angels and women

[Stavro]

So, no this was not released at a convention and not printed by the WTB&S. But rather by a brother - similar to us recommending "All Things New" http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/17544-all-things-new-book/

 

"All things new" is written by an active brother, and clearly presented as fiction.

 

"Angels and Women" was revised from the book "Seola", which is purported to be an 1878 translation of an ancient text written by a woman named Seola, wife of Japheth.

 

If this story of the source document is true (unlikely, since the source document has never been released for study), then it would fall in the same category as the Gnostic book of Enoch, possibly written by that same group. And if the story of the source document is false, then Seola seems like it was heavily influenced by the book of Enoch.

[ReadYourBible]

Thank you Carlos. I was at my meeting so couldnt respond.

[ReadYourBible]

Okay, since I'm the only one who is actually reading the book at the moment, I can tell you exactly what it says.

 

It opens with them finding the scroll in this amethyst container in a tomb.  The scroll is rewritten before it decays, and then goes on to tell the story of Aloma, daughter of Allimades, brother to Noah.  The city name was Sippara, but is changed to Balonia.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seola

 

Some of the names were changed, but Pastor Russell was interested in the book because of the striking similarities to the Genesis account.  So if we're calling the work a demonic piece (this is what I actually thought at first too, but after reading on I realized it's like an illustration within a story warning against the types of lures Satan uses) by this definition the book of Genesis would be demonic too cause there happens to be demons in it.  Which clearly it isn't.

 

This fictional account just fleshes out some of the challenges faithful ones might have faced, Aloma's mother is completely seduced by materialism, riches and she buys in whole heartedly to Satan's lie, yet Aloma doesn't.  She is given wisdom and discernment.

 

As mentioned Jehovah's name is mentioned a few times in this book, he is referred to properly as Almighty God, or as the God of Aloma's father.

 

It goes on to talk about how Noah warns Aloma's Father to leave the area for he can see the treachery starting to unfold.  Her father listens, and takes his family to a hiding spot.  Now Noah begins to build his ark, and it discusses how powerfully he spoke about the deluge which was coming.

 

Not that I'd consider it accurate for study, but given the writings commentary on the sheer opulence and grandeur that Satan set up on the earth in the story, it is very reminiscent of the time when he speaks to Jesus offering him all the Kingdoms of the World.  

 

It seems everyone, but Noah and those who get on the ark with him are deceived, with exception to himself, his wife, his three sons and their wives --- one of which will be Aloma.

 

I'm on page 161, and I have to say, I'm enjoying it.  Aloma's conduct causes a character  (Minerva) to return to her past state of faith, and for it she (Minerva) is severely punished, but accepts that death for her repentance and return to faith in God is worth dying for.

 

Aloma shines with innocence and purity, firmly upholding her integrity and relying on guidance from Jehovah.  Even receiving word from him.  She has interaction with Herpheus which is one of the angels who left with Satan, yet he has not taken a wife (so far) nor committed a sin other than leaving the heavens he is shown to be regretting this decision and her prayers of piety for him move him to refuse a privilege of equality that Satan offered him.  In effect making him now rebellious against Satan.

 

As I said, I will let you make your choice.  Given the historicity of the events which I know to be true, it's chillingly accurate.  

Edited May 17, 2015 by cerebral ecstasy

[Musky]

Okay, since I'm the only one who is actually reading the book at the moment, I can tell you exactly what it says.

It opens with them finding the scroll in this amethyst container in a tomb. The scroll is rewritten before it decays, and then goes on to tell the story of Aloma, daughter of Allimades, brother to Noah. The city name was Sippara, but is changed to Balonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seola

Some of the names were changed, but Pastor Russell was interested in the book because of the striking similarities to the Genesis account. So if we're calling the work a demonic piece (this is what I actually thought at first too, but after reading on I realized it's like an illustration within a story warning against the types of lures Satan uses) by this definition the book of Genesis would be demonic too cause there happens to be demons in it. Which clearly it isn't.

