yes-it has made many better persons and is an anchor in this bad world we now live in.we shouldnt throw the baby out with the bathwater after exiting the wts.the jws dont have exclusive ownership of the bible.
Do You Still Believe the Bible is God's Word?
by cantleave 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
flipper
JEHOVAH SHEEP- You stated the Bible " has made many better persons and is an anchor in this bad world we live in. " I've been able to become a " better " person without the Bible. Does that make me bad ? I find that I don't NEED answers to every question in the universe- and I don't feel the Bible supplies that. I feel quite anchored and stable within my own inner self really. I am able to be a good person because I want to- not because a religion or the Bible tells me to be. But because it creates good , civil relationships with others in a humane way encouraging peace. Not because it's required by someone above controlling me telling me to do it - but because it comes within my heart out of love for others
-
jookbeard
No way, too many inconsistencies,nothing original ever survived, too many lost books,scientifically backward, and one of the biggest events in Biblical history in which is meant to be taken as a literal event "a global flood" is proved to be ecologically and scientifically impossible, yet millions believe it.
-
MarcusScriptus
I think we expect too much of the Bible, sometimes.
We get it so drilled into our psyche that the Bible “has to be this and can’t do that,” that we don’t let it be just whatever it is. The writers never make claims that if people don’t read its contents, study them, and then preach them that its “divine Author” will “smite thee!”
I don’t recall Jesus ever instructing his apostles to write anything down, yet we somehow have been given the idea that Jesus practically bestowed copies of the Christian Scriptures upon people as he ascended into heaven:
“And lo, I drop onto thee copies of the New Testament. Take this to thy breast, make copies of thine own, and distribute them among the peoples. Remember, only he that readeth and understand what is contained therein shall be saved. Farewell!”
There’s nothing in these texts that say it’s contents are meant to be scientifically sound or can’t be using some sort of parable or fable-like narrative to get its points across, or that the people who wrote it aren’t allowed to express different opinions, or that doing so somehow violates some rule.
I mean, where is it written that one writer can’t contradict another writer without a text losing its claim to being inspired? Or is that some hoop we set on fire and demand this collection of writings to jump through lest we claim it unworthy?
I don’t remember the Bible asking us to set up such a hoop for it to jump through in the first place.
Where did we get the idea that Bible is some self-contained work? If it is, then where was the list of books in the Old Testament that said: “Thou shalt add no books unto this work lest ye be cursed, except they be the following: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John….”?
Wasn’t religious authority and not the book itself that which determined whether books were inspired or not? It couldn’t have been a popularity contest as to which books were more widely distributed and far more familiar with the Christian congregations at large, otherwise we may have seen the Shepherd of Hermas instead of Hebrews and the Apocalypse of Peter instead of the Revelation to John.
And if it’s supposed to be a book upon which to base a religion totally upon we would have works like the Didache or other types of instructions on how to meet, what to do when we meet, etc.: “If this had been an actual emergency, thou wouldest been given instructions on how ye were to sally forth and more. But nay, this be only a test…”?
People have a right to make up their own minds as their conscience dictates regarding things like the authenticity of the Bible. But there’s nothing wrong with any of us occasionally retesting our conclusions, especially by re-evaluating our own evaluating methods and seeing what conclusions we end up with if our own measure lines fail to meet the test.
Who’s to say that our criteria for measurement is so objectively final in its produced conclusions that, if there is a God, our own word and our limited experience can completely determine these things by their own authority?
“And the words found herein shall be considered inspired and only so if the reader’s own criteria for measuring them be met. If not, please dispose of this writ in receptacles only most appropriate for such. We thank thee ahead of time for keeping America beautiful.”
(Note: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society announces a new and most accurate modern-day translation of these above quotes to be made available later this coming year in various formats, including Signed English for the Deaf Who Care Enough to Watch It on Video. Apparently the Divine Name occurs in these few sentences a total of 128,995.87231 times but was somehow erased by Christendom who then went about and covered their tracks regarding this crime instead of the more important ones like crusades and sexual abuse and burning saints as heretical witches. Smart way for those Christendomers to cover their tracks!)
-
donuthole
Religions make claims about the Bible that aren't even found in the Bible itself. The Bible isn't the Word of God; Jesus is.
-
OnTheWayOut
If so why???
Your initial post doesn't ask "Why not?" so I assume you are looking for people to post their reasons for believing.
That said- NO, I don't believe the Bible is God's Word. -
chickpea
no
-
cantleave
OTWO - I was hoping that believers would be able to give logical answers for their beliefs. It is by critically examining what we believe that helps to provide clarity as to whether our belief system has any legitimacy.
