Sorry, ignore that post. I was extremely tired and just skimming what you said.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Serious Problems With New World Translation
- Thread starter katiemygirl
- Start date
Kolibri said (post 60) : I do not wish to obstinate, and yet my initial response is to the Talmud is uncertainty. Jesus spoke so negatively about the oral law, and the way Christendom has created her own historical myths, I am inherently skeptical. However, I do not know if I should be. Were there 3 Pentateuch found by Hilkiah? Maybe, maybe not. I honestly admit that I have not explored the Talmud my lack of confidence regarding it's histories in it is partly prejudicial.
Hi Kolibri : I do NOT see your wariness as “obstinance”, but instead think you are very wise on this point. Also, I know that my own religious conceptions must have errors within them that I have not yet discovered. It is HELPFUL to have critical views and new data in order to correct and improve our own beliefs.
You are certainly correct that the Jewish Talmud itself and other ancient Jewish writings are rife with “myths” and completely silly and bizarre interpretations of the written and oral traditions handed down to them from historically “murky” ancient periods of time. For example, the Jewish Mishna tells us Adam had both sets of sex organs and did not need Eve to reproduce. The early Jews and their traditions WERE rife with many similar very, very, very strange myths.
The Talmudic historical account that Hilkiah found three Torahs could certainly be a historical myth upon first look. However, some of the various sets of data surrounding it are accurate and thus increase the likelihood that some form of this Talmudic base claim is correct. For example, the Talmud gives us multiple and specific examples of various readings that did not agree and why they picked one over the other. We also know there were always different versions of the Torah, in the same way there are different versions of the New Testament within Christianity.
For example, we can read the actual textual disagreements between the Eastern (Babylonian) and Western (Jerusalem) Schools with their competing texts and claims as to how their various versions read. This history of babylonian textual influence corresponds with the Talmudic account and the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile. We have textual evidence from Targums and Samaritan Torahs in the language before Hebrew was adopted and can compare readings between some “pre-hebrew” jewish texts and the text they created AFTER adopting the national Hebrew language (after returning from captivity in Babylon). Even the ten commandments are different in the different ancient Torahs. Reference to this context underlies the discussion between the Samaritan woman and Jesus in John 4:21 as to where the “jews” should worship, since the Samaritan 10 commandments referred to “this mountain” as the proper place of “worship” (and not Jerusalem).
By the way, professor Zeitlin (of Dropsy) felt the Talmudic account was in error simply because HE could not conceive that the Jews had more than "one" version of the ancient text. Thus, even "professor level" individuals often have difficulty reconciling the sunday school concept of a "single" and "error-free" text with the historical realities.
Kolibri said (post 60) : As regards to the different descriptions given to the book however, I do not see any discrepancy in one part of the account calling it "the book of the law" and the other part calling it the "book of the covenant", as both seem to be valid descriptions of the same writings. But I have not explored contextual variances to nearly the extent that you have..
I apologize that I was not sufficiently clear in my description. I was not referring to any discrepancy inside the biblical account in 2 Kings nor in its wording. The biblical phrases are perfectly fine.
My historical reference simply referred to the extra-biblical Talmudic account that Hilkiah found 3 Torahs/book of law/book of covenant (by whatever reference name one calls it). I was NOT referring to any apparent discrepancy in the biblical phrases used.
Remember, specific biblical historical accounts are often merely ONE version of historical events. The extra-biblical histories often refer to the same event and add details that make the biblical account more reasonable and more clear. Some biblical accounts cannot BE understood without reference to extra-biblical history.
For example: Moses first marriage to the Ethiopian woman (numbers 12:1) seems to describe Moses as a hypocrite since Moses himself had married a non-jew (for which Aaron and Miriam were taking Moses to task). However, the prohibition against a Jew marrying "outside" of Israel originates IN the “mosaic law”. THUS, Moses seems hypocritical for disobeying this very law by marrying a pagan woman.
However, it is the actual “non-biblical” histories which describe the circumstances surrounding this marriage which both explain and justify it and relieve him of any hypocrisy. I hope this example makes more clear the value of comparing multiple corresponding accounts as we are all creating our mental model of history.
One great value in the various Massorah is that they tell us WHAT changes the Massorites (and sopherim, etc.) made to the ancient biblical texts which came under their care and they described rules and reasons as to why they made many of the hundreds of changes they made to the text. It is both ironic and instructive that in their righteous desires to honor and “protect” God, they contaminated and introduced errors into the very text they valued so highly. THIS lesson should warn us that the Jehovahs Witnesses (and all of the rest of us who interpret and translate biblical text) are very likely to repeat these same mistakes for the very same reasons.
We all (myself included) will introduce bias upon interpreting and translating text and thereby giving it personal meaning, and, by doing so, cannot help but introduce errors into the meanings we create.
Kolibri, I wish you the best of luck in making sense of these religious histories. They are quite wonderful and their base witness as to the existence of a loving God and in his Plan to create a mortal experience for mankind and to send his son as his heir and as savior of a fallen mankind is a very consistent theme in Judeo-Christian literature. Taken as a whole, these consistent themes and descriptions of experiences and revelations given to mankind (and to ourselves) give us a very strong witness that God Loves us, and that it is in and through his Son, the Messiah, that our hope for a blessed future eternity rests. Though none of these experiences and revelations with God will replace our own, personal experiences with God, still, these witnesses are still valuable in creating our models of what is going on inside existence.