This fictional account just fleshes out some of the challenges faithful ones might have faced, Aloma's mother is completely seduced by materialism, riches and she buys in whole heartedly to Satan's lie, yet Aloma doesn't. She is given wisdom and discernment.

As mentioned Jehovah's name is mentioned a few times in this book, he is referred to properly as Almighty God, or as the God of Aloma's father.

It goes on to talk about how Noah warns Aloma's Father to leave the area for he can see the treachery starting to unfold. Her father listens, and takes his family to a hiding spot. Now Noah begins to build his ark, and it discusses how powerfully he spoke about the deluge which was coming.

Not that I'd consider it accurate for study, but given the writings commentary on the sheer opulence and grandeur that Satan set up on the earth in the story, it is very reminiscent of the time when he speaks to Jesus offering him all the Kingdoms of the World.

It seems everyone, but Noah and those who get on the ark with him are deceived, with exception to himself, his wife, his three sons and their wives --- one of which will be Aloma.

I'm on page 161, and I have to say, I'm enjoying it. Aloma's conduct causes a character (Minerva) to return to her past state of faith, and for it she (Minerva) is severely punished, but accepts that death for her repentance and return to faith in God is worth dying for.

Aloma shines with innocence and purity, firmly upholding her integrity and relying on guidance from Jehovah. Even receiving word from him. She has interaction with Herpheus which is one of the angels who left with Satan, yet he has not taken a wife (so far) nor committed a sin other than leaving the heavens he is shown to be regretting this decision and her prayers of piety for him move him to refuse a privilege of equality that Satan offered him. In effect making him now rebellious against Satan.

As I said, I will let you make your choice. Given the historicity of the events which I know to be true, it's chillingly accurate.

Spoiler alert!

[trottigy]

Perhaps a different first post would have caused less controversy? Something like:

 

Hey, I just listened to a talk called "Giants" by Sam Herd when he was a DO. It can be found here on CentralPrint - http://www.printcentralandsigns.com/jwtalks/COVisits/DOCOVisits.html

 

At the beginning Bro Herd mentions a fictional book in the Gilead library called "Angels and Women". He mentions that it is fictional, but brother Russell wrote a forward after the original book was revised. Brother Russel and now Bro Herd recommended reading it - if one came across. It is a fictionalization of what life MIGHT have been like prior to the flood - especially with the "fallen angels" making a mess of things.

 

Have any of you read it?? My wife read it and said it sounded interesting. 

 

edit: I also edited the thread title - to be less controversial. 

Edited May 17, 2015 by trottigy

[kejedo]

I am not, personally, interested in this book. I have some old books from my husband's grandmother, who was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and had another old book, that is out of alignment with today's flashes of light. It is so loving when we share information respectfully, and not make anyone feel attacked. "Lapidated" sent this old, somewhat dilapidated, school teacher to the dictionary. Anyway, it would be nice if we could have the same level of tolerance and respect to our brothers and sisters as that which we practice in the field. Just a thought, YS, pauline.  

[carlos]

 "Lapidated" sent this old, somewhat dilapidated, school teacher to the dictionary.

 

Yes, actually "lapidated" is Spanglish that, by chance, exists in English. We say "lapidar" in Spanish, so I made up "lapidated". I realized it afterwards and intended to change it to "stoned to death for heresy", but someone had already quoted me, so I left it as it was.

 

Websters contains it but says very few English speakers will probably know that word. So don't feel bad for it, Pauline.

Edited May 18, 2015 by cvillarrubia

[Dages]

We say "Lapider" in French

[ReadYourBible]

I am not, personally, interested in this book. I have some old books from my husband's grandmother, who was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and had another old book, that is out of alignment with today's flashes of light. It is so loving when we share information respectfully, and not make anyone feel attacked. "Lapidated" sent this old, somewhat dilapidated, school teacher to the dictionary. Anyway, it would be nice if we could have the same level of tolerance and respect to our brothers and sisters as that which we practice in the field. Just a thought, YS, pauline.

I found the book interesting, but respect your choice to not want to read.

