Here's something I've brought up into conversation with a couple of Witnessess and I was curious about what other thought.
Let's say a Witness goes into a coffee shop and sits between an Athiest and a Christian.
The Witness starts a conversation with the athiest about the Bible. The athiest poses the question about the reliability of the Bible. The Witness explains that the Bible is completely trustworthy because of it's historical accuracy, meticulous transmission, etc.
The athiest says that's interesting and thanks him for the information.
The Witness then turns to the Christian and begins the same conversation he had with the athiest. The Christian explains that he shares his view of the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. Later, the Witness shares a scripture from the New Testament that has the name Jehovah in it. The Christian says that's an interesting translation and that none of the existing Greek manuscripts that we have today contain the Divine Name. The Christian then asks the Witness why the Name should be translated from the Greek Kurious. The Witness then says that he believes that the Name was written in the original Christian Greek Scriptures but that copyists, over a period of a couple of hundred years, replaced the Name with Kurious. He believes this was an attempt by the churches to hide the Divine Name. The Christian then asks if he knows of any documented evidence to support this supposed change in the manuscirpts. The Witness says (and I have heard it from one) that currently there is no documented evidence, but we are confident that some time in the future, it will be found.
Meanwhile, the athiest, who has been listening in on the converstation, says to the Witness, "Hold on, didn't you just tell me that the Bible is completely accurate and reliable. How then can you now say that changes have been made and still maintain that the Bible we have today is accurate?"
The Christian then asks, "If something as important as God's name has been removed from original the Greek scriptures and you don't have a trail of evidence to that effect, then what else may have been changed in the Bible that you don't know about? Is it then possible that all the written accounts of the resurrection of Jesus have been altered?"
It seems to me that the Witnesses want it both ways. I don't know how you argue for absolute trustworthiness of the Bible while at the same time holding that it has been altered. When I used this with a Witness, he at least a little bit, conceded that I had a point.
I was wondering if any one else had tried this and if it had any validity.
Thanks. You've been a "great crowd"
