by jemba 10 Replies latest watchtower bible
I had never questioned things in the bible.
I often thought something was strange considering Jehovah was supposed to be so loving. But never thought to see the bible as anything other than my JW upbringing taught me.
I now think the bible is a bunch of fairytales and have a whole lot less respect for the creator... if there is one.
Ditto for me. The Athiests book of bible stories is very good: HERE
Also a very good book is The Bible - The Biography by Karen Armstrong. If you want to know how and why we have the Bible we have today then you need to read this one.
Christian Apologetics Research Ministry
Yes I have. And, yes I do. The above two websites answer most atheist objections. Most have been debated and refuted on this board over the years many times.
Good Luck !
refuted? snicker
If you want to see the depth of CARM click and read 'why the creation myth'.
Reminds me of the Wts. Evolution or Creation books.
Oooh goody, lots more info to check out. Thanks guys!
No, I haven't read it yet...but thanks for the link...I will come back to it. I have noticed it mentioned here before...so much to read...so little time...
Here are a few responses. Fortunately, I only needed to Copy and Paste for
most of it, and added a little related research on the Internet. Whatever
stance you end up choosing, the point I take from it is that some JWs go from
not researching the broadside swings at whoever different from them the JWs
leaders teach them to not researching the broadside swings the atheist or who-
ever teaches them.
p.18, etc.--Fred's stances on numbers in the Bible
Fred claims Solomon is described as having people perform an unrealistically
large number of animal sacifices.
A literalist explanation for the numbers of sacrifices performed for Solomon
(14/minute for a week) is shown at the next link:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110823170509AAi5SWs
Fred likewise gives 1 Chron.22:14 as describing an unrealistically large
amount of gold and silver for Solomon's temple--100,000 talents of gold and
1,000,000 talents of silver. A talent was 75.5 pounds so there was 83.05 mil-
lion pounds of gold and silver. A priest would have to crawl over mounds of
gold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_%28measurement%29
One literalist interpretation:
"One critic has a mental picture of priests cramming all this into the Temple
and having to crawl over mounds of gold, but all this says on the surface is
what was prepared and available; it does not say all of it was used and not
specifically for construction purposes.
"Beyond that, where did the rest go? 1 Kings 7:1-2, 'But Solomon was building
his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house. He built also the
house of the forest of Lebanon; the length thereof was an hundred cubits, and
the breadth thereof fifty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits, upon
four rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams upon the pillars.' And let's not
forget that gold and silver and other metals were the closest things to legal
tender in those days; who paid to feed all those workers and how?"
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otnumbersagain.html
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/longconstruct.html
The best responses I found indicate people of that time and place used large
amounts of gold as hyperbole, in this case by worshippers to indicate how impor-
tant their temple was to them, and, ironically, Fred chose the wrong verses to
take literally and the literalist chose the right section:
According to the New American Bible footnotes, context indicates the interpre-
tation: "A hundred thousand talents of gold: about 3,775 tons of gold. A million
talents of silver: about 37,750 tons of silver. The fantastically exaggerated
figures are intended merely to stress the inestimable value of the temple as the
center of Israelite worship. More modest figures are given in 1 Kings 9:14,28;
10:10,14."
http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/1chronicles/1chronicles22.htm
Those are 120 talents, 420 talents, 120 talents, and 666 talents respectfully.
Here's a similar example regarding a crown:
"34 kilos per talent is only speculative at best as one king in the the middle
east wore a crown of gold weighing 1 talent--surely not 34 kilos in weight."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_total_quantity_of_the_gold_and_silver_
that_was_use_to_decorate_King_Solomons_Temple
Unrealistic amount of gold given the amount extant in the world
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/errant-critics-of-inerrant-scripture.html
Apologist's response
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/solwealth.html
Wikipedia--temple denial and Solomon's temple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon's_Temple
****
p.70 Fred questions the JWs leaders' account of a literal Adam and Eve and
ransom, etc. What I have on that, and how the JWs leaders, as usual, mischarac-
terize the mainstream view, is on p.8 of "GTJ Brooklyn." (Use Edit > Find >
ransom and click three times.)
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id22.html
Fred gives the Genesis account as characteristic of the limited knowledge of
people of the time, not proof of God.
Since Fred otherwise makes a case for atheism, I'll just demur by adding that
many mainstream Christians don't think they know proof is or isn't. They under-
stand faith as such for a possible God so have no problem considering such
verses likewise as examples of faith, not proof of more, from back when, and
take it allegorically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation
****
p.114 Fred characterizes religion as causing the dark ages and creating war.
These are fairly common bromides so fortunately I just need to Copy and Paste
responses for them.
The myth of the Dark Ages
The myth of the Dark Ages is that belief in God must include the sort of lit-
eralist conservative interpretation of old religious accounts that works against
the advancement of science, and that this, made law of the land, held back pro-
gress in science for centuries. According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages
"Films and novels often use the term 'Dark Age' with its implied meaning of a
time of backwardness. For instance, the popular movie Monty Python and the Holy
Grail humorously portrays knights and chivalry, following in a tradition begun
with Don Quixote. The 2007 television show The Dark Ages from The History Chan-
nel called the Dark Ages '600 years of degenerate, godless, inhuman behavior.'
"The public idea of the Middle Ages as a supposed 'Dark Age' is also reflected
in misconceptions regarding the study of nature during this period. The contem-
porary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald Numbers discuss the
widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages were a 'time of ignorance and
superstition,' the blame for which is to be laid on the Christian Church for al-
legedly 'placing the word of religious authorities over personal experience and
rational activity,' and emphasize that this view is essentially a caricature.
"Contrary to common belief, Lindberg say that 'the late medieval scholar rarely
experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as
free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation
wherever they led.' And Edward Grant, writes: 'If revolutionary rational
thoughts were expressed in the Age of Reason [the 18th century], they were only
made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of
reason as one of the most important of human activities.'
"For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the 19th century and is
still very common in popular culture is the supposition that all people in the
Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat. This claim is mistaken. In fact,
lectures in the medieval universities commonly advanced evidence in favor of the
idea that the Earth was a sphere. Lindberg and Numbers write: 'There was
scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge
[Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference.'
"Misconceptions such as: 'the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections dur-
ing the Middle Ages,' 'the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science,' and
'the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy,' are
all cited by Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as his-
torical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research."
Wars
Fred makes the case about faith in God causing war.
About 7% of the wars in history were religious wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#Overall
I understand faith as such in a possible God, so don't want the theological/
ethical dilemma of arbitrary hurting or killing--sadism or murder. But believ-
ers and non-believers who were too 'centric and intolerant have caused harm,
even gotten onto lists of the worst abominations of all time (see the list at
the next link). And some of either would be ashameed to have anyone think
they'd want to be on such a list.
http://necrometrics.com/war-faq.htm#religion
I don't see anything Fred presents as making a case against faith in God or
even religion, which has progressive/reform components on these points he hasn't
reflected because they're bad for a ham-handed broadside swing. I'd make the
case against being too 'centric or intolerant about belief or non-belief. I
recommend that people who do or don't believe in God agree to not like it if
those of either cause harm, which, ironically, comes a lot more from the type of
prove is or isn't outlooks with ham-handed broadside swings that Fred advances
while he criticizes them.
****
p.137 etc.--Fred Titanich's stances against the methods of apologists
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with something stated by an apolo-
gist--apologists do it about each other or correcting their own earlier state-
ments all the time, so why couldn't anyone else?
True, but to make an analogy between subjective reactions to the math of music
and faith in a possible God beyond the known things, pitting the most extreme
and mistaken literalists against atheism is a little like the forced choice of
pitting an off-key recital against not liking any music. Literalists include
extremists, but actually literalists differ in when to see scriptures as alle-
gorical--only when clearly indicated by scriptural context or moreover when in-
dicated otherwise by history, and they may differ in recognition of what that
history is.
A few apologists' sites:
http://carm.org/
http://www.tektonics.org/index.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/
(The growing number of Christians who are progressive/reform and disagree with
some literalist interpretations may feel it's similar to reading a JWs leaders'
brochure, not an atheists', to be told the only choice is literalist/religion or
atheist/not religion.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
1. Understanding language as including meanings other than literal--allegori-
cal, figurative, or symbolic--is characterized as wrong for a prophesy from
Ezekial 29.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ezekiel
According to Wikipedia, the debate about that is:
Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years
(Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would be allowed to plunder it (Ezekiel
29:19-20) as compensation for his earlier failure to plunder Tyre (see above).
