How much JW doctrine is in harmony with the Bible?

by OnTheWayOut 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Some have stated that the JW's go too far with their doctrine, but that much of the basic
    beliefs of the religion are correct. I don't want to debate whether the Bible is correct.
    I just want opinions on how much of the JW doctrine agrees with the actual teachings of
    the Bible. You could also state contradictory teachings OF THE BIBLE that make the
    JW doctrines true in many cases.

    Examples- Do they appear to be scripturally correct on any of these:
    1) only the Father is truly God
    2) no immortal soul
    3) no hellfire
    4) restoration of God's original purpose for earth
    5) Eternal life for the faithful

    I personally think that mainstream religion is closer to the teachings of the Bible than
    anything JW's offer. I didn't think that a few years ago, though. What do you think?

  • Zico
    Zico

    Since it's impossible to find complete harmony within the bible itself, you're always going to find it difficult to completely support almost any theological position. However, I find that JWs generally have only a few scriptures to support major doctrines, sometimes just one, and scriptures often taken out of context, whereas mainstream Christianity will often have a lot more support for their doctrine.

    'Some have stated that the JW's go too far with their doctrine, but that much of the basic beliefs of the religion are correct.'

    I can't think of any basics they have right. They mess around with the really, really obvious basics. Like Jesus' command to 'love your neighbour' which is possibly the most basic command in the bible, yet their official position is that only JWs are your neighbours, which is clearly contrary to Jesus' parable about the Good Samaritan, showing what neighbourly love meant. They might say they show love for neighbours by preaching, but I didn't see the Good Samaritan ever preach to the Jew he helped out. Of course, JWs will confuse this by claiming basics are things like 'No Trinity, No hellfire, No immortality of the soul' but if there's no exact harmony on these points in the bible, are these really the basics? Or are the basics Jesus' message of love which the WTS constantly misses the point on, and constantly adds conditions to?

  • The Dragon
    The Dragon

    Being as every word in the Bible is open to be defined by anyone as they see fit...and the only competition being others doing the same thing...we can never really know for sure or answer that question correctly..only guess.

    Only the Author of the Bible knows for sure who is closer to doing what He wants...and if He decided to tell someone human..we would not have any way of knowing if he/she was right or not....or just guessing like everyone else and presenting their guesses as facts.

    So we are screwed..and cannot answer that question correctly..all we can do is guess.

  • done4good
    done4good

    Without stating my personal views on the bible itself, what I can say concerning this has much to do with one's perspective on how they look at the bible. In the beginning of the WT, Russell made one fatal flaw, that the mainstream religions have managed to stay away from. That is, he attempted to try to make sense of the bible. There are indeed contradictions. Russell tried to reconcile these, and in the process, probably got some things right, even if for the wrong reasons.

    An example of this would be what is says in John 1:1. The WT's argument on this has always been weak. No good scholar agrees with them on this, but why? There is a very simple reason, but it is a double edged sword for the wt. The earliest manuscrpits DON'T CONTAIN THIS VERSE. Or the 17 that follow it! They were added by a scribe at some point later in time, who guess what? Actually believed Jesus to be god! The fact of the matter is, the trinity became church doctrine, only because that is what most Christians believed at the time. The wt will never support the real reason the trinity is false. It would mean having to accept that somehow, the bible is not inspired. Can't have that.

    This is precisely why most of the churches don't put too much stock in the bible. They are all too well aware of the pitfalls here.

    j

  • Zico
    Zico

    Done4good:

    The earliest manuscrpits DON'T CONTAIN THIS VERSE. Or the 17 that follow it!

    Are you sure?

    This doesn't make sense to me, why would that be a double-edged sword to the WT? If it wasn't in the earliest manuscripts, the WT could easily have left out a very problematic scripture from their NWT.
  • IP_SEC
    IP_SEC
    Re: How much JW doctrine is in harmony with the Bible?

    All of it and very little of it.

    very little of it, if you go by orthodox interp of the bible

    All of it, when you realize you can make the bible say anything you want to.

  • PrimateDave
    PrimateDave

    1.
    (Matthew 11:27) 27 All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one fully knows the Son but the Father, neither does anyone fully know the Father but the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.

