In the Jehovah Witnesses book titled, THE BIBLE— GOD’S WORD OR MAN’S, it claims that, “This publication will present evidence that the Bible really is God’s Word” (p.7). Put another way, Jehovah Witnesses (like most other religions) assume that although men physically wrote their valued scriptures, the ideas these men wrote down were not authored by the men who wrote them down—and more importantly, that there is “evidence” that can establish that men who wrote the scriptures were not the authors of the ideas they wrote down in the scriptures.
To justify the accuracy of my understanding of the initial quotation I began with I will pull from two more sources. First, a little latter in book, THE BIBLE—GOD’S WORD OR MAN’S, it reads, “time and again, the [Bible] writers made the same claim: that they were writing not their own thoughts but Gods” (p.10); and secondly, in Jehovah Witness book titled, WHAT DOES THE BIBLE REALLY TEACH this first source is elaborated:
The Bible “is inspired of God.” (2 Timothy 3:16) In what way? The Bible itself answers: “Men spoke from God as they were born along by holy spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21) To illustrate: A businessman might have a secretary write a letter. That letter contains the businessman’s thoughts and instructions. Hence, it is really his letter, not the secretary’s. In a similar way, the Bible contains God’s message, not that of the men who wrote it down. Thus, the entire Bible truthfully is “the words of God.”—Thessalonians 2:13. (pg. 19-20)
Again, in other words, Jehovah Witnesses understanding of their valued scriptures holds that although they were physically written by man, God was the author of the ideas that the men wrote down. And, according to the opening claim of, THE BIBLE—GOD’S WORD OR MAN’S, previously posited, which claims that, “This publication will present evidence that the Bible really is God’s Word,” it is further accurate to understand that Jehovah Witnesses believe that there is evidence that can establish the truth that men did not author the ideas of the scriptures they physically wrote down.
So, according to the book, THE BIBLE—GOD’S WORD OR MAN’S, what is the objective “evidence” that will establish the intangible non-objective truth that men did not author the ideas of the scriptures they physically wrote down? First, Chapters 1, 2 and 3 focus on the historical emergence of the Bible and together hold that because the Bible has lasted through history while other religious texts and tradition have been forgotten, despite the Bible’s many “false friends” who have misrepresented it, together this is one strand of sure “evidence” that God—and not man—was it’s author (p.12-36). Secondly, Chapters 4 and 5 claim that because there is archeological evidence that supports the history the Bible claims, and because the Bible does not ignore negative human qualities, and because the Bible contains much agreement between possible separate writers, and because the Bible speaks of miracles—because the Bible is a “genuine history”(p.53)—“Then God was indeed behind the writing of the Bible, and it really is his word, not man’s” (p.70). Chapter 6 further focuses on the plausibility of the Bible miracles. It begins by refuting David Hume’s 17th century philosophical argument against miracles and later using Sir William Ramsey’s belief that the possible Bible author Luke was a credible and accurate historian concludes by claiming:
Indeed, the testimonial evidence is absolutely convincing. Jesus was raised from the dead on Nisan 16, 33 C. E. And since that resurrection happened, all the other miracles of the Bible are possible—miracles for which we also have solid eyewitness testimony. [. . . ] Thus, the fact that the Bible tells of miracles is no reason to doubt its truthfulness. Rather, the fact that miracles did happen in Bible times is powerful proof that the Bible really is the Word of god. [emphasis added](p.86)
Chapter 7 claims that the Bible is generally harmoniously unified—meaning that it is most likely free from contradiction. And, that because it is generally free from contradiction—or because if we just had a more thorough understanding of the Bible’s context it is highly likely that there would be no contradictions—this fact then, “demonstrates without any doubt its divine origin” (p.97). Chapter 8 claims that because the Bible agrees with modern science in many respects and the theory of evolution is improvable and likely false theory, “we have to believe it [meaning the Bible] got its information from a superhuman intelligence” (p.116). Chapter 9 claims that, “all the Bible’s prophecies that were due to be fulfilled have come true” (p.133). And that because they have come true (and hence must all come true), “There must have been more than human wisdom behind those prophetic utterances for them to have been so accurate” (p.133). Chapter 10 focuses on current biblical prophesies that have recently been fulfilled and ends with the claim, “Without any doubt we are witnessing the fulfillment of the great sign that Jesus gave. This fact adds to the evidence that the Bible is indeed inspired by God” (p.148). Chapter 11 brings together an overall aim of Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10, which is to explain some of the complex harmony of the Bible. While Chapter 7 claims the Bible is harmonious, Chapter 8 claims that the Bible is harmonious in relationship to credible aspects of modern science, Chapter 9 claims that the Bible’s internal prophecies are harmonious with many external secular histories it claims including archaeological histories [???? This might be an earlier chapter], Chapter 10 claims that the Bible’s prophecies are in harmony with modern fulfillments of these prophecies, Chapter 11 claims that the overall theme, message, or narrative of the Bible is moreover also in harmony with itself—which is remarkable because, “This overall harmony is powerful evidence that the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God” (p.149). Chapter 12 claims that the Bible contains and enormous amount of moral wisdom that is benefitial if followed. And, as such, “The fact that the Bible is a rich repository of such wisdom is powerful evidence that it is the Word of God” (p.174). Chapter 13 claims that becoming familiar with the Bible has the power to give readers a “new personality” (p.175). Because the Bible is, “the inspired Word of God,” and hence is “a channel for the operation of God’s spirit”(p.181), readers of the Bible are acted upon by “God’s spirit” (p.183). This spirit acting upon the personality of the reader of the Bible gives people a desire to serve and obey God’s Bible wisdom willingly: it make, “us want to put on the new personality that pleases him” (p.179). Although this conversion process will be an easy process for some, it will be very difficult struggle for others. Nevertheless, “The power that the Bible has wielded in the lives of humble individuals shows that it is more than merely a human work,” (p.181) and moreover, the fact there are many Jehovah Witnesses on the earth who claim to have experienced this “new personality,” “is powerful evidence that God’s spirit is still active among mankind” (p.183) and hence, to be consistent with all of this book’s claims, is therefore proof that God was its author.
