by AllTimeJeff 64 Replies latest watchtower bible
Personally, I think some parts of the Bible are there to make us think about the questions, not to provide the answers.
Some of the stories are just for that. However, the "bible" is a collection of stories that supported the agenda of the early catholic church and should be treated exactly like that.
notverylikely - okay so you dismiss Genesis account of literal Garden of Eden, especially since most say it is literal. I just show you a scripture in the bible, showing it speaking of garden of Eden in a symbolic sense and it's trees symbolic. Make your own choice. Sounds like it may have brought in you a thought that, "wait, if it is symbolic.....maybe there are valid answers for other parts, maybe some truth". Then quickly close your ears and eyes to any way in which it could be symbolic or truth.
AND if you take Jeff's advice, then things you can't accept in a book of the bible, wouldn't invalidate others.
I'll just say, I don't blame anybody for no belief in any of it based on what they are told the books are saying.
notverylikely - if that was purely the case, why did the catholic church forbid anybody to possess one? Why were any caught with one burned on the stake with it?
okay so you dismiss Genesis account of literal Garden of Eden, especially since most say it is literal.
I didn't say that at all. Please do not assume what I beleive or what you think I know.
I just show you a scripture in the bible, showing it speaking of garden of Eden in a symbolic sense and it's trees symbolic.
No, you didn't You showed me a scripture and said you beleived it meant the garden was symbolic.
Sounds like it may have brought in you a thought that, "wait, if it is symbolic.....maybe there are valid answers for other parts, maybe some truth".
No, that didn't happen.
AND if you take Jeff's advice, then things you can't accept in a book of the bible, wouldn't invalidate others.
I could decide that the sun wasn't going to rise tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference.
I'll just say, I don't blame anybody for no belief in any of it based on what they are told the books are saying.
Whew, that's good.
I have to say, this exchange was pretty typical...person thinks they have discovered something, has special knowledge, god/jesus/holy spirit talks to them, whatever. They get questioned on it, provide non answer like "study more", "ask with the right heart condition", "parts of the bible aren't really god;s word", etc., without every answering a question while claiming they do, then they keep changing the subject while never actually answering anything, then start to assume what others know, beleive, think, meant, etc (which, BTW, is how they think they "know" god), rinse, repeat.
notverylikely - if that was purely the case, why did the catholic church forbid anybody to possess one?
They didn't.
Why were any caught with one burned on the stake with it?
You really don't have a keen grasp on history, do you?
| Personally, I think some parts of the Bible are there to make us think about the questions, not to provide the answers. |
I so agree with this statement from JeffT
Another point is that I'm pretty certain Jehovahs witnesses aim for a literal understanding of the Bible - in fact they brought out their own bible because they wanted to provide a more literal understanding. Many of the parables are taken to have a literal meaning/fulifillment (the parable of the faithful and discreet slave class for example).
However humans beings are not basically literally minded, and I'm certain that along with the FDS inspired literal interpretations, ordinary JWs do take on board that the readings from the bible have a moral message, an edifying message, a challenging message, an obscure message that talks to one's heart etc etc.
Another point is that I'm pretty certain Jehovahs witnesses aim for a literal understanding of the Bible - in fact they brought out their own bible because they wanted to provide a more literal understanding.
They pick and choose what's literal and what's not, often parsing part of a verse and literal and part as figurative. They published their own for 1)conformity and 2)just like the catholics, to support a specific agenda
Many of the parables are taken to have a literal meaning/fulifillment (the parable of the faithful and discreet slave class for example).
But they are so humble! (that's a joke)
Here is a good laugh! I just posted this in a diff thread, but here is GB's food at the proper time of the Ez 31 scripture I posted.
W77 P. 302
5 “And its boughs kept multiplying, and its branches continued getting longer because of much water in its watercourses. On its boughs all the flying creatures of the heavens made their nests, and under its branches all the wild beasts of the field gave birth, and in its shade all the populous nations would dwell. And it came to be pretty in its greatness, in the length of its foliage, for its root system proved to be over many waters. Other cedars were no match for it in the garden of God. As for juniper trees, they bore no resemblance as respects its boughs. And plane trees themselves did not prove to be like it in branches. No other tree in the garden of God resembled it in its prettiness. Pretty is the way that I made it in the abundance of its foliage, and all the other trees of Eden that were in the garden of the true God kept envying it.”—Ezek. 31:3-9.
6 The Republic of Lebanon has been much in the world news in recent years, but the cedars on the mountains of Lebanon have been famous for millenniums. (Note Judges 9:15.) No man planted those tall wide-spreading cedars there. Cedar trees were already on site before the confusion of the human language at the Tower of Babel scattered the builders in all directions from ancient Babylon on the Euphrates River, in the second century after the global flood. The Creator of heaven and earth takes the credit for planting those cedars. So Psalm 80:10 speaks of them as “the cedars of God,” and Psalm 104:16 calls them “the cedars of Lebanon that he [Jehovah] planted.”
7 The fact that these cedars, together with the juniper and plane trees, were said to be in Eden and in “the garden of God” does not mean that the garden of Eden was restored after the deluge of Noah’s day, 2370 B.C.E. Rather, the location of this particular cedar was so pleasant, so Edenic, so like man’s original home, that it was like “the garden of God.” The Hebrew word for “garden” (gan) means, basically, a “fenced-in or enclosed place”; and we remember that the original “garden of Eden” had a passageway “at the east of the garden” through which the disobedient Adam and Eve were driven out and where God stationed the cherubs “to guard the way to the tree of life.”—Gen. 3:24.
8 In the days of the prophecy of Ezekiel the cedar-famed land of Lebanon was so beautiful that Ezekiel was inspired to say to the king of Tyre (a seaport of Lebanon): “In Eden, the garden of God, you proved to be. . . . You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. On the holy mountain of God you proved to be.” (Ezek. 28:11-14) Quite appropriately, then, in the seventh century B.C.E. this specially “pretty” cedar of Lebanon was spoken of as being in Eden, in “the garden of God.” It was therefore in a highly favored location, with fine possibilities.
endofmysteries
I remember that story from Wt 77. Virtually a fairy tale to keep one coming back for more -
makes sense why we willingly handed over authority to the WTS.
notverylikely
Some of the stories are just for that. However, the "bible" is a collection of stories that supported the agenda of the early catholic church and should be treated exactly like that. |
I think you are quite right. But I think the Catholic church played both a passive and an active role in this process (and this is true of most religions imo). The process I'm talking about is wherein humans want a leader. And the bible often alludes to this as bad thing (for example when people wanted a king in Samuels day). An authority structure develops. The structure then invests itself with infallibilty and they actively use the bible to support their postion.
Imo the bible has a passive role in this king making process because it repeatedly says that human authority that seeks to be total is outside of mans jurisdiction.