    (Mark 8:38) 38 For whoever becomes ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man will also be ashamed of him when he arrives in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

    (Mark 13:32) 32 “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.

    etc.

    2.
    (Ezekiel 18:4) 4 Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

    3.
    (Ecclesiastes 9:10) 10 All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in She´ol, the place to which you are going.

    (Luke 16:22-24) . . .“Also, the rich man died and was buried. 23 And in Ha´des he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw Abraham afar off and Laz´a·rus in the bosom [position] with him. 24 So he called and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Laz´a·rus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in this blazing fire.’ (Edit: A parable. Why on earth would Jesus have used an illustration that shows someone being tormented after death if the condition of the dead is like "sleep"? One of those scriptures I always had a hard time reconciling when I was a Witness, and I never believed in hellfire in my life. I do understand the WTS explanation of the parable, however.)

    (John 11:11-14) 11 He said these things, and after this he said to them: “Laz´a·rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.” 12 Therefore the disciples said to him: “Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will get well.” 13 Jesus had spoken, however, about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14 At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly: “Laz´a·rus has died,

    4.
    (Matthew 5:5) 5 “Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.

    (Matthew 6:9-10) . . .“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.

    (2 Peter 3:13) 13 But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell.

    5.

    (John 17:1-3) 17 Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you, 2 according as you have given him authority over all flesh, that, as regards the whole [number] whom you have given him, he may give them everlasting life. 3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.
    _____________________

    I suppose one can use other parts of the Bible to refute these beliefs or claim that they mean something different altogether. Then again, the above quotes from the NWT probably contain inaccurate translations, though the thought does seem to be conveyed clearly enough. I don't believe any of it anymore, regardless of translation.

    Dave

  • done4good
    done4good
    Are you sure? This doesn't make sense to me, why would that be a double-edged sword to the WT? If it wasn't in the earliest manuscripts, the WT could easily have left out a very problematic scripture from their NWT.

    While I can't say I've actually seen the things myself, (obviously), this is considered fact by biblical scholars. The book Misquoting Jesus, has something to say along these lines.

    As for the reason they won't "go there", that should almost be obvious. This is not the only scripture that can't be found in the earliest NT manuscripts. The fact is, you would be left with a Swiss Cheese bible, if the wt took the same cavalier attitude toward all of the other questionable verses, and just decided to convienently "leave them out".

    The NT is a mess, quite honestly.

    j

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    I love these particular comments, they help me much here:

    IP_SEC said:

    Re: How much JW doctrine is in harmony with the Bible?

    All of it and very little of it.

    very little of it, if you go by orthodox interp of the bible

    All of it, when you realize you can make the bible say anything you want to.

    I fully agree. Telling people what ancient Greek or Hebrew words could have meant has magnified the ability
    to show that the Bible says anything you want it to.

    done4good said:

    Russell .........attempted to try to make sense of the bible. There are indeed contradictions. Russell tried to reconcile these, and in
    the process, probably got some things right, even if for the wrong reasons.

    WTS continues to make it appear that all the scriptures (in the accepted version of the Bible) can be totally harmonized.
    I noticed that in the "World's Greatest Man" book. Anything that Matthew left out, but Luke put it, well Matthew didn't
    mention everything, but here's how it could have occurred...

    Still, no serious takers on "They have much right." ?

  • Zico
    Zico

    : As for the reason they won't "go there", that should almost be obvious. This is not the only scripture that can't be found in the earliest NT manuscripts. The fact is, you would be left with a Swiss Cheese bible, if the wt took the same cavalier attitude toward all of the other questionable verses, and just decided to convienently "leave them out".

    I must be missing the obvious... Is it John 8, the scripture which quotes Jesus as saying 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' in response to a group of pharisees asking Jesus what to do with a girl who committed adultery? I know this isn't in the earliest manuscripts and the WT has a footnote in their NWT making this point. This is a text that would cause them a problem with disfellowshipping if they couldn't dismiss it as 'later added to the text'

    'Misquoting Jesus' is on my list of books to read though.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit