Proverbs 4:18 as Last Scriptural Defense for New Light?

by ProfCNJ 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • ProfCNJ
    ProfCNJ

    Hi folks, good morning. July 2013 WT Study Edition has been discussed and commented on at length here in JW.net and in Cedar's blog (Jwsurvey.org). Won't go to technicalities as significant amount of stellar arguments have cast doubt on the new light, let alone break WT's claims anew.

    One of our elders who shared a lunch meal during our latest CO visit even asked me if I already read about the July 2013 Study Edition. I just smiled and told him it was kind of meat w/out elaborating any further. But at the back of my mind, I am quite stressed, knowing how much detail I have already covered. That senior elder advised us (dining on the lunch table) to prepare not only our minds but more importantly our hearts (here we go again). Let me start by quoting this popular JW verse:

    Prov. 4:18 (ESV) states: "But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, w hich shines brighter and brighter until full day."

    I tried time and again with all humility to see how the verse would fit the new light. But time and again I just could not just fathom why it serves as the last and only scriptural basis to defend a new light. Here are a few questions for both our discerning JW friends, Non-JW critics, and concerned brothers in Christ:

    1) Either during Solomon's time or any of the Prophets, was there a situation in the Bible when there was an old light replaced by a new light which God has approved? Did any of God's prophet's prophesied something, or understood something, then after several years, explained or apologized he had to adjust his own understanding about a message from God?

    2) Where in the New Testament, in Jesus Christ's time and during early Christian era, did a new light occurred to supersede an old light?

    3) Once an understanding becomes old (or old light), does it mean it has no purpose at all or it has already served its purpose? (Take note this old light has guided millions of believing Witnesses for several decades. They have become an integral part of their core beliefs.)

    4) What happens to the old light now? What is its use in the past? For purposes of discussion, I would like to ask further: “Does this mean, since I got baptized I was preaching and teaching beliefs that are NOT Accurate? For if they are accurate, why should they be replaced by something new – an interpretation that is far different from the original explanation? If an elder would answer: `No, they were also accurate.` then how come there is something new that is far off the original understanding?” Any minor adjustment in understanding may seem bearable, not much of a big deal. But to replace an apple now with an orange because it should have been orange in the first place, well that is kind of bizarre and unimaginable. Simply put, if the earth is really round, then the belief it was flat before is nothing but a myth. Nothing to sugarcoat it. Either the assumption is correct or incorrect.

    I can still vividly recall sharing these texts: Romans 10: 2 “ For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to (accurate) knowledge. ” As Witnesses, we are so proud and honored to share biblical truths that are accurate as we were always taught. We have used this scripture to separate us, JWs, from other religions in the Christendom. Now tell me, where is the accurate knowledge there? Where is the source of pride that would make us stand out among the crowd?

    1 Cor. 4:6 clearly states: "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, [ a ] that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."

    I cannot understand if the WT leadership has found a way to digest the verse above. Instead of having the reputation or habit of changing its understanding, coming up with a batch of new lights, and then gaining flak, why not just stick to what 1 Cor. 4: 6 has to offer.

    Please, WT GB, kindly call a SPADE a SPADE and let not sincere believing members second guess.

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Prov 4v18 is talking about the path of the righteous one. As such a person goes through life his conscience is sharpened so that his way is clearly illuminated for him, he does not have to seek direction on how to act, he knows.

    It is nothing at all to do with the concept that the WT has that it can speak any old rubbish, and then discard it, and still claim the new teaching is related to the old.

    An interesting quote from C.T Russell writing in an 1881 Watchtower :

    " 'If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus give increase of light: So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another.'

    There never can be such a thing as "New Light" unless it adds to the understanding of the first teaching, if the first teaching is rejected and replaced, as with all in the July 15th WT, what were the old teachings ? they were false, did not come from God, but from men, and never were "Light".

    As this process has gone on for the whole history of the WT, rejecting old teachings and replacing them with new, what confidence can anybody have that this July WT contains anything that can be believed in and trusted ?

    "do not put your trust in ...... earthling man" Ps 146v3

    Welcome to the best Forum for things JW ! ( I neglected to welcome you before, keep up the interesting posts !)

  • jhine
    jhine

    hello,Prof CNJ, welcome .

    I agree with Phizzy , I think that Prov 4: 18 is talking about an individuals walk of faith , that in getting to know God better by experience and study an indivdual's knowledge of the will of God is increased .

    It MAY also look forward to the coming of Christ who was the fulfillment of some OT prophecy and explained much of the OT in the light of the gift of salvation . That is just my speculation though .

    I cannot think of any time when a prohet went back on or changed a prophecy or pronouncement . Anyway the WT itself says that New Light should NOT contradict OLD light but add to it , as Phizzy points out .

    Read Ezekiel's rant about false prophets , ch 13 , especially verse 6 .

  • ProfCNJ
    ProfCNJ

    Thanks Phizzy for lifting some valuable quote from 1881 WT. I would say God has the pureset of intentions not to cause bewilderment among his followers. He is never a God of disarray nor a God of confusion.

    Our Lord Jesus Christ never espoused new lights to run counter his previous messages since it would cause his very credibility. You can just imagine Christ saying an important teaching, interpreting it with all eloquence in front of the public, then weeks or months therafter would add more details that would sound irreconcilable from his previous understanding.

    Imagine Christ calling up another meeting, explaining what he said before should be adjusted to fit a new understanding. How would his staunch critics would react? They would have feasted. Our Lord Jesus would have not allowed any leakage to cause any doubts on his integrity and his words. The same principle can be applied to Christ's apostles and even to modern-day Christians.

    It is the very responsibility of Christians to live their lives according to Prov. 4:18 - and not to twist its application just to conform a particular ideology.

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    It is noteworthy that the Prov. scripture, which has nothing to do with revealed understanding of scripture, is the only one the WT has to justify their constant changes in teaching.

    The Bible simply does not put forward the concept of false teachings being acceptable to God, and of course, such teachings could never come from God, who "cannot lie".

    The claim to be "God's Channel", which the WT and GB have made many times, is obviously a lie.

    So, should you be taught and ruled by God or men ?

    If a JW thinks he is being taught and ruled by God, he should think on the following quote from Voltaire, given to us by poster Leavingwt on Cofty's Favourite Quote thread :

    " To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    "I can still vividly recall sharing these texts: Romans 10: 2 “ For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to (accurate) knowledge. ” As Witnesses, we are so proud and honored to share biblical truths that are accurate as we were always taught. "

    Quite right. But compare these quotes from The Proclaimers Book

    Page 632

    ".........the year 1925. On the basis of what was said there, many hoped that perhaps the remaining ones of the little flock would receive their heavenly reward by 1925. This year also was associated with expectations for resurrection of faithful pre-Christian servants of God with a view to their serving on earth as princely representatives of the heavenly Kingdom. If that really occurred, it would mean that mankind had entered an era in which death would cease to be master, and millions then living could have the hope of never dying off the earth. What a happy prospect! Though mistaken, they eagerly shared it with others."

    So the fact that they were "mistaken" did not alter their pride in the fact that they "eagerly shared it with others" - falsehood though it was ! Page 633

    "Did the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses on these matters prove to be correct? They certainly did not err in believing that God would without fail do what he had promised. But some of their time calculations and the expectations that they associated with these gave rise to serious disappointments."

    That is like a politician saying " It is not that we have not done what we said to do, but not in the way that you expected !! " Hmmmm

  • Splash
    Splash

    Or to use the WT style of quote mining,

    "Did the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on these matters prove to be correct? They certainly did not."

    Splash

  • Separation of Powers
    Separation of Powers

    Prof CNJ

    Your position is solid and rest assured that most on this forum have contended with the same questions. I don't really remember the first time I was intrigued by the "new light" position, but I would have to say one of the most impressive changes that moved me to question the validity of "light" wasn't even a doctrinal issue.

    Way back when an article was written about the American native, I believe it was referring mainly to the eskimos, or Inuit people. The article condemned the "totem pole" as a pagan religious icon or idol. At the time, I was still in school and remembered reading that the totem pole wasn't a religious symbol, but rather, more like a homage to the family tree. I was perplexed, but accepting.

    Lo and behold, a couple of months later (I believe), someone wrote a letter to the organization that challenged that position and the organization retracted their comments and stated that the "totem pole" was indeed a family artifact and not pagan in origen.

    I knew at that time...I don't know why, but I knew that the idea of light was based on who was in charge and who was writing this stuff.

    Just a thought,

    SOP

  • factfinder
    factfinder

    welcome ProfCNJ!

    Excellent questions!

    And thank you Phizzy for that quote from the 1881 Watchtower.

    I tried discussing this years ago with my jw brother. We were both taught the "truth" from the Truth book. But witnesses are not allowed to use the Truth book any more in FS or when conducting Bible studies. I asked my brother:

    Since we were taught the truth, why are we no longer able to teach the same things to others? Then he brought out the whole new light thing.

    But I asked him: If something is true, why would it later be false? Doesn't that mean it was not true in the first place? Were we taught lies? Did we lie to people in FS when teaching from the Truth book?

    Of course he said no, that there are old truths and new truths but new truths do not make old truths lies.

    " Newspeak!"

    He was unwilling to reason on it. But as Russell said in that 1881 w- when God gives new light you don't extinguish any lamps, you turn more on. If a teaching is true, it does not later become false. Details could be added as years go on but the teaching would not be abanded for a new one-or else the first teaching was false.

    I can not think of any Biblical prophets who later changed their prophecy.

    And BluesBrother-

    That is an excellent point from the Proclaimers book- even though they were teaching falsehood they were proud that they had done it!

    Phizzy- excellent point that God cannot lie! He certainly did not direct the Bible students to believe falsehoods and lies that would later on require changing.

    What is in the July 15,2013 w will also eventually be changed and replaced by something else. Yet, we are told we must believe and accept as the truth everything the GB comes out with, or we are on the side of Satan.

    The societ critisizes other religions for not sticking to the Bible, yet they go beyond what is written as well.

  • notjustyet
    notjustyet

    When a few elders showed up at my door in the past and tried to use Proverbs 4:18 on me to "relieve all that ails you". I asked them if

    Proverbs 4:18 was a prophecy that was written to let us know here in this century that gods chosen channel would continually get things wrong?

    No good comeback on their part.

    One of them brought up "present truth" so I added the comment "if what is being taught now is present truth, then what was taught before if not "present, it must be ""PAST",... and if not truth, it must be,..."........" (I left a pause for them to fill in the blank) just looked at me and smiled, there was no way in hell that their mind would allow them to think "Past LIE" there mind would not let them go there.

    NJY

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit