Posts by peacefulpete

14

Could the law abiding Jesus or his disciples have used a coin depicting Caesar?

by EdenOne in

so, i was just viewing an interview with professor yonathan adler regarding the origins of judaism as an everyday practice of the masses.

he makes a very convincing argument that the jews only became torah observants in a generalized way around the beginning of the hasmonean dynasty, between the 3rd and 2nd centuries bc.

you can watch the interview here:.

peacefulpete

I think Prof. Adler is stating what has been known for some time. Whenever weighing the historical usefulness of ancient writings, it's necessary to recall that winners wrote it. What we can be pretty sure of is the primary history of the Jewish faith was a 're-creation' of the deep past using ancient diverse traditions mixed with religious idealism of the 6th century BCE then further revised and reinterpreted during the Hasmonean period. Later Rabbis developed the concept of a mythic Great Assembly, (led by the last of the prophets), that defined and even rewrote the OT (Tanakh) during those years to, IMO, give authority to these revisions recognized by careful readers.

The 'winners' that eventually defined Judaism after 70/135 spawned from the Pharisee sect, and with them came the Tanakh and Torah. Most of the other Jews becoming absorbed into them or other sects such as the diverse forms of Christianity that disavowed the Torah. Those were largely the choices.

His comments about the coins must be regarded as another evidence the Gospel narrative dates to post 70.

26

Details of Noah’s Ark

by enigma1863 in

jw magazines have claimed the flood story has so much detail that it couldn’t be just a made up story.. is it detailed?

name one person outside of noah’s family.

name one nephilim.

peacefulpete

Boogerman....The word used for the ark is an Egyptian loanword teebah. Its only other usage is the 'basket' of bulrushes that Moses was riding on the Nile waters. (in contrast to the word 'aron' used to describe the sacred ark/chest). The word choice seems deliberate literary means of equating the stories on a symbolic level. The motif of passing through waters is a recurring word picture depicting 'new beginnings' throughout the Bible, likely drawn from the creation stories description of splitting the waters.

Readers of the Noah stories with some sailing experience, recognize the impossibility of a square sided box not being crushed or capsized and have assumed the writer must have envisioned a boat shape to withstand the incredible power of waves. If you have ever been in a boat on rough water the first thing you do is point the bow into the oncoming wave to not be flipped. The wave energy is dissipated by the shape of the hull whereby the boat gently lifts rather than tossed. Don't fault the artists who assume the boat shape, they are trying to rescue the story.

10

Micah 6:8

by enoughisenough in

i saw this in a video sometime back ( don't remember now ) but it caught my attention...micah 6:8 was changed in the "silver sword" ...they changed the words in that scripture from " to love kindness" or in some versions to "love mercy" or "love grace" or "love goodness" to nwt silver : " to cherish loyalty".

sometime afterward there would be articles about being loyal to the organization.

some of you may recall this.

peacefulpete

enough...Translators of necessity introduce new viewpoints to the work. modern values, personal biases, interpretive choices. Functionally the words used by translations for 'checed' each carry a nuanced meaning. So no, these words cannot all equally accurately convey the meaning of checed in any particular usage.

The WT is making a choice to use 'loyalty'.

6

Images

by peacefulpete in

simple question.

while the deuteronomists and later writers of the bible condemned the use of images of yahweh, they at the same time imagined him and described him in text as a man in the sky with bow and arrows or riding a chariot drawn by cherubs or sitting on a throne.

if the former is a dishonor, ought not the latter be as well?.

peacefulpete

First thanks for all responses.

EdenOne...it is almost as if there was more than one author.

Hopeless1...Your post raises another point. If the anthropomorphisms in the visionary descriptions ought be regarded as metaphorical and allegorical word pictures, mustn't these narratives where YHWH interacts with humans in human form then be viewed as the same? The narrative itself be merely an allegory?

The point remains that at the most fundamental level there is a contradiction. The anthropomorphic depiction and descriptions against the higher theological notion that the absolutely indescribable transcendent God cannot and ought not be reduced to the likeness of humans or anything else.