Response
In a few places in, THE BIBLE—GOD’S WORD OR MAN’S?, it is clear that Jehovah Witnesses understand that types of knowledge and the methods used to acquire that knowledge are only capable of achieving various degrees of certainty. Hence, when a historian digs into history with the textual books of history and interprets the objective symbols they find or when archaeologists dig into the geological landscape and interprets the objective symbols they find, according to the book THE BIBLE—GOD’S WORD OR MAN’S, it is clear that Jehovah Witnesses understand the limiting and ever expanding aspects of the horizons of interpreters historical consciousnesses which not only destroys the possibility of unchanging certainty but also explains why any degree of unchanging certainty across time is impossible.
For instance, in the section, “The Limitations of Archaeology,” we find a discussion of the limitations of achieving certainty in using the “historio-geographical” method archeologist and historians use to interpret discovered archaeological data:
Archaeologists themselves admit the limitations of their science. Yohana Aharoni, for example, explains: “when it comes to historical or historio-geographical interpretation, the archaeologist [and historians] steps out of the realm of the exact sciences, and he must rely upon value judgment and hypotheses to arrive at a comprehensive historical picture.” [. . .] The World of the Old Testament asks the question: “How objective or truly scientific is the archaeological [and historical] method?” it answers: “Archaeologists [and historians] are more objective when unearthing the fact then when interpreting them.” [ . . . ] So archaeology [and history] can be very helpful, but like any human endeavor, it is fallible. (p.51-52)
Further, in a discussion on the tensions between evolution and creation theories the “publishers” (p.7) of, THE BIBLE—GOD’S WORD OR MAN’S?, clearly see that when the scientific method is used to understand historical events such as the possibility of evolution or creation it becomes a matter of “theory” and hence is not an exact science. Hence, it encourages people deciding between valuing the historical possibility of evolution over creationism to first, “look more closely at what science knows, as opposed to what it theorizes” (p.104). Even further, in, THE BIBLE—GOD’S WORD OR MAN’S?, Jehovah Witnesses use a quotation from professor John McCampbell which demonstrates the relativity of interpreting the relationship of objective geological data to objective textual data in the Bible when an interpreter’s historical consciousnesses’ horizon is consciously actualized. “The essential differences” he writes:
between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism [using currently accepted natural laws to interpret the past] are not over the factual data of geology but over the interpretations of those data. The interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and presuppositions of the individual student. [emphasis added] (p. 116)
These three distinct places found in, THE BIBLE—GOD’S WORD OR MAN’S?, which deal with the possibility of establishing certainty in researching in natural and human sciences are brought up because in reflecting on the language always used by Jehovah Witnesses to describe the degree of exactness Jehovah Witnesses claimed to have achieved in they way they claim to know that God—and not man—is the objective author of the ideas of their valued scriptures—i.e. the Bible—there seems to be inconsistencies with what it is claiming and capable of knowing: that actually knowing with certainty that the intangible God was the author of the Bible is not capable of being known on anything other than faith. As such, all objective methods of research used to possibly establish this possibility of God as author as objectively provable are incapable of establishing anything other than faith—and therefore because certainty on this point is impossible generally—its even more unrealistic because it appears completely unaware of its ability to be grounded on only faith. And, if faith is the foundation upon which knowledge of God is based, why then is the language used to communicate the certainty that has been achieved in knowing that God for sure is the author of the scriptures so confident (especially without any explicit conscious awareness of the foundation of faith upon which these claims do rest?)—as if such convictions used something other and a historio-geographical interpretative method or a theoretical method to generate these convictions—which method only leads to relative conclusion some with greater or lesser value? Jehovah Witnesses (and many other religions as well) posit their convictions as if its “evidence” for which its conviction of truth are based on is other than a “human endeavor” capable of being “fallible;” more accurately, as if its claims to truth are universally true. But, since when is a historio-geographical interpretative or theoretical method capable of achieving anything universally exact for all people outside of time? In other words, how could a person reading the Bible be capable of using any method in developing its understanding other then a historical-geographical or socio-historical method? It can’t! To claim otherwise would be to claim that a person could read and understand according to a universal standard—or that a person reading is capable of avoiding the necessity of interpretation, which the reality of historical consciousness cannot let us do. Meaning, that the way one person understands and experiences an application of a text is incapable of being understood, applied, and hence experienced exactly the same by all people who read the same texts—even if we are working toward thorough understandings.