When I was a JW I believed the bible because I really felt it had made astounding prophecys - such the naming of Cyrus and the rise and fall of Alexander the Great. When I critically evaluated these prohecies, it became apparent that they were retrospectively engineered.
-
OnTheWayOut
.... it became apparent that they were retrospectively engineered.
So now, believers have to scoff at science as it proves that more and more. None of the original "scrolls" are available, and I have learned since leaving the JW's that saying something was written beforehand is a whole lot different than proving it.
-
MarcusScriptus
Ah! If it’s reasons why I do believe in the Bible, then that’s different!
1. You can historically follow the construction of many of the books, especially the New Testament books, through the use of critical source analysis.
When you let what we know from both Jewish history and from critical analysis explain itself, that the references to Cyrus in Isaiah were written during Cyrus’ lifetime by the so-called school or author known as Second Isaiah around the year 538 B.C., the insistence that these texts have to qualify as some sort of “portal into the future” is gone. If they were indeed “forecasts of the future,” then they were made but briefly before Cyrus conquered Babylon. If they were basic prophecies (meaning merely speaking on behalf of God), then how do they prove that the Scriptures are false since they are merely telling people that Cyrus’ reign and allowance of the Jews to restore worship in their homeland were reasons for hope?
The Church Fathers kept historical accounts as to who wrote what books that eventually made up the New Testament. Remember that the first Christians were in no hurry to add books to the Hebrew Scriptures and it was the Gnostic threat that first began to try to use popular Christian writings as if they were some sort of system of inspired “proof texts” to support their heretical views. So when it comes to uncovering the origins and reasons for the texts, at least one can verify that they aren’t fraudulent.
2. The Scriptures draw an incredibly inspiring description of the God of Abraham, especially as seen in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Unlike the Watchtower teaching that the theme of the Bible is “the kingdom” with the Governing Body as its current rulers, turn out it’s all about who God is, what people used to believe about God, what incorrect things they use to believe about God, what God says about himself, what others accuse God of saying, and about how God feels about us and what he promises. From beginning to end, whether the Tetragrammaton appears in it or not, whether it’s a book found only in the Protestant version of the canon or a wider canon such as accepted by Anglicans, Catholics, and the Orthodox. It’s the story about one Person in particular—God.
But especially once the gospel is told do we learn things about this God that no one could have guess at. So controversial are these claims that more than 2000 years later people are still arguing over it. When was the last time you saw such fervor over arguing Plato?
3. The Scriptures invite me and speak in an almost indescribable manner that inspire contemplative even wordless, shapeless commune between myself and this God of whom it reveals.
Now this is why I personally believe it to be the word of God. I can’t claim this to be the experience of every reader because clearly it is not.
Interestingly this appeal survived the almost 20 years I spent as a Witness. When my faith was crushed when certain years did not prove to bring about the promised end and then finally that I had wasted so much time preaching to others to follow a spiritually and ideologically poisonous path, that main Character of this book brought me sanity I didn’t expect to ever find of feel comfortable about again. This Book’s appeal was not damaged beyond repair by my Watchtower days.
No, I don’t have empirical evidence to offer. It’s not about that. It’s not about the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine of having “the one true faith” and “prove it” and things like that. It’s a matter of the heart.
Sure, there are scholastic reasons why I believe as I do. But unlike the dry religion of the Jehovah’s Witness that has no mystical experience, no dimension where one actually experiences the emotional love from God—or at least we’re not allowed to because “those things died out with the apostles, blah, blah, blah”—a book which is a revelation about Somebody is an invitation to have a relationship with that same Person.
And it’s okay if you don’t believe it. I’m not more important than you because of my convictions. I get to breathe the same air you do. You get to enjoy the same sunshine I enjoy. When I let the Bible be what scholars, great teachers of the past, the testimony of the communities from which they claim say it’s supposed to be about, I no longer feel the need to constantly be trying to maneuver every conversation into an opportunity to get my religion across to those who don’t share it. I can actually be free to like and love people just as they really are (something not even the religion of the Watchtower can bring about).
It’s those that feel they have to constantly attack the other opposing view or shout it out until they’re blue in the face and destroy the dignity of all others who choose otherwise that I question in the end, regardless of whatever those convictions they claim to hold might be, Biblical or not.
P.S.--And my belief is not destroyed by accepting the theory of evolution or knowing that the earth is likely billions upon billions of years old, and from becoming an advocate and later teacher of the scientific method (I'm retired now).