However, the armies of Pharaoh Amasis II defeated the Babylonians. History re-
cords that this Pharaoh (also known as Ahmose II) went on to enjoy a long and
prosperous reign; Herodotus writes that:
It is said that it was during the reign of Ahmose II that Egypt attained its
highest level of prosperity both in respect of what the river gave the land and
in respect of what the land yielded to men and that the number of inhabited cit-
ies at that time reached in total 20,000.
The prophecy in chapter 29 dates in December 588—January 587. 20 years later,
in the year 568, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt. F.F. Bruce writes still more
exactly that the Babylonien king invaded Egypt already after the siege of Tyre
585—573 BC and replaced the pharao Hophra (Apries) by Amasis:
The siege of Tyre was followed by operations against Egypt itself. Hophra was
defeated, deposed and replaced by Amasis, an Egyptian general. But in 568 BC
Amasis revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, who then invaded and occupied part of
the Egyptian frontier lands.
Flavius Josephus even writes in his Antiquities, citing the 4th century Greek
writer Megasthenes that Nebuchadnezzar had control of all northern Africa unto
present day Spain:
Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention
of these things, and thereby endeavors to show that this king (Nebuchadnezzar)
exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he
saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia.
On the other hand Nebuchadnezzar makes no mention of this campaign against
Egypt in his inscriptions, at least that are currently known. It is too simple
to argue with Herodotus, especially because his credibility was ever since con-
tested. The forty years are not to understand as an exact number. This figure
became a significant period of chastisement to the Hebrews remembering the forty
years in the desert after the exodus from Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible#The_destruction_of_Tyre
The apologetic rendition at the next link basically leaves it open: it can be
that either desolation or time taken for time to return to Egypt may be referred
to wih rounded numbers or that God annulled a prophesy to help someone who
stopped showing commitment to Him (Jer.18:7-10).
http://www.tektonics.org/af/carrs01.html
2. Two examples (Jephthah's daughter as a burnt offering and Adam as dying)
are given to show literalists read unintended meaning into a word--seeing a word
out of context and wrong is given as the correct way to see it as compared to in
context. Holding this outlook and the previous one could make understanding any
writing a problem whether you want to believe in a possible God or not, I'd
think.
Stances, including actual literalist stances, on a sacrifice of Jephthah's
daughter and Adam dying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jephthah#Sacrifice_controversy
One basic allegorical outlook could be to see it as the first people who had a
concept of God (transcendent, necessary, eternal, creator/sustainer, etc., with
a higher prerogative) and that they'd be lesser (be fallen) in all those regards
with common human selfishness personified by the devil. They went from innocent
of this (perfect) to understanding their lives as being in this lesser form, and
that suffering each others' selfishness has them suffer as a result of being
lesser beings (being of sin).
Again, a disagreement with a literalist's interpretation may be found among
believers and doesn't make Fred's case for atheism as the only reasonable
choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
(The author mainly wants to criticize a literalist outlook of an inerrant Bi-
ble, so though I'd use the ground rules of progessive/reform standards regarding
old texts, these aren't brought up to rebuke, too, so I guess that's for another
time. Disagreeing with misunderstandings of the possibilities of grammar with
other misunderstandings about them isn't recmmended whatever your faith choice,
though.)
3. Fault is found with the idea that words lose and gain meanings over time
and in different cultures (a fact of etymology).
The example given for which it shouldn't be done: Belshazzar given as the son
of Nebuchadnezzar. This is debated. Some call it a mistake while others prefer
to reconcile it "by interpreting the term to mean forefather or predecessor, as
used elsewhere in Biblical texts, notably referring to the Patriarch Abraham as
the father of King David. (The Hebrew word for father, av, is nonspecific as to
immediacy of relation, and as such can often mean forefather.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belshazzar#Belshazzar_in_literature
This is given as making the Bible meaningless in referring to Jesus as God's
Son. (I didn't find that big a problem with it even while giving full play to
the JWs leaders' stances and their misrepresentations of more mainstream views.
What I have on that is on pp.7-11 of "Glenster's Guide to GTJ Brooklyn.")
http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn7.htm
4. Fred claims that inerrant Bible literalists explain differences in David's
census of 1 Chron.21 and 2 Sam.24 as due to copyist error, and he warns that
this explanation should be used sparingly or fundamental scriptures could be
considered wrong.