I hope your spiritual journey is absolutely wonderful kolibri.
Clear
φυτωτζω
Hi Kolibri : I do NOT see your wariness as “obstinance”, but instead think you are very wise on this point. Also, I know that my own religious conceptions must have errors within them that I have not yet discovered. It is HELPFUL to have critical views and new data in order to correct and improve our own beliefs.
You are certainly correct that the Jewish Talmud itself and other ancient Jewish writings are rife with “myths” and completely silly and bizarre interpretations of the written and oral traditions handed down to them from historically “murky” ancient periods of time. For example, the Jewish Mishna tells us Adam had both sets of sex organs and did not need Eve to reproduce. The early Jews and their traditions WERE rife with many similar very, very, very strange myths.
The Talmudic historical account that Hilkiah found three Torahs could certainly be a historical myth upon first look. However, some of the various sets of data surrounding it are accurate and thus increase the likelihood that some form of this Talmudic base claim is correct. For example, the Talmud gives us multiple and specific examples of various readings that did not agree and why they picked one over the other. We also know there were always different versions of the Torah, in the same way there are different versions of the New Testament within Christianity.
For example, we can read the actual textual disagreements between the Eastern (Babylonian) and Western (Jerusalem) Schools with their competing texts and claims as to how their various versions read. This history of babylonian textual influence corresponds with the Talmudic account and the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile. We have textual evidence from Targums and Samaritan Torahs in the language before Hebrew was adopted and can compare readings between some “pre-hebrew” jewish texts and the text they created AFTER adopting the national Hebrew language (after returning from captivity in Babylon). Even the ten commandments are different in the different ancient Torahs. Reference to this context underlies the discussion between the Samaritan woman and Jesus in John 4:21 as to where the “jews” should worship, since the Samaritan 10 commandments referred to “this mountain” as the proper place of “worship” (and not Jerusalem).
By the way, professor Zeitlin (of Dropsy) felt the Talmudic account was in error simply because HE could not conceive that the Jews had more than "one" version of the ancient text. Thus, even "professor level" individuals often have difficulty reconciling the sunday school concept of a "single" and "error-free" text with the historical realities.
Kolibri said (post 60) : As regards to the different descriptions given to the book however, I do not see any discrepancy in one part of the account calling it "the book of the law" and the other part calling it the "book of the covenant", as both seem to be valid descriptions of the same writings. But I have not explored contextual variances to nearly the extent that you have..
I apologize that I was not sufficiently clear in my description. I was not referring to any discrepancy inside the biblical account in 2 Kings nor in its wording. The biblical phrases are perfectly fine.
My historical reference simply referred to the extra-biblical Talmudic account that Hilkiah found 3 Torahs/book of law/book of covenant (by whatever reference name one calls it). I was NOT referring to any apparent discrepancy in the biblical phrases used.
Remember, specific biblical historical accounts are often merely ONE version of historical events. The extra-biblical histories often refer to the same event and add details that make the biblical account more reasonable and more clear. Some biblical accounts cannot BE understood without reference to extra-biblical history.
For example: Moses first marriage to the Ethiopian woman (numbers 12:1) seems to describe Moses as a hypocrite since Moses himself had married a non-jew (for which Aaron and Miriam were taking Moses to task). However, the prohibition against a Jew marrying "outside" of Israel originates IN the “mosaic law”. THUS, Moses seems hypocritical for disobeying this very law by marrying a pagan woman.
However, it is the actual “non-biblical” histories which describe the circumstances surrounding this marriage which both explain and justify it and relieve him of any hypocrisy. I hope this example makes more clear the value of comparing multiple corresponding accounts as we are all creating our mental model of history.
One great value in the various Massorah is that they tell us WHAT changes the Massorites (and sopherim, etc.) made to the ancient biblical texts which came under their care and they described rules and reasons as to why they made many of the hundreds of changes they made to the text. It is both ironic and instructive that in their righteous desires to honor and “protect” God, they contaminated and introduced errors into the very text they valued so highly. THIS lesson should warn us that the Jehovahs Witnesses (and all of the rest of us who interpret and translate biblical text) are very likely to repeat these same mistakes for the very same reasons.
We all (myself included) will introduce bias upon interpreting and translating text and thereby giving it personal meaning, and, by doing so, cannot help but introduce errors into the meanings we create.
Kolibri, I wish you the best of luck in making sense of these religious histories. They are quite wonderful and their base witness as to the existence of a loving God and in his Plan to create a mortal experience for mankind and to send his son as his heir and as savior of a fallen mankind is a very consistent theme in Judeo-Christian literature. Taken as a whole, these consistent themes and descriptions of experiences and revelations given to mankind (and to ourselves) give us a very strong witness that God Loves us, and that it is in and through his Son, the Messiah, that our hope for a blessed future eternity rests. Though none of these experiences and revelations with God will replace our own, personal experiences with God, still, these witnesses are still valuable in creating our models of what is going on inside existence.
I hope your spiritual journey is absolutely wonderful kolibri.
Clear
φυτωτζω
Last edited:
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
It is okay, I don't hear from you often enough as it is
I have some small inclining of how difficult it is for you to reconcile with an idea of an almighty who is wisely holding off from fixing all our hurts now.