JW view of the Bible vs WT publications

by brotherdan 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  brotherdan

  I recently had an experience with my mother-in-law that really solidified what I had suspected about the JW claim to trust ONLY in the Bible.

  My Father-in-law was raised a witness, but never got baptized. He eventually joined the army and served his country in Vietnam. After his tours of service he "came to his senses" and eventually got baptized as a JW.

  Fast forward to a few months ago. He's been a JW this entire time and served as MS and elder at various times. Now he is older and is happy just being a publisher. His wife found out that when he got baptized he was still technically in the military reserves. She told him that this meant that his baptism was never valid and that he had not been a JW this entire time. She came to me one day and asked me what I thought about the situation.

  I showed her the account at Acts 10 regarding Cornelius. He was a commander in the Roman army and was spoken of as being "God-fearing" and that he gave gernerously to those in need and prayed to God regularly (10:2). The very day that Peter arrived to preach to him, he and his entire household were baptized. Now, was his baptism null and void because he was in the army? Of course not. Even while actively serving his country he was a God fearing man and loved by God. So why should my father-in-laws baptism mean anything less?

  Her response was, "Well, I need to see what the WT has to say about this." It made no difference what the Bible said, she wanted a WT policy.

  I believe that this proves my point that they love the org more than they love the Bible. It's all nice and great to say that "We follow the bible implicitly and follow only that as our guide". But the reality is far different than their words.
• 

  wobble

  Yup, spot on again Brotherdan !

  A few years back I went on a sales course that was attended by a good number of Elders from around the country who worked for the same company, of course we JW's stuck together in the evenings and the conversation turned to difficult cases they had to deal with over the years, a number of times they mentioned "Checking the Elders manual" or "Looking in the Societies literature".

  I asked about seeing what the Bible had to say and got blank looks, it did not occur to them, not just to do it, but because they felt that the WT's words on any matter carried more weight ! And that attitude is entrenched in the Rank & File witlesses too, if the WT don't say it, then it aint for them, no matter what the Bible plainly says.

  "We base our beliefs on the Bible" is another big WT lie.
• 

  JWoods

  The witnesses believe that any interpretation of the bible (without reference to the watchtower literature) is inherently faulty.

  The bible is their guide only in the sense that it is claimed the bible guides the watchtower writers. The bible quotations in the WT are there only to sort of "prove" that the WT writers at least looked at the bible before they just wrote down whatever they wanted about it at the time.

  Reading the bible alone, without the watchtower, is the mark of the about-to-be Apostate. The bible (without the watchtower) alone is dangerous.

  I heard this called "studying yourself right out of the truth" by witnesses back when I left in the late 1970s.
• 

  brotherdan

  I hadn't heard that term before, Woods! Studying yourself right out of the truth. I guess that's what most of us have done... I'd like to think that I studied myself right of a cult...
• 

  Soldier77

  That's exactly the case I've found myself BroDan. I can't even begin to count the times I've heard and even said myself when I was full on 'in', what does the publications say? Rarely what does the bible say on the matter. It's quite infuriating when you think about the level of lies that is going on.

  My mom always taught me that to lie take more work than to just tell the truth. Because with a lie, you have to build more lies to support the original lie and before you know it you can't tell what's the truth in anything because you've lived a lie for so long.
• 

  Mythbuster

  When I have a question the JW I talk to can't answer, I am told "Look it up on the CD".
• 

  brotherdan

  Mythbusters, JWoods has it right on. The only reason for their use of the Bible is their attempt to give what they say weight. They can make an erroneous statement, pick a scripture that SEEMS to support what they say and then say, "See? What we are teaching is from the Bible."

  Last night during the service meeting the guy giving the talk spoke of the "Bible Teach" book as "Like the Bible but in an organized format". They view the publications as being on an equal playing field with the Bible. It was very insightful to hear him talk of the publications like that.
• 

  JWoods

  Another factor that really began to bother me about JW "reliance on the bible" is the fact that they never consider a complete context - all scriptures quoted are just picked out a verse at a time and linked together with others from a completely different place.

  Never have I seen them read a whole chapter of the bible for its meaning - usually never more than 2 or 3 verses from one place.

  Ed Dunlap told me that one of his goals with that WT book on James was to change that JW habit - he wanted them to have a book on each of the bible books of the new testament, considering the whole book within its own context.

  Of course, this was not possible under WT rules.
• 

  brotherdan

  That's interesting that you bring that up, Woods. Have you noticed that even though they keep releasing books about a single book of the Bible it is never in commentary form? They did a verse by verse analysis of Revelation and Daniel. But beyond that (Isaiah book, Jehovah's Day book, Jeremiah book) they are not verse by verse. I've wondered why they've done that. Maybe because the Revelation book was such an epic and embarassing (at least to me) failure?
• 

  JWoods

  I have not read anything they published for around 40 years now, BrotherDan - but from what I see here I doubt that they currently have any writers who are even capable of producing a coherent in-context commentary on a book of the bible.