Bible translation and textual criticism commonly take the possibility of copy-
ist's error into consideration but don't claim it shows it isn't reliable about
the basic fundamentals (forgiveness by faith in Jesus or such, although some
differ from the mainstream in their interpretation of Jesus' identity or the
role of works). A literalist may leave something open if the textual critics do
(Jesus born to a virgin or simply a woman). The example of David's census of 1
Chron.21 and 2 Sam.24 is a debated matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#Hebrew_Bible
For some reason, the author gives the inerrant Bible literalist as explaining
it as copyist's error. The inerrant Bible literalist explains it as error? A
rendition of what a literalist would explain (and it isn't error) is at the next
link:
http://voices.yahoo.com/is-bible-perfect-another-alleged-4987594.html?cat=34
If some such stances may be described as circular, at least they may make the
opposing stance circular, not proof something is error, as well.
5. Fred gives a literalist as explaining history is in error about a literal
great flood. Some literalists do that, but, as noted at the top of this arti-
cle, actually literalists differ in when to see scriptures as allegorical--only
when clearly indicated by scriptural context or moreover when indicated other-
wise by history, and some are better than others in recognition of what that
history is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
It's difficult to require that the writer of Genesis meant the flood (and var-
ious Genesis things) literally without the writer being available to ask, al-
though things like two creation accounts, "day" as in Noah's day, etc., may be
seen as the writer creating context that indicates it, even by a fundamentalist.
The account was later largely taken literally then not, which are intermediate
trends in related history. See the next link for some pretty old examples of
believers who, without current findings, didn't take thoe verses literally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Challenges_to_historicity
Having characterized literalists as having the stance that history is wrong
about a literal great flood, Fred makes a similar claim about how they regard
the length of the Exodus in Egypt and errors in the book of Daniel.
The argument against a literalist stance about the Exodus is, like the liter-
alist stance about a great flood, an argument that may also be included among
non-literalist believers' stances and doesn't make the author's case for athe-
ism. The author doesn't say which things about Daniel he criticizes, but some
of the variety of stances are at the third link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark#Noah.27s_Ark_and_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Historicity
6. The author gives it as a false account of a number if the Bible gives some-
one as having a partial account of a number (as in accounts of those who visited
Jesus' tomb)--that interpreting a sentence as referring to a partial account is
a dubious thing literalist's do that most people don't. While I've read differ-
ing interpretations, pro and con, of such things, the stance that no reasonable
people talk/write that way is unrealistic.
While such things are looked at pro and con, I don't think it works to go so
far as to say that someone made a contradiction that throws distrust over every-
thing they say if they say something like "Hendrix and Santana played Woodstock"
without giving the whole roster of who played there--that they're denying that
Alvin Lee played "I'm Going Home" there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_numerology
A literalist solution to an earlier problem with numbers of sacrifices (14/
minute for a week) and Solomon is shown at the next link:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110823170509AAi5SWs
7. The author criticizes the possibility that someone can be credited with do-
ing something by being a cause of something--they would have to have done it
directly.
Literalists are given as explaining Matt 27:6,7 (the chief priests are given
as buying the field) and Acts 1:18,19 (Judas is given as buying the field) as
an example--that they say Judas bought the field after death in the sense that
the priests did it with his money.
Maybe some use that explanation (usually the manner of Judas' death is de-
bated), but what I found was an explanation that the chief priests bought the
"field" with the 30 pieces of silver (betrayal money) and Judas bought a "little
bit of space" (chorion) and not necessarily with the 30 pieces but "the reward
of iniquity" (possibly money stolen from the bag at John 12:6).
http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/d02contradictions/matthew27v6-7acts1v18.html
This is meant to show that if someone in the Bible is given as doing something
it's confusing to think the Bible meant that God somehow caused them to do it.
This rule of interpretation must make the Bible a lot more confusing....
8. The author criticizes the Bible for giving lengths of time so capriciously
that the whole thing has no meaning whatsoever. Again a drastic stance is op-
posed with a drastic stance. As literalists were faulted for not taking Ezekiel
literally before, this time it's Revelation (?!) and Genesis (?!--see above).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_%28theology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
I think they should be rewarded by someone who criticizes the overuse of lit-
eralism. Solutions to confusion should try to avoid being confusing. No fair
trying to win by confusing me.
