Does the Watchtower no longer consider the Bible to be infallible?

by Fatfreek 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Fatfreek

  I believe the following quotes (2005 WT CD library) from Watchtower publications may be last that reference the Bible as infallible.

  *** w01 5/15 p. 6 God’s Permission of Suffering Nears Its End ***
  Moreover, Jehovah God’s infallible Word, the Holy Bible, shows that we are living in “the last days” of human rule independent from God.
  
  *** w02 4/1 p. 31 Stay Awake, Move Ahead Courageously! ***
  But Jehovah has proved to be with us. (Romans 8:31) His infallible Word assures us that ‘no weapon formed against us’ to hinder, slow down, or stop our Kingdom preaching and teaching work will succeed.

  The latest is six years ago. That, of course, doesn't mean they don't teach Bible infallibility any longer -- just that it's not mentioned.

  I ask the question because it seems that Watchtower continually used the phrase, infallible Word, in all my years of association.

  Now, I recently reviewed their 42 fundamental beliefs in the brochure, WHAT JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES BELIEVE (2000). The very first one listed is, Bible is God’s Word and is truth .

  They omit the word infallible.

  Am I being overly suspicious?

  Fats

  
  
  
• 

  Fatfreek

  BTTT
• 

  Inquisitor

  I'd be very surprised that they would think so. That implies that the higher-ups are no longer confident that Biblical authority is bullet-proof. I am very skeptical about that. There are many Protestant fundie groups out there (even a few individuals on this board) dishing up pseudo-science to "strengthen" the credibility of scriptural literalism.

  Why would JW higher-ups be losing faith? They have a plethora of erudite apologetic nonsense to draw on. I think they actually believe their own BS.

  I'm more inclined to believe that when they said the Bible is "God's Word and is Truth", the doggie whistle tells the RnF that it is "obviously" infallible. For how can "truth" be fallible? It wouldn't be truth then, would it?

  INQ
• 

  Satanus

  I wouldn't worry about the slight rephrasing used. It still means basically the same. However, they calim that the most important word in the bible, god's name yhwh, was removed. Doesn't that show that they see it as seriously tampered w, hence not infallable? And so, they have seen fit to correct that bible flaw, and have added the tetragrameton to the nt in some 250 places. Perhaps NOW, the NWT is infallable to them.
  
  S
• 

  blondie

  *** w06 4/1 p. 32 Is God Still in Control? ***

  To address such concerns, Jehovah’s Witnesses in over 200 lands around the world will be presenting a timely public discourse entitled "Is God Still in Control?" It will consider what God says and promises in his infallible Word, the Bible, regarding these vital questions:

  Is God interested in earth’s affairs?

  How does he feel about mankind?

  Is he concerned about your welfare?

  In most areas, the talk will be given on Sunday, April 30, 2006, at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Witnesses in your area will be glad to provide you with the time and address.

  *** g05 7/22 p. 13 Trying to Feed a Billion People ***He has observed the failure of human governments, and his infallible Word, the Bible, shows that he will soon replace them with his own government.
• 

  Fatfreek

  Inquisitor: For how can "truth" be fallible? It wouldn't be truth then, would it?

  You're absolutely correct. Wait -- make that correct -- since absolutely is redundant. Thanks for getting me back on track.

  Blondie: Thanks for those WT quotes.

  Len
• 

  Fatfreek

  Satanus: And so, they have seen fit to correct that bible flaw, and have added the tetragrameton to the nt in some 250 places. Perhaps NOW, the NWT is infallable to them.

  Hmmm ... you make a good point. Those places, plus a few others sprinkled in for good measure to show us they had Bible scholars on board.

  Len
• 

  WTWizard

  The Bible never was infallible, and especially when it gets tampered with by a few men that are bent on using it to gain power on the masses. If the writers are human, and tend to make stupid mistakes, the Bible can be no better (I noticed that Paul's teachings are very different from the teachings Jesus himself taught to set people free from bicameral thinking).

  Not that the Washtowel Slaveholdery Corporation is any better. They start with a book that already has problems, and then they add to them for their own advantage. Eventually, people put more stock on the organization and the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger than they do in the Bible itself, where it is supposed to be based on. All the while, common sense is lost and people are guilted into sacrificing to some Higher Cause, wasting value and weakening society at large.

  I don't think there is anything that is perfectly infallible. That is why everyone has the duty to independently interpret things. Free discussion improves things, eventually leading to the real truth. And, when enough people make the same interpretations and they all make sense, those teachings become mainstream (for instance, the idea that Satan never initiated force, threat of force, or fraud and is therefore innocent, is not yet mainstream but if enough people start seeing it that way, it could well become mainstream).
• 

  LovesDubs

  Well apparently the Bible alone WONT be good enough to save your a$$ though dont forget. They said before that if you read ONLY the Bible you would go back into darkness but if you had ONLY their literature you would remain in the light.

  What does that tell you about where they put their own understanding and thoughts compared to Gods?
• 

  Awakened at Gilead

  Moreover, Jehovah God’s infallible Word, the Holy Bible, shows that we are living in “the last days” of human rule independent from God.

  Len,

  While the Bible may be infallible, the statement made above is actually an interpretation. Applying the term "last days" to our time depends on the Witness view of 1914. The use of infallible in the sentance is just a propaganda tool to add weight to their weightless words.

  It reeks of the same attitude that Russel had a hundred years ago, when he said that the dates are "God's dates" and thus required blind faith. Of course God's timetable doesn't include 1799, 1844, 1874, 1878, or 1915 anymore....

  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

  A@G