Here is a verse that is marked green in the world's most dishonest book -- The Green Bible.
Therefore thus says the Lord God: My anger and my wrath shall be poured out on this place, on human beings and animals, on the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched. Jeremiah 7:20, The Green BibleI have no idea why it's marked green, except that the words "animals", "trees", and "fruit" are in it.
And yet when you read chapter 7 of Jeremiah, the meaning of this verse is clear enough: God's wrath will be poured out on the environment to punish humans for worshiping incorrectly.
There are no green Bible verses. There are only verses dishonestly marked green in the Green Bible.
18 comments:
Trees are often used in the Bible to symbolize rulers and kingdoms, whereas grass is used for the common people.
Doesn't Jeremiah chapter 7 sound more like a pronouncement along those lines than against the great outdoors?
My anger and my wrath shall be poured out on this place, on human beings and animals, on the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched. Jeremiah 7:20
You say that when God said "trees" he really meant "kings" (or maybe kingdoms), and when he said "grass" he meant all the people.
What did he mean by "animals" and "fruit of the ground," PM? He's already told us that his wrath will burn forever toward kings, kingdoms, and all the people. What's with the "My anger and my wrath shall be poured out on ... animals" thing?
Why doesn't God just say what he means? Why does he talk the way you do? What is he trying to hide?
Do you think this verse shows God's love for his creation? Should it have been marked green in the Green Bible?
Steve - You say that when God said "trees" he really meant "kings" (or maybe kingdoms), and when he said "grass" he meant all the people.
PM - I said that "trees are often symbolic of rulers and kingdoms." For the sake of discussion I proposed the possibility.
Steve - What did he mean by "animals" and "fruit of the ground," PM? He's already told us that his wrath will burn forever toward kings, kingdoms, and all the people. What's with the "My anger and my wrath shall be poured out on ... animals" thing?
PM - Depends upon the context. Sometimes animals symbolize good qualities, divine as well as human and sometimes they symbolize oppressive ruling powers. Fruit tends to represent the effort or the results of that effort of either godly or ungodly people. Cain, for example, offered an unacceptable sacrifice to Jehovah because he selected fruit off the ground, which was probably bad, rotten.
Steve - Why doesn't God just say what he means? Why does he talk the way you do? What is he trying to hide?
PM - I don't think he has anything to hide. When I tend to rant in a cryptic fashion it means that it is too late and my patience is wearing thin. Perhaps that's the case with God. I think he is saying what he means, but he is just saying it in a way that brings images of what is actually going on along with a more specific reference.
Steve - Do you think this verse shows God's love for his creation? Should it have been marked green in the Green Bible?
PM - Yes and I don't know.
There is no doubt in my mind regarding Jehovah God's love for his creation.
I didn't really address the Green Bible in my post because I have never heard of it before and have no idea what their spin is. My concern is for the meaning of the Bible itself rather than any bias the Green Bible may present.
As for Jeremiah Chapter 7, verse 2 addresses Judah. Verse 6 indicates they were having a problem foreigneressing the foriegner, fatherless, widow and they were shedding innocent blood. They were stealing, murdering, swearing falsely, commiworshipingery, and worshipping false gods.
The term Shiloh, in verse 12, literally means "He to whom it belongs." Beginning with David, the Judean King, the commander's staff and the regal sovereignty were the possessions of the trirebelliousah.
When the rebellous Israelites took the Ark, which represented Jehovah's presence, from Shiloh to the battlefield God allowed the Philistines to capture it, signifying he was no longer with them. (Psalm 78:60-61 / 1 Samuel 4:2-11)
Jeremiah 26:6,9 indicates Shiloh was destroyed. The Judean line of Kings was ended with Zedekiah . . . until Shiloh.
Until Jesus removes all other kingdoms. (Genesis 49:10 / Ezekiel 21:26-27 / Luke 1:31-33 / Revelation 5:5)
Well, that was confusing. I still have no idea what you think God meant when he said this: "My anger and my wrath shall be poured out on this place, on human beings and animals, on the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched." Jeremiah 7:20
He said his wrath would be poured out on the place, the people, the animals, and the plants. Did he mean to say that his wrath would be poured out on the people, the people, the people, and the people?
You say that you think Jeremiah 7:20 shows God's love for his creation (which I suppose would include the environment, including the plants and animals). How does it do that?
For some reason this text editor wants to squish certain words together. I don't know what I did wrong, but for the sake of clarification, my last post above, corrected, reads:
Instead of "foreigneressing the foriegner" it should read "troubles with oppressing the foriegner"
Instead of "commiworshipingery, and worshipping false gods" it should read "committing adultry, and worshipping false gods."
Instead of "trirebelliousah" it should read "the tribe of Judah."
Steve,
I think chapter 7 of Jeremiah is a pronouncement, not against the trees, animals, and fruit, but against Judah, the Judean line of kings, Jerusalem, its inhabitants.
The North and the South implies, what at that time would have been the divided Kingdom. The 10 tribe kingdom fell 133 years before the 21 tribe Kingdom.
Jeremiah 7 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem which would come in 607 B.C.E. that would result in a million Jews being killed and 99,000 being taken captive to Babylon. The end of the Judean Kingdom, until Christ came.
Now, if it is any consellation I am sure that this resulted in the destruction of trees, animals, and fruit in a literal sense, but that isn't what the reference to those things are addressing in a literal sense.
