures" and Christ has the dominant features of the bull (power/virility) and the man (love), whereas Satan (before he rebelled) carried the primary features of the eagle (wisdom/knowledge) and the Lion (justice/legal issues). So Satan brings up some of the same issues. For instance, in order to get rid of Satan, God decided to just kill everybody, including his primary son, Jesus/Michael. That removes any "legal" issues, because God has a right to limit the lifespan of his gift of life. If he kills everybody, then there is no legal challenge. But Satan didn't like this idea so to mock God, Satan inspired infantacide, where worshippers caused their children to "pass through the fire" just as God made all his children "pass through the fire" as well to test them. This turned out an effective means to get rid of Satan, however, without hearing any long, drawn-out legal and philosophical arguments from Satan, though some were permitted at the time of the "battle in heaven" during which I was present via a vision. But it turns out Satan got tricked
I am not quoting everything you said here ( to save space on this post)
Your comment implies that God 'IS' right and wrong. This then means our morality has no value. Which means the only reason you do not commit incest is cause God now says its wrong. Likewise you do not kill as God says it wrong, but if he said it was OK, you would do it. Legal issues have nothing to do with this matter. Your comment highlight to me the real problem with what religion does to our species. It cheapens life, so the line goes, Well if we die its ok we can come back. Which paves the way for martyrdom etc etc.
There is no evidence , and never has been for anything after death, however this is a very convenient way for belief systems to grown their flock so but their faith above their own life. What sicken me so much was Abraham and Issac story, the fact that Abraham heard a voice in his head ( or maybe saw what he assumed to be god) and this apparent loving God told him to kill his son, and without question was going to it, and then he is held up as an example. So if Abraham had said, I am not going to kill my son, a loving God would never say that it must be the devil saying this, would this give him good morals.
I can name a lot of people nowadays that are quite willing to believe killing innocent people because they think God is telling them to do so, Yes just like Abraham. That is why this personal relationship with a God is so dangerous, I hold Abraham up as a good example of how not behaviour. I would rather be killed myself that to kill my own son, but apparently according to the bible that would make me unfaithful. The bible is immoral.

Does God say something is wrong because it is wrong or does he say its wrong just because God deems it to be wrong?
It's God's choice. He decides. It's his yard, his universe, his right. So its like a good marriage. It's all in the match-up. Some people who are boring to one is simply amazing and fascinating to another.
Then morality is invalid, as morality is hinged on the day to day whim of a God, God has been anything but consistent with his morals, First incest ( he could have just created more humans in the first place you know) then outlaws it. Allow man to develop his own sense of morality...murder is wrong. Then commend someone like moses to go back into the certain nations and kill the male children as well. That sickens me. God in the OT practices ethic cleansing on a scale that is shameful. New born and young killed who are innocent , and the argument comes back well he will resurrected them, then why create them in the first place. God see no problem in allowing new born and young infant experience the horrible death of drowning ( as in the flood) suffering to God is something that doesn't both him. But in the same breath commands his people about that Way they cut their beard or the food they eat. Bi-polar is the word that comes to mind. God-in the OT is anything but loving and kind.
Your picture you included, i have no idea what it is meant to show, i personally can't see anything, so can you elaborate or something.
My scenario is that it was solid ice, clear, that would let the sunlight through, and created the same effect as a greenhouse.
physics wouldn't allow that to happen period. clear ice! at that height and solid, for that weight it would need into in orbit, then for it to reenter the earth it would heat up, and that amount of water would have boiled off the oceans. The flood is a physical impossibility period.
Yes you are free to believe anything you want, but if that belief flies in the face of all the evidence to the con try then you are deluding yourself. That is not faith that is delusion



Many claim to see Elvis on a daily basis, we tend to lock them up, why?
Because they are likely hallucinating, that's why.
So that is also possible with ones who claim to see God. The explanation of God gives no such explanation of why we see things today. I feel God is the lazy man answer to everything.... don't know how someone happened...oh ok God did it.
So on that assumption God created out beautiful world, but also, the virus, the incests that can kill with one bite, also radiation that can kill us, asteroids that can wipe out life on earth, poises gases that can kill us and the list goes on.
But in God's defense as far the the legal premise. Yes God does bring the error of the parents on the children, but that rule was necessary to apply the Ransom Sacrifice. Thus though through one man all mankind had sinned, it would only take the death of one righteous man to correct that. So while we inherit sin from Adam, we inherit a second chance by Christ's death. If God did not bring the sin upon the children, he could not save them through the Ransom Sacrifice.
Bearing in mind God created the who sin thing in the first place, he could just forgive us you know, but he made the rutles didn't he, he determined that all men must now die because of Adam, he determined that children are born for just a few weeks to die a horrible death because of birth defects.. Remember God apparently has the power to stop these things but allow then to continue ..why to prove a point that the only reason , to show how man cant rule himself. Anyone who can watch a baby die of a disease and have the power to heal that baby and doesn't is a very bad person.
The Ransom doesn't even make sense if you sit down and think it through. but that right don't think, have faith...no thanks.
The end of mankind may be close, and it may be brought on my some religious lunatics, but God stepping it,, i don't think so. if he exisited then i would like the chance to tell him how he let mankind down.

