Doug, please could you let us see the analysis as well?
The Bible: God's Word or Man's?
by Doug Mason 66 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
wobble
I wish to add my request to Map'95's above please Doug,
I am afraid I cannot cast any light on who the author was, but maybe ,just perhaps, Randy of "Freeminds" may know ? I believe he was at bethel in N.Y around the time it was published (?)
If the book is the one I am thinking of, it tries to defend the idea of a global flood, and of bible prophecy by pretending the books were written when the WT says they were, apart from the fact that the prophecies probably were not referring to the WT's proposed fulfilment in the first place .
As you say, pathetic.
Kind regards,
Wobble
-
bohm
Hey Doug, i havent even read the book, but i am looking forward to your review if you deside to share it here
-
Doug Mason
No problems. I reckon that with my other personal commitments, I should be through it in 2 to 3 weeks and I will put it on my web site.
On the surface, it appears to me that the author does not address the question posed by the title of the book. Rather than providing positive evidence, the author focuses on attacking other people ("Christendom", "Higher Criticism", etc.), while the final chapters are simply a commercial for the JWs. These are not rational ways to prove whether the Bible is "God's word or Man's".
I have to go through it more thoroughly, but his "fulfilment of prophecy" line is the WTS's subjective interpretation that is open to refutation.
It is so tragic that JWs have to be satisfied with such trite propaganda material and are denied access to real and thorough analysis.
I will start another Thread when I have finished my review of the book. I am not the font of all knowledge, and any help is gratefully considered.
I find it interesting that they say they hold the Bible in such regard yet they are prepared to insert their nonsensical "Jehovah" word into the NT. They obviously don't want to acknowledge the Nomina Sacra used by the primitive Christian Church.
The book was written 1989 and the later reprint of 2006 does not take into account the impact of later studies or more recent archaeology.
Doug
-
-
Black Sheep
The whole book is reviewed by Seeker at Research on the Watchtower
-
Heaven
Doug, I would love to read your review if you would like to post it. Thanks to Black Sheep for posting those 2 links as well.
On the surface, it appears to me that the author does not address the question posed by the title of the book.
Actually, I find this with a lot of what the Writing Dept (or whomever) of the Watchtower puts out, even in their magazines. I was often left with the thought 'but you didn't answer the question'.
-
GromitSK
Black Sheep: thanks for the link. There is a lot of interesting material there.
-
Terry
Terry,
While we do not have any autographs (original writings) of Scripture, we are extremely confident that what we do have is the original text.
Suffice it to say that scholars are certain of roughly 99% of the text. The remaining 1% represents trivial matters (word choice, spelling, etc.).Have you simply willed yourself into confidence? Are you taking the contagious confidence of apologists and making it your own? Or, do you have some logical steps from A to B to C which lead you toward confidence?
How do you get from NO ORIGINALS to "what we do have is the original text."????
As for the divine origin of Scripture, one can point to a number of things (fulfilled prophecy, internal consistency, archeological evidence, and near-miraculous preservation of manuscripts/fragments). .
When you write about events AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED how can you call it prophecy?
When copyists and translators went out of their way to MAKE CERTAIN the various passages harmonized with each other---how can you call it internal consistency?
What archeological evidence tells us the exact words of Jesus?
The near-miraculous preservation of text can only refer to copies of copies of copies. With no originals---this makes little difference.
No doctrine of Christianity hinges on a variant reading.
ALL DOCTRINE of Christianity depends on interpretation. Interpretation of what? NON-ORIGINAL copied text.
We DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL WORDS of Jesus or his Apostles. We have pieced together reconstructions made from oral stories which were re-copied, re-arranged and edited by humans without reference to ACTUAL autograph manuscripts.
The difference and the distinction make all the difference in the world.
-
Doug Mason
Thank you for those two references regarding the book.
They will make useful and interesting reading as I prepare my thoughts.
Terry, Regarding the original autographs, as we agree, they underwent so much editing and the insertion of comments that scholars are of the view that to seek out the original autographs is the same as trying to unscramble an omelette. We only need look at the vast differences between the OT Greek (of which there is more than one version) and the Hebrew text in the key book of Jeremiah.
Doug