Can't find info... Watchtower says it's written work is 'part of bible'

by mkr32208 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Dogpatch

  There is nothing in the above quote which explicitly states "Watchtower writings are now part of the Bible." I would argue that it is not even implied - I think they are referring exclusively to what is in "the Bible" itself.

  And any JW apologist would (rightly) call you on it.

  I think this is another example of Watchtower spin in action, as they go ahead and prepare the way for later on including all the boring GB directives into the final Bible of the beginning of the 1000 years. Remember, they have grandiose expectations. They like to write the future in advance, or at least throw out the options. They are not saying the current WTs are part of the Bible (at least not yet...).

  They will, of course.

  Randy
• 

  mkr32208

  Yes I agree that they don't explicitly state it but I would argue that anyone with a brain could see that this is clearly what they imply and if someone does NOT have a brain than I'm not interested in talking to them anyway!

  Thanks everyone for finding this stuff!
• 

  hamsterbait

  "Christian Teachings" - In Witchtower speak this means "teachings of The WTBTS"

  "which have BECOME BECOME (I repeat BECOME) part of the bible"

  In other words they were not previously Part of the Bible,

  they are now part of it by virtue of being published in the Witchtower.

  Galatians !: 8.

  Now consider whether the Apostles taught an EARTHLY hope for Christians?

  The NWT does have Paul saying that he wants to attain to "the earlier resurrection of the dead", but as Leo pointed

  out this is actually agross over tranaslation obviously intended to support the Two Hopes Doctrine of the WT.

  ("One faith one hope one baptism" - sorry that is merely what the bible says.)

  HB
• 

  hamsterbait

  And how many of you here have noticed that more and more, when they want to prove a point

  we read "note what the Watchtower of such and such a date says on this."

  The 1918 inspection and appointment of the Filthy and Excreted Slave is a prime example of this,

  along with identifying the Scarlet Beast of Revelation.

  Over and over we read "the WT literature has identified Etc etc; then we get a list of

  Magazines and books, with page references. LOOK THEM UP - and we find another footnote after

  the assertions : see the WT of such and such a date - Look it up, more assertions with the same cut and pasted footnote

  see the WT or other publication.

  I did this - with regard to the Slave and the Scarlet Beast, we just find one self reference after another with no convincing argument or proof.

  The most hilarious was the the UN was"correctly identified" by "wrong understanding of the Bible".

  If the Understanding of Jesus words was wrong, what evidence did they have to prove that the identification was correct??

  HB
• 

  still_in74

  "If the several volumes of The Watchtower are practically the Bible,
  topically arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not
  improperly name the Watchtower 'The Bible in an arranged form.'
  That is to say, They are not mere comments on the Bible, but
  they are practically the Bible itself. Furthermore, not only
  do we find that people cannot see the truth in studying
  the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the
  Watchtower aside, even after he has used them, after
  he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for
  ten years -- if he lays them aside and ignores them and goes
  to the Bible alone, though he has understood the Bible for ten
  years, our experience shows that within two years he
  leaves the truth. On the other hand, if he had merely read the
  Watchtower with their references and had not read a
  page of the Bible as such, he would continue in union with
  Jehovah & His F&DS.("The Watchtower," September 15, 1910, p. 298.)
• 

  besty

  Ok so Blondie's quote is rather more clear cut hubris on the part of CTR, but it is from 1910. Quoting an ancient WT to a JW is a major thought stopper. Info can be discounted without further investigation simply because its 'old', and therefore 'probably' old light.

  Secondly, to pp, randy, mongolia, undercover etc can I ask: when the WT writer decided to define 'the truth' what was he trying to accomplish by adding the words 'that has become part of the Bible'? In other words why did he feel it neccesary to expand on 'the entire body of Christian teachings' - are those words not sufficient to define 'the truth'?

  Incidentally I had the opportunity to show a current JW this quote - first question from them - yes, but when was that written? My answer - erm...Dec 15th 2008. End of argument. Thats why I believe a weaker quote is made powerful by recency. If I was appealing to an arcane quote from 1910 they can write it off mentally too easily.
• 

  V

  noted
• 

  Awakened at Gilead

  CTR is my hero!
• 

  besty

  CTR is my hero too...

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click-through_rate
• 

  truthsetsonefree

  That being said, it's clear from their use of the parenthesised "the truth" they mean something more than the books of Matthew through Revelation; JWs understand their religion to be "the truth". But as has been observed on this thread already, it's not explicitly stating they believe Watchtower teachings are part of the Bible.

  True, its WT spin and bait and switch tactics. Of course that cuts both ways....

  Isaac