9. The author says some prophesies are false and literalists claim that they
became clearer after fulfillment. No examples are given.
I don't know of proof of God--I understand a choice whether or not to have
faith as such, so I don't know proof of God by proof of prophesy, either. I've
read different stances about Bible prophesy, but I think #9 may refer to some of
the different stances about interpretations of OT verses as being about Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_messianic_prophecy
(My own choice is if it's a choice between a warrior Messiah to establish Mo-
saic law of the land with death penalties for a country, and Jesus and followers
ending Mosaic law for their religion/nobody asking for their religion to be law
of the land/getting rid of rules about cleanness to let the religion spread
among Jews and Gentiles without a country with a military, I'd rather have the
latter, anyway, and let others fuss over preferred interpretations of pro-
phesies.)
10. Beyond the NWT, Bible translators sometimes choose different texts or
translations. Even fundamentalists generally concede this without it making an
important difference in basics of faith. But Fred gives the JWs leaders'
changes in their NWT--one notable example being the replacement of "Lord"s with
"Jehovah"s in the NWT where doing so helps to enforce the JWs leaders' stances
on Jesus' identity--as examples of how other transations are made and that it's
a common tool of apologists to defend stances. Not that I've noticed--com-
plaints about that are common.
11. The author criticizes apologists as using circular reasoning in claiming
that an alleged contradiction between a literal reading of the Bible and evi-
dence otherwise may later be proven right by archaeology or some other discov-
ery.
That depends on the example--the author doesn't give any, and literalists
don't do it in all the same cases. I'd agree it shouldn't be done to defend a
literal interpretation of a worldwide great flood, but it's not clearly wrong in
all cases.
A recent example I know of is the criticism of Nazareth not having existed in
the time of Jesus but recent findings showing it's possible. "In 2009 Israeli
archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth
that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told
reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the
very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Early_Christian_era
In some such cases the choice of whether or not to be open to future findings
just reveals the preference the literalist or atheist may have about possibili-
ties. And again, there are more approaches to faith in a possible God than just
literalist believer or atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Challenges_to_historicity
p.142, etc.--Fred's Atheist Manifesto
Aside from stances against interpretation methods, some of which are criti-
cisms found among believers and non-believers alike, Fred Titanich here gives
his stance on being an atheist. I would recommend something like "Belief in God
is a hope for a possibility beyond the known and I don't want to do that--I just
want to stick to the known"--it's short, simple, and clear. As noted above, I
think he pads his case for atheism in a few ways.
But again, an extreme stance about faith (proven true) is criticized with an
extreme stance (proven not true). This makes for a good example of something
I've referred to in many Internet posts: regarding faith, the "prove is" people
have more in common with the "prove isn't" people than they seem to realize.
Both miss the point of something else pretty conspicuous in the Bible: faith,
faith in God being a hope for a possible God beyond the known things. And a
given atheist or literalist may seem ironically similar in how they both pad
their case.
I recommend Adler's "How to Think About God" for a regard for the possibility
of a basic God concept, which is pretty substantial though the Manifesto writer
can't imagine such as thing existing that could be any more than meaningless.
The Manifesto writer indicates that adding any further details to this basic
God idea is always to add things that can be disproven. Actually, giving this
God a name or imagining an intervention can be further matters of understanding
faith as such and meaningful to the believer. But since they're not proven true
Fred puts them in the proven untrue category. Faith understood as such gets
the short shift--it's been overlooked in so much of what preceded this that it's
not surprising that it's left out of the conclusion.
I don't have to read atheist books in order to know the Bible is bullcrap. From time to time, when I need a good laugh, I browse the CARM site. Wow, these people live in the Middle Ages, yet they have Internet access! The pride in their pseudo-science is astounding!
While putting together a post about the likelyhood that Adam and Eve didn't exist, I came across this gem of a line, directly from the Reasoning From the Scriptures book:
"Denial that Adam was a real person who sinned against God implies doubt as to the identity of Jesus Christ. Such denial leads to rejection of the reason it was necessary for Jesus to give his life for mankind. Rejection of that means repudiation of the Christian faith."
I really couldn't have put it better muself.