It would be nice if people didnt immediately jump on people in their ignorance, but it seems more prevalent on the forum. I have been guilty of this too, so cant say much.

I can honestly say I have been thinking about revoking my membership here. I realize I am too forthright and just say it like I see it and some with more delicate constitutions cant handle it. I never intend to hurt others but some get hurt anyhow.

Then theres things like this topic where he simply posts something cause he's weighing it out in his conscience and a bunch of people are up in arms because of something they havent even read.

[Luezette]

Sharon, if you want to leave that's your choice, but please don't let it be because of sensitivity issues.

I know I'm still a new kid on the block but I, and I'm just speaking for myself as I see things, but I actually enjoy your posts. As c a matter of fact, when I see you've made a post whether it's mine or someone else's, I do almost like Elizabeth's child in the womb...I jump...for joy (or was it Mary's child...i forget and too lazy to check right now). Maybe I feel this way, outside of just enjoy your posts because I'm the same way as far as being outspoken thus my post under "Holy and Santified" lol. I'm still learning though and always will, to just let some things go. As a matter of fact, there were things I wanted to and started to say here, while not necessarily be wrong, might step on a few toes. But I didn't yet still felt as I started to say. But oh well. Remember Peter. Although he was definitely not a man to mince his words, Jehovah still blessed him mightily. If he wasn't of the anointed abd is already in heaven and if the resurrected ones would marry (I'm aware we still don't have the full understanding of that...just saying), yep, I would love to be Peter's wife, but then maybe not for we'll probably go toe to toe, lol.

Anyway Sharon, leaving is up to you. But I'm asking you to please don't.

[shali]

I second that emotion!

[carlos]

"All things new" is written by an active brother, and clearly presented as fiction.

 

"Angels and Women" was revised from the book "Seola", which is purported to be an 1878 translation of an ancient text written by a woman named Seola, wife of Japheth.

 

If this story of the source document is true (unlikely, since the source document has never been released for study), then it would fall in the same category as the Gnostic book of Enoch, possibly written by that same group. And if the story of the source document is false, then Seola seems like it was heavily influenced by the book of Enoch.

 

Stavro, I think you are exaggerating a bit. This book is not a study on demonism or anything like that. It's just a novel, a fantasy set in Noah's time. Sharon, who is reading it, has already given a good summary. It's just a novel. I haven't read it, and it's not in my immediate reading list, but I don't like the idea of condemning something so vehemently without even knowing what it is about.

 

That mysterious ancient text is obviously just a literary device. Besides, the book was revised by a brother to fit the beliefs of Bible Students, so it isn't really that different from "All things new", saving the distance. Or rather like that drama a few years ago, Jehovah's Judgment Against Law-Defying People, about the events previous to the Flood, where several fictional characters, for different reasons, don't make it into the ark.

 

Yes, the foreword, reportedly written by brother Rutherford, sounds quite gloomy with the mention of demons. But you know brothers in that time (and for many decades) saw demons everywhere, the same as they saw Jehovah's hand in every minor good thing that happened to them.

 

I'm not recommending a book I haven't read myself. I'm just saying take it easy. It's not worth offending someone for an insignificant issue like this.

[carlos]

It would be nice if people didnt immediately jump on people in their ignorance, but it seems more prevalent on the forum. I have been guilty of this too, so cant say much.

I can honestly say I have been thinking about revoking my membership here. I realize I am too forthright and just say it like I see it and some with more delicate constitutions cant handle it. I never intend to hurt others but some get hurt anyhow.

Then theres things like this topic where he simply posts something cause he's weighing it out in his conscience and a bunch of people are up in arms because of something they havent even read.

 

Sharon, JWTalk is just a reflection of real life. It's like a big online congregation or a car group in some aspects. The site may be virtual, but the brothers and sisters are real.