Along these lines, the beginning of Chapter 2 posits a more robust explanation of the logic used to come to the conclusion that God was definitively the author of Jehovah Witnesses’ valued scriptures. It reads, “There are many strands of the evidence proving that the Bible really is God’s Word. Each strand is strong, but when all are taken together they are unbreakable” (p.12). But, if faith is the foundation of each strand in regards to it being able to prove God as the objective author of the scriptures, how is it that all these strands together could be anything other than faith based? Perhaps together they could produce stronger faith, but this faith could never reach a universal status and certainly not objective universal status—as the language used by many religions including Jehovah Witnesses seems to communicate. And, therefore, how could faith every be anything other than always evolving—never in the first place ever capable of reaching an unbreakable status? The possibility or reality of “unbreakable” “evidence”—seems to be rather evidence of erroneous subjective universalism than what knowledge grounded in faith could actually achieve—which seems to be a modern delusion very common in the United States.
The fact that understandings of the Bible creates the plausible possibility that ancient writers (perhaps inspired of God) were capable of predicting the future events that we have, are, or may in the future be witnesses of does not render the “facts” observed, that seem to correspond with what biblical writers predicted, capable of being anything other than understandings generated by historio-geographical interpretations—very similar to those done by an archaeologist or a historian and are therefore infinitely contingent based on the infinite horizon of all historical consciousness. The same could be said of understandings of scriptures seemingly limited to only scriptural texts such as the Bible; or understandings of applied morality that the Bible asserts; or the new personality seemingly being created only by the Bible that the historical consciousness of the reader was apart of; or the understanding that sees the harmony of the Biblical message with itself, history, and science! To repeat, together, all these “evidences” do not achieve the capacity of demonstrating anything outside of the realm of faith and could never establish objectivity of the possibility of God as author of scriptures. Yet if these “evidences” are faith based—and they are—why do not those who believe that God authored the scriptures use language that traditionally communicate that they have achieved some type of objective knowledge?—especially when the research they demonstrate clearly shows their capacity to know and communicate otherwise?
Yet, from another direction, who can deny the great power reading and understanding the scriptures seems to have over many people even if this affect is not universal for all people, or continuous over a lifetime for people who have experienced this seeming power? Likewise, who can deny that all the wisdom and morality of the Bible or any valued scriptures does not at least contain some—or much—beneficial advice—even if this only means that a great many people value this wisdom on delusion that it was for sure and we have objective evidence that such knowledge was authored by God?
Given that the possibility of God as author of the Bible is not definitively provable or improvable with any degree of objective exactness as THE BIBLE—GOD’S WORD OR MAN’S seems to claim and imply that it is, I believe two things should happen. First, if integrity is to be kept, language used to describe the conditions that experiencing the seeming power of the Bible should change to embrace the faith based contingencies upon which they do stand; secondly, subjective universalist claims to truth or knowledge, which come in the aftermath delusion, must loose their dogmatic status and become consciously reflective. In other words, dogmatic loyalty to subjective universalist claims must cease because they are not based on anything credible—though it may be very sociable an even beneficial for some or many. This conclusion is not against faith but rather in support of a more pure healthy faith for all of mankind—especially those currently being abused within the delusions of subjective universalism currently and evilly being supported by the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion clauses in the US constitution and out of date scientific traditions taught in academia!
Works Cites
The Bible-God’s Word or Man’s. 1989; Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn, New York
What Does the Bible Really Teach. 2005; Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn, New York
No comments:
Post a Comment