by Confucious 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
Ok...
Just trying to find a better understanding here...
No stupid posts like, "...because it's the Governing Body." - please.
Ok...
How do the witness justify the Bible and at the same time condem Catholicism et all...
I mean, the books in the Bible were picked by the Council of Nicea - which according the the Witnesses - were part of the great appostasy and sanctioned by the same group of religious leaders they condemn.
???
With all due respect, I believe that the reason is as simple as this...
Another example of the double-speak that the wt is so good at spinning. Other than that, I don't think there is another viable explaination.
Now that I think of it...
I'm sure that a Witness could say, "Well Jehovah can use wicked people to accomplish his means..."
So my thought is... "Then why can't he still do that today and use Christendom..."
Just a thought.
I'm sure that a Witness could say, "Well Jehovah can use wicked people to accomplish his means..."
So my thought is... "Then why can't he still do that today and use Christendom..."
I think that blind faith leaves one open to all sort of strange and improbable possibilities.
I would broaden the question to include all non-Catholic Christianity!!
They do it this way. God can preserve his word if he wants to. God can do anything.
The problem with this ludicrous argument is legion. Tens of thousands of copyist "errors" (or pious frauds) can be identified. Clearly, God did NOT see fit to preserve what is called "His Word".
The idea that the Bible is inerrent is moronic.
But, the iron fist of orthodoxy demands it. Control can only be maintained when the authority behind it is untainted.
The majority of Christians are not deep readers nor are they intellectually honest people. I'm sorry, but, they are not.
If they did some cursory reading into what scholars have gradually pieced together they'd sing a different tune. It takes a firm act of will to accept any of the bible as having a shred of spiritual substance.
the books in the Bible were picked by the Council of Nicea
I had the impression that the Bible's canon was the agenda of the Council of Trent and not so much in the Council of Nicea.
INQ
I don't know if the JWs in your neck of the woods are as ignorant as the ones I know. But back when I was a good JW, I was unaware of the history of the Bible's canonization. And I wasn't alone. We were contented with the knowledge that Catholic church betrayed God and the Bible by suppressing it's translation, chaining Bibles, and burning reformers etc.
So in answer to your question, I think JWs would be stumped if you popped this question in their face. But when push comes to shove I reckon they would probably use the "Well Jehovah can use wicked people to accomplish his means..." line. And you already know that.
"Then why can't he still do that today and use Christendom..."
Hmmmm... I suppose a JW would say that God has forsaken them now because He has since gathered the desirable ones into His organization. Those ecumenical councils were called a long long time ago you know. Now God dwells in the house that Watchtower built.
INQ
As a JW I never really was aware of how the bible Canon was arrived at. I thought Ezra made the OT list and John made the New Testament list when he finished his books. Revelation says not to add to these words so that signified he had closed the canon. The Watchtower has not spent much time going into the real history of how the bible came into being.
One of the most ludicrous ideas of the Watchtower Society is the addition of the word Jehovah into the New Testament. Not a single NT document contains the Tetragrammaton. The WTS says that the bible is in tact and can be trusted, yet somehow Jehovah let his name be removed from every single known document, of which there are thousands. How do they make up whatever they want and have it blindly accepted?
The Council of Nicaea really didn't have much to do with the picking of the books that went into the Bible canon. This is something of an internet legend. See for instance:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
But I think your point still holds tho since the canon was established by the early pre-Nicene and Nicene fathers. As for the Council of Trent, it built on the earlier canons established in more local councils and fathers. See my thread on the apocryphal quotation in James for more detailed information....
Here are some Watchtower quotes:
***
sg study 3 p. 17 The Bible—Our Principal Textbook ***With the death of John, the last apostle, this reliable chain of divinely inspired men came to an end. And so with the Revelation, John’s Gospel and his letters, the Bible canon closed. The sixty-six books of our Bible, by their harmony, testify to the oneness of the Bible, and recommend it to us as indeed Jehovah’s word of inspired truth.
*** si pp. 302-305 Study Number 4—The Bible and Its Canon ***
"A glance at the accompanying chart reveals that a number of fourth-century catalogs of the Christian Scriptures, dated prior to the above-mentioned council, agree exactly with our present canon, and some others omit only Revelation. Before the end of the second century, there is universal acceptance of the four Gospels, Acts, and 12 of the apostle Paul’s letters. Only a few of the smaller writings were doubted in certain areas. Likely this was so because such writings were limited in their initial circulation for one reason or another and thus took longer to become accepted as canonical.... It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept . Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical."
The impression is given that the Canon closed with John, with vague reference to the fact that there was some minor questions over the books. It is made to seem that The Catholics came and bastardised the already accepted canon.
The Old Testament is even more attributed to the hand of God
***
sg study 3 p. 16 The Bible—Our Principal Textbook ***The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was well fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. It contained the same writings that we have today and which are now divided into thirty-nine books. No council of men made them canonical; from their beginning they had divine approval.