6

Images

by peacefulpete in

simple question.

while the deuteronomists and later writers of the bible condemned the use of images of yahweh, they at the same time imagined him and described him in text as a man in the sky with bow and arrows or riding a chariot drawn by cherubs or sitting on a throne.

if the former is a dishonor, ought not the latter be as well?.

peacefulpete

Enough...ok rewording the question, would it seem consistent for God to give visions of himself and have these described in text while simultaneously condemn drawing a picture to represent him? Are both not human creations to assist praying or conceptualizing God? Would a God who rejects earthly visualizations of himself provide visualizations in earthy forms? Why is the one blasphemous and not the other?

Tangentially, is it coincidental their visions were identical with iconography of other gods?

10

Micah 6:8

by enoughisenough in

i saw this in a video sometime back ( don't remember now ) but it caught my attention...micah 6:8 was changed in the "silver sword" ...they changed the words in that scripture from " to love kindness" or in some versions to "love mercy" or "love grace" or "love goodness" to nwt silver : " to cherish loyalty".

sometime afterward there would be articles about being loyal to the organization.

some of you may recall this.

peacefulpete

I understand, my post was off topic.

10

Micah 6:8

by enoughisenough in

i saw this in a video sometime back ( don't remember now ) but it caught my attention...micah 6:8 was changed in the "silver sword" ...they changed the words in that scripture from " to love kindness" or in some versions to "love mercy" or "love grace" or "love goodness" to nwt silver : " to cherish loyalty".

sometime afterward there would be articles about being loyal to the organization.

some of you may recall this.

peacefulpete

I feel compelled to remind you that Micah was extensively redacted and expanded. The 8th century prophet 'prophesied' (chapts 1-3) the Assyrian destruction of Samria and Judah including Jerusalem and temple, when it was quite evident it was likely. Samaria fell as we know and was easy to predict, but Jerusalem did not. IOW the prophet was a 'false' prophet. In response one of the latest editors of Jeremiah (26:18) explained the failure away by saying the people repented. Interestingly this is not reflected in the LXX suggesting this is a very late addition to Jeremiah. The book was reformed/revised/expanded heavily by postExile writers to say he also predicted the destruction of the temple by Babylon. It's a long and winding road but simply said 6:8 was not likely said by the 8th century would be prophet named Micah.

11

Do Masks really help in preventing respiratory infections? Recent study reviewed

by Reasonfirst in

jw
friends

in the recent coronavirus scare, masks were promoted as one way to minimise possible infection.

a study, reviewed yesterday by an english medical commentator, dr john campbell, says, no!.

watch what he has to say on this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3vy2lyqn1a.. the study he reviews can be found at: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.cd006207.pub6/full.

peacefulpete

Do Masks Work? What the Cochrane Review Can and Can’t Tell Us (health.com)

10

Micah 6:8

by enoughisenough in

i saw this in a video sometime back ( don't remember now ) but it caught my attention...micah 6:8 was changed in the "silver sword" ...they changed the words in that scripture from " to love kindness" or in some versions to "love mercy" or "love grace" or "love goodness" to nwt silver : " to cherish loyalty".

sometime afterward there would be articles about being loyal to the organization.

some of you may recall this.

peacefulpete

They have for many years identified the word 'checed' to mean 'loyal love'. It's not a new concept but you may be right that the adjustment reflects the emphasis upon loyalty to the org.

Like countless examples, translators' biases direct word choice. The word does not seem to have a singular meaning, it is defined a variety of ways from simple 'loveliness' to doing a 'favor' for etc. In some contexts it reflects an implied relationship motivating the kindness. It is this shade of meaning that the WT is exploiting. Other commentators have stressed the same, if nothing other than to minimize the idea that God is merely interested in humans expressing kindness to one another.

I should have added that the recipient of the kindness is fellow humans, and even if we read the passage as implying a relational kindness, (love shown to friends and family) it still is not directing blind allegiance to an organization.

6

Images

by peacefulpete in

simple question.

while the deuteronomists and later writers of the bible condemned the use of images of yahweh, they at the same time imagined him and described him in text as a man in the sky with bow and arrows or riding a chariot drawn by cherubs or sitting on a throne.

if the former is a dishonor, ought not the latter be as well?.

peacefulpete

Simple question. While the Deuteronomists and later writers of the Bible condemned the use of images of Yahweh, they at the same time imagined him and described him in text as a man in the sky with bow and arrows or riding a chariot drawn by cherubs or sitting on a throne. If the former is a dishonor, ought not the latter be as well?