Can you provide WT references for me of the use of the term, (page 2)

Honesty

For more than 100 years now, The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom has been building up, progressively, a body of truth related to Jesus’ ransom, the resurrection hope and the incoming kingdom of our God. Through its pages, it has made the Bible come alive in the minds and hearts of millions of sincere persons. It has helped these to discern the errors taught in Christendom’s religions and indeed in the entire world empire of false religion—"Babylon the Great." It has called attention to the great spiritual fall of "Babylon the Great" and has echoed the angel’s prophetic command: "Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues." (Rev. 17:1, 5, 15, 18; 18:2, 4) Many have been helped to do just that, and have become loyal supporters of Jehovah’s Messianic kingdom.

However, there have always been some who, rather than remain unmovable in their loyal support of the Kingdom, want to drift back to the beliefs and ways of false religion. These do not appreciate that the Master, Christ Jesus, is using the anointed body of his followers on earth as a "faithful and discreet slave" in dispensing spiritual food.—Matt. 24:45-47.

It was first in 1895 that some friends of Zion’sWatchTower suggested that this magazine is identified with "that slave"—"that servant." (Matt. 24:46, AuthorizedVersion) Enemies aroused violent opposition to this viewpoint of such friends, so that TheWatchTower of October 1, 1909, had this to say:

"Our friends insist that this Scripture indicates that in the end of this Gospel age the Lord would use not many channels for the dissemination of the Truth, but one channel . . . They hold that all of them received their knowledge of Present Truth directly from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society’s publications, or indirectly through those who have received their enlightenment through thischannel. They are glad correspondingly to co-operate as ‘fellow-servants’ with the Society’s work, believing that thereby they are following the leadings of the Divine Providence, as well as the instructions of the Divine Word."

blondie

Actually "present truth" is an old term based on a bible translation they used before the NWT. You can find it in one of the JW songs and in quotations from WT publications about the WTS before 1950 and references to the history of the WTS back then.

http://bible.cc/2_peter/1-12.htm

After 50 years as a jw, I rarely heard anyone use the phrase "present truth" except jws from that period. The phrase "new light" is used a little more but still not with great frequency in WT publications.

The terms I see more is "clarification" and "adjustment."

Blondie

betterdaze

A Google Book Search for "present truth" provides a number hits from the Russell era.

Millennial Dawn, 1891, page 161

Millennial Dawn, 1897, page 610

The Finished Mystery, 1918, page 383.

~Sue

slimboyfat

double post

slimboyfat

The whole "present truth" doctrine derived from a biblical mix up anyway. It was based on a misunderstanding of the old translation of 2 Peter 1:12:

Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. King James Verson

"Present" in English can have a temporal or a spatial meaning: it can be used to refer to the present as opposed to the past, or it can be used to refer to something that is physically present in a certain location as opposed to elsewhere. Russell took "present" in 2 Peter 1:12 as having a temporal meaning, and used the "present truth" concept to bolster his argument that his teachings were being refined and improved over time by God. However the original Greek is not ambiguous like the English, and the word translated "present" denotes a spatial presence rather than a temporal one. Hence even the NWT renders this verse:

12 For this reason I shall be disposed always to remind YOU of these things, although YOU know [them] and are firmly set in the truth that is present [in YOU ].

Making clear the verse was talking about truth that was "present" in believers, not about "present truth" that might hold for the time being and will be supplanted by other "truths" in the future. So much for Russell being a great Bible scholar!

Witnesses a long time ago stopped referring to this verse to show that the truth is conveniently malleable over time, but they have hardly given up on the underlying concept that God shifts the goal posts, and that this is somehow a good thing: "the light gets brighter". The last vestige of the "present truth" terminology lives on in one of the Kingdom Songs - I forget which one. In fact the song book contains a lot of "old light". I wonder if we are due an update.

Leolaia

slimboyfat....You beat me to it, excellent point! :)

slimboyfat

High praise.

For some reason I can't edit posts at the moment to fix my spelling of "temporal", and no doubt other mistakes.

Ironically I came across this mistake Russell made over "present truth" from an online piece that Watchtower apologist James Stewart wrote. For some reason the glaring mistake didn't phase him. I guess he has faith that the light truly does get brighter and Jehovah has simply cleared up the understanding on this and other verses.

But the underlying error of believing in a God who changes his mind or allows people to believe falsehoods for certain periods of time is for me the more problematic issue rather than the interpretation of this or that "new light" verse.

Leolaia

Song 91:

*** Ssb song 91 Being Taught by Jehovah ***

As fellow workers, we have need

In faith to be progressing

And keep in step with present truth,

His Kingdom to be stressing.

slimboyfat

That's it. Old light in the song book! Plus it doesn't even scan.

halcyon

I totally don't mind if understanding changes over time.

What CANNOT co-exist with it is dogmatism.

You can be dogmatic about a concept as long as you never change it. (You WILL be proved wrong, so it's hardly a wise course.)

Or you can change your understanding of a concept as long as you were never dogmatic about it. (sanctions for not believing.)

THIS is my argument, if anyone asks why I left.

Can you provide WT references for me of the use of the term,

Share this