As a skeptic, I think, our position is not to take the text literally but to try and estimate what it would have meant to the people to whom it was given.
PM,
So, as a skeptic, you think that when God said, "My anger and my wrath shall be poured out on this place, on human beings and animals, on the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground," he meant that he planned to kill a lot of people and the plants and animals were just collateral damage?
Nice God you've got there, skeptic.
I'm also wondering why you accept the discredited JW date for the siege of Jerusalem of 607 BCE. Is that because you believe that Jesus returned 2,520 years after this date in 1914?
Skeptics believe the strangest things!
Steve,
The humans are the inhabitants, the animals are the ravenous beast, the kingdom of Judah, the trees are its rulers, on the field implies the military, the fruit of the ground is the result or the produce of the faithless, possibly a reference in a religious sense.
I don't really have time to get deep into the 607 debate at present, but it wouldn't really matter, in that I don't think it matters to you or your readers what I, the JWs, or any other believers would conclude or why we would conclude what we do.
human beings and animals, on the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground
Well, PM, you're the one who brought up your 607 belief. But if you don't want to talk about it, I understand. I think we all do.
Steve,
The 607 dating is, I think, more accurate than others that are given. For example in the articles you linked to, but so what? If the other dates were accurate would it make that much difference?
I don't think so. The only good that could come from an intense and in depth analysis would be that you could say Wikipedia and I disagree so I must be wrong.
You and anyone reading this can do that on their own without me putting that much effort into it.
Just like the time I posted, with scripture and specific dates, the chronology from the creation to the Council of Nicea on the SAB forum.
The whle conversation between Steve and tPM is worthless, as it misses the point.
Let's assume - just for the conversation - that the quoted part is about some (nasty) humans. So, why is it MARKED GREEN?
The question wasn't if it is "good", or "misunderstood", but wether if it is about "greenpeace"-thingy or not.
If it is about humans, then it is not about "greenpeace-issue", so it shouldn't be marked as green.
If it IS about plants and stuff, then it is advocating harming them, so shouldn't be marked as green.
This settles the question for me :D
twillight,
What about starting forest fires for the sake of preventing forest fires?
Burning smaller areas where there is a great deal of dead brush to prevent a more harmful forest fire?
PM, how about being a god, and making forestfire unnecessary, and with it unnecessary suffering unnecessary?
Face it: there is no god. There is just the indifferent Universe.
But just for the conversation, assume that kind of meaning is possible. What validates it? As far as I see: nothing.
Btw, please, stick to one opnion, or the other. You can either state the stentence means different people, OR you can go for greenpeace-apologism.
You ALREADY choose the above quote is NOT greenpeace-issue, therefor shuld not be marked as green according to your position.
twillight,
It is silly for an atheist to speculate on the abilities or motivation of a god, regarding forest fires or anything else.
But, for even an atheist to say "there is no god" is even sillier because there are millions of them. The Bible mentions few that are known by science and history to have actually existed. The judges of Israel were called gods, Moses, Jesus.
My opinion regarding the Greenpeace is that the verses in question were making reference to trees, animals, the fruit and the field as symbolic references to other things which I explained in earlier posts.
Now whether or not they should have highlighted them in Green is up to them. Maybe they don’t care or maybe they know the references were symbolic.
@PM
You really think that a human speculating motives of dolphins, monkeys, orchids is "silly"?
Btw, it's not "an atheist saying there is no god". It is Bible-believers saying there is no God of the Bible (let them be jews, christians, or anyone considering the Bible book of their religion).
On the other hand give a definite definition of any god(ess), and we go out and test that. Until now no god(ess) ever su8cceeded on any of those tests.
Now as the ORIGINAL QUESTION was as the named paragraph should be highlighted as green or not, and you voted NO, that settles the question, every other topic here is OFFTOPIC.
But one thing still should be noted: You, after saying the verse should NOT be signed green, went apologism defending it to sign as green still. This marks you (and typical religious persons like you) a dishonest person.
Blogger The Pathway Machine said...
"There is no doubt in my mind regarding Jehovah God's love for his creation."
Well, that is nice, but that is *your* mind. Perhaps you could provide some evidence for this "love" that is accessible- and acceptable- to others.
"My concern is for the meaning of the Bible itself rather than any bias the Green Bible may present."
Apparently, you have unlimited ability to interpret the bible according to your own way of thinking. What's the evidence that your idea of the "meaning" is correct? And why would an intelligent, all-powerful, all-knowing deity allow the scriptures to be written in such a vague maanner that so many radically different interpretations are possible?
Steve Weeks
I read this blog a lot and the comments always entertain but i've never felt compelled to write one myself until i read 'The Bible mentions few that are known by science and history to have actually existed' and nearly spat my coffee over the screen. I think you'll find that there is neither scientific nor historical evidence for any of the gods mentioned in the bible, or any other religious book ever written. Science and the study of history aim to find the truth by saying ' i dont know the answer to this, therefore i shall investigate'. Religion however says ' i dont know the answer to this, therefore god must have done it'.
@ scottfromscotland:
Welcome!
Science does a bit more than "investigate", as there's a specific way it's done. To tweak your comment a bit...
Science says "let's come up with a possible explanation ("hypothesis"), then see if we can shoot it down."
Religion says "let's see if we can interpret ("manipulate") the words of the scriptures to produce an explanation."
I hope we see more of your comments around here!
Steve Weeks
Post a Comment