 

Yes, some of us come across too judgmental (we all are sometimes) and some of us come across as too permissive. Some you would kiss some days and some you would give a good punch some days, sometimes even the same person. But that's because in real life, in your congregation and mine, there are brothers and sisters who are judgmental, lenient, silly, encouraging, sarcastic, loving, zealots, unbalanced, stubborn, thick-skinned and thin-skinned, wonderful, insufferable... If your remarks offend some here, they will offend some in your congregation too. And if you are offended by some comments here, you will be offended sometimes in your congregation too. We can try and moderate our comments (we should!) but anyway you can never please everyone.

 

You can cancel your membership here, but you cannot cancel your membership there, and it's the same thing. After all, this place is a good training camp for situations in the bigger real life.

 

Love to have you here, Sharon.

[Stavro]

This book is not a study on demonism or anything like that.

 

That is the exact claim made in the foreword:

 

"Spiritism, otherwise named demonism, is working great evil amongst men. It should be studiously avoided. To be forewarned is to be forearmed."

 

studious

adjective

1.disposed or given to diligent study: a studious boy.

2. concerned with, characterized by, or pertaining to study: studious tastes.

[trottigy]

Studiously - zealous, assiduous, or painstaking:

So, "zealously AVOID demonism" is what the foreward says.

[Old]

That is the exact claim made in the foreword:

 

"Spiritism, otherwise named demonism, is working great evil amongst men. It should be studiously avoided. To be forewarned is to be forearmed."

 

studious

adjective

1.disposed or given to diligent study: a studious boy.

2. concerned with, characterized by, or pertaining to study: studious tastes.

Stavro

 

This must be tongue in cheek, right?

 

I hope so, because otherwise it is totally misconstruing the introduction to the book.

[Stavro]

I hope so, because otherwise it is totally misconstruing the introduction to the book.

 

You mean the part where the reviser believed that it was penned by a repentant demon?

 

As fiction, it's no worse than any other fiction. But the foreword presents it as something more than fiction.

[ReadYourBible]

Yes, the warning as I understood it (perhaps maybe I misunderstood it) was that in order to avoid such things, we had to have knowledge of them. You cant avoid sin, unless you know what sin consists of. There has to be some sort of a bench mark.

[ReadYourBible]

The book ended with a battle where Satan was ousted, she got on the ark and a few more things I wont mention so as to be a spoiler.

[carlos]

Yes, the warning as I understood it (perhaps maybe I misunderstood it) was that in order to avoid such things, we had to have knowledge of them. You cant avoid sin, unless you know what sin consists of. There has to be some sort of a bench mark.

 

But Sharon, if I understood your explanations correctly, the demons' traps that the book exposes are materialism, peer pressure and the like. Not anything occult or mystical.

[Old]

So the recommendation In Golden Age is that we shouldn't read it?

[Stavro]

So the recommendation In Golden Age is that we shouldn't read it?

 

The Golden Age and the foreward present it as something more than fiction.

 

Around the same time, pyramidology (among other teachings) was presented as truth, which we now know it is not. The studies are fascinating to read, but they shouldn't be taken as anything more than a historical curiosity.

 

This book is much the same. Taken as a fictional story revised by someone who happened to be a witness, it's fine, but we probably wouldn't want to treat it with the same authority as a modern reference work from the FDS, as some have in the past.

[trottigy]

 we probably wouldn't want to treat it with the same authority as a modern reference work from the FDS, as some have in the past.

 

 

I didn't see anyone here doing that. Did I miss it?

[Stavro]

I didn't see anyone here doing that. Did I miss it?

 

Some appear to be giving the book greater credibility and defense solely based on the Golden Age recommendation, when in reality it should be treated the same as we would treat any other secular book, or any clearly outdated publication.

 

The forward presents it as a study in spiritism, and the Golden Age presents it as beneficial for Bible study. Neither of these are true, but that only further illustrates the point that the book should be taken on its own merits, not the 90+ year old recommendation based primarily on the book being a Bible study aid in spiritism.

[shali]

judgmental, lenient, silly, encouraging, sarcastic, loving, zealots, unbalanced, stubborn, thick-skinned and thin-skinned, wonderful, insufferable...:

Wow, You just described me to a "T"! Carlos, I'm flattered that you know me so well! Hehe!

Edited May 19, 2015 by shali