Kind regards

Steve
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago



Diagnostic criteria: Narcissistic personality disorder
At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis (as with many DSM diagnoses, they must form a pervasive pattern; for example, a person who shows these criteria only in one or two relationships or situations would not properly be diagnosed with NPD):
1.has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2.is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3.believes that he or she is " special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
4.requires excessive admiration
5.strong sense of entitlement
6.takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7.lacks empathy
8.is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
9.arrogant affect .
Oh that fits me perfectly! Only you forgot ego creates cloud art to help support claims of divine communication. If you're gradiose enough you can actually cause photographs to materilize with your ego!



JCanon



 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago



Wikipedia: Adam's name is a reference to red earth or red clay, but it also can be interpreted as 'the one who blushes' or 'turns rosy'.
Enlighten us, please!
If you can't, then; explain why the ravings of person in love with his own brain-spew should merit consideration as any kind of authority deserving of attention?
Have you seen any red people? Have you seen dark brown people? The color of fertile soil? "From dust you are and to dust you will return." From the Blueletter Bible:




'adamah

Pronunciation
ad·ä·mä' (Key)
 
Part of Speech
feminine noun

Root Word (Etymology)
from H119
 
TWOT Reference
25b

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) ground, land
a) ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance)
b) piece of ground, a specific plot of land
c) earth substance (for building or constructing)
d) ground as earth's visible surface
e) land, territory, country
f) whole inhabited earth
g) city in Naphtali
JCanon
Now that I checked, not a single use of the word for adama is used in the context of red. When "red" or "ruddy" is implied another form of the word is used. So it may be related or incidental, I can't tell. But certainly with its obvious usage earth or ground is a primary reference more than "red". So the term might have a double meaning, "Adam" referencing being from the earth primarily and from the ground, not necessarily specifically related to "red clay". Fertile, rich soil tends not to be hard clay but rich and dark brown, sometimes nearly black.
Interesting. Thanks for the reference!!!

JCanon
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20






Share this topic




Topic Summary
i've been thinking about this for quite a while and i'm not exactly sure how the best way of putting it out there, so if it seems like i'm blabbering at points, i more then likely am and i'm sorry.
i'm kind of merging two different thoughts together, historical info i got from the book, "the bible unearthed" and personal research and discussions with others regarding "el".. el obviously played an important part in early hebrew language as it was their word for "god".
but, el was a caananite god, and to them the god of all gods, supreme god father of all things and humankind.




Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Crazyguy
Biblical clues to what God the Jews worshipped
by Crazyguy 2 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Gorbatchov
2002 radio interview with J.R. Brown, spokesman of WTBTS (The God Show)
by Gorbatchov 2 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-22-2015 WT Study (God Loves us?)
by blondie 4 months ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/139354/el-vs-yhwh-el-into-yhwh-those-whove-read-bible-unearthed?page=2&size=20









Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info







 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 



Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
/  







 

El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
by kwintestal 9 years ago 43 Replies latest 9 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20
nvrgnbk
nvrgnbk 9 years ago

What the hell do you see in those clouds?
Wait...I know...only the chosen ones...those with faith...have the required discernment.
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago



What the hell do you see in those clouds?
Wait...I know...only the chosen ones...those with faith...have the required discernment.
Not at all. You could be having browser issues where you can't see the imagery. The cloud images are a tri-part message representing aspects of the second coming. It is something provided by Jehovah, likely to simply dismiss claims that I and others are just imagining everything totally, which would be a valid claim if there was not a great coming forth of more direct evidence at first. So when people claim we are all crazy or delusional, we throw the photo in their faces and ask how did our imaginations come up with this cloud art? The fact that others have seen it is verified by the semi-subliminal imagery found in the "Revelation" book, which appeared I think in 1989, long before the photo was taken on December 26, 1998, the 6th anniversary (7th appearance) of the sign since the second coming. The image shows the face of a sleeping black child accompanied by a bird, which you can see in the imagery in the Revelation Book, below. The claim is that all the anointed see it and understand it, and this would confirm it. Obviously, the sleeping black face appearing in the palm of Jesus links this directly with the messiah.
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 9 years ago



 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Great discussion, everybody. I'll comment further when I finished seeing the complete video.
JCanon
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20






Share this topic




Topic Summary
i've been thinking about this for quite a while and i'm not exactly sure how the best way of putting it out there, so if it seems like i'm blabbering at points, i more then likely am and i'm sorry.
i'm kind of merging two different thoughts together, historical info i got from the book, "the bible unearthed" and personal research and discussions with others regarding "el".. el obviously played an important part in early hebrew language as it was their word for "god".
but, el was a caananite god, and to them the god of all gods, supreme god father of all things and humankind.




Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Crazyguy
Biblical clues to what God the Jews worshipped
by Crazyguy 2 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Gorbatchov
2002 radio interview with J.R. Brown, spokesman of WTBTS (The God Show)
by Gorbatchov 2 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-22-2015 WT Study (God Loves us?)
by blondie 4 months ago




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 



http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/139354/el-vs-yhwh-el-into-yhwh-those-whove-read-bible-unearthed?page=3&size=20