WT Defence of House to House Preaching PT.2

by stevieb1 4 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  stevieb1

  I am doing an intensive analysis of my beliefs as a JW, and would like any comments on this further defence of the house to house preaching methodology put out by the WTS.As far as I can tell no-one has yet refuted this comment:

  *** w91 8/1 24 "From House to House" ***
  "From House to House"
  "EVERY day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus." (Acts 5:42) Jehovah's Witnesses often use this text and the one at Acts 20:20 to prove the Scriptural basis for their door-to-door preaching work. In Germany, however, some critics of Jehovah's Witnesses have challenged the way the New World Translation renders these verses, claiming that it misrepresents the original Greek.

  Do such claims have validity? Not at all. For one thing, at least six other German Bible translations render these verses similarly. Among them are the revised Zürcher Bibel and the "New Testaments" by Rupert Storr, Franz Sigge, and Jakob Schäfer (revised by N. Adler). Many English versions agree.

  German scholar Hans Bruns justifies his translation, "from house to house," at Acts 5:42, saying: "According to the original text, it seems as if they went from house to house." Yes, kat´ oi'kon, the original expression in this text, is not used in an adverbial sense ("at home") but in a distributive sense, literally meaning "according to house." (The plural form, kat´ oi'kous, meaning "according to houses," is found at Acts 20:20.) Other scholars, such as Heinz Schürmann, substantiate the distributive translation of these expressions. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, publishers of an exegetical dictionary to the New Testament, say that this expression can be rendered "house after house." A number of English reference works explain this verse similarly.

  Once again, then, the New World Translation has stood up to the attacks of critics. More important, it is clear that there is a solid Biblical basis for the house-to-house ministry. (Compare Matthew 10:11-14; 24:14.) Jehovah's Witnesses are privileged to imitate their first-century counterparts in this regard.
• 

  Room 215

  Hi Steve,
  Although the WT argument seems more of a plea for a cause, there's nothing inherenetly objectionable to the concept of door-to-door witnessing. The problem to my mind, is that the WTS elevates it as THE sole approved way of getting their message out, a veritable touchstone of one's faith. It's been demonstrated to be a relatively ineffcient means of communicating the message, especially with the sort of institutionalized desultory dawdling most JWs have developed (feet-dragging, coffee breaks, splitting at the crack of noon if not before, etc. etc.) What about preaching publivc venues?
  It's deteriorated into little more than a ``feel good'' exersize for JWs. If the WT truly beleiveds that billions of people, or 99.9 percent of the world's population face imminent incineration, why not
  use the most modern menas available to them or anyone who wants to get out a vital message-- radio, television, etc.?
• 

  Jeremy Bravo

  215,

  Good post. To further the discussion, they won't use "radio, television, etc." because that would cost $$$$

  I doubt they want to spend that kind of money to make their money. Also, my feeling is that they wouldn't want to be TOO prevalent in the public's eye. My (limited) JW experience is that it's to their benefit to remain in the background, where people are still ignorant of the way they operate. Seeing them on every billboard and TV station will likely bring them more public scrutiny than they can handle.

  Just my thoughts,
  Jer.
• 

  Englishman

  "EVERY day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus."

  And you think that JW's talk to householders about Christ Jesus?

  Don't make me laugh!

  Englishman.

  ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
• 

  bjc2012

  Stevieb1,

  German scholar Hans Bruns justifies his translation, "from house to house," at Acts 5:42, saying: "According to the original text, it seems as if they went from house to house." Yes, kat´ oi'kon, the original expression in this text, is not used in an adverbial sense ("at home") but in a distributive sense, literally meaning "according to house." (The plural form, kat´ oi'kous, meaning "according to houses," is found at Acts 20:20.) Other scholars, such as Heinz Schürmann, substantiate the distributive translation of these expressions. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, publishers of an exegetical dictionary to the New Testament, say that this expression can be rendered "house after house." A number of English reference works explain this verse similarly.

  Fine. Now please explain why the NWT translates this very same expression as 'private homes' at Acts 2:46, if it could not also mean this. I noticed that one of your scholars used the expression 'seems as if'. Sounds kind of Watchtowerish. Another said 'can be rendered.' Doesn't sound too definite, as in it can also mean somethng else.

  Luke 10:7 says: "...Do not be transferring from house to house." If you check your interlinear, you will find that there is a different Greek expression used here. It is 'oikias eis oikiav.' What do your scholars say this expression means?

  At Acts 20:20, Paul says, in part: " ..while I did not hold back from teaching you publicly and from house-to-house (private homes)," was he not differentiating between a public ministry and a private one? Or is he saying he taught them publicly and publicly since the house-to-house work is also a public ministry? Since he was speaking to elders of the Ephesus congregation, would not his teaching them have been in their private homes?

  bjc