Revised NWT: Goodbye to Jesus and the Adultress (problematic for JW DF/shunning)

by adamah 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  adamah

  Funny that the "New Light" comes in the form of a willingness to scuttle a problematic account which long has been accepted for millenia now, but suddenly is not up to snuff since the WTBTS correctly perceives the account as being problematic for their DFing and shunning policies:

  http://awgue.weebly.com/would-jesus-shun.html

  Granted, NT scholars have long known the account is a late addition (it likely appeared in the margin in earlier texts, but was included into the body as time went on, long-ago promoted into the Book of John).

  Great, but scholars have ALSO long-known that the epistle of 2nd Peter is unquestionably a fraudulent work, written LONG after Peter was dead: I wonder why it wasn't dropped from the revised NWT, as well? HINT: the book of 2nd Peter fits their theology and practices, whereas John 8 clearly DOESN'T.

  Check out my blog articles on Genesis vs 2nd Peter, as it pertains to "righteous" Lot and Noah's preaching work before the Flood:

  http://awgue.weebly.com/article-pt-1-revisiting-sodom-was-lot-supposed-to-be-viewed-as-a-righteous-man.html

  http://awgue.weebly.com/genesis-vs-2nd-peter-noah-didnt-preach-bupkis.html

  Adam
• 

  5go

  Frankly a lot of Paul's works aren't his. Infact if I remember right analysist showed that it was atleast three distinct writing styles meaning probally several diffrent people wrote the letters attributed to him.
• 

  Emery

  Out of the 13 Pauline epistles, only 7 can be attributed to Paul, the other 6 are forgeries.
• 

  adamah

  5go said-

  Frankly a lot of Paul's works aren't his. Infact if I remember right analysist showed that it was atleast three distinct writing styles meaning probally several diffrent people wrote the letters attributed to him.

  Well, sure, but you're approaching it from the angle of someone who doesn't believe that "all scriptures are inspired by God" (1st Tim 3:16). By ditching passages as they go, they're only making that claim even more questionable. Has the GB received some "New Light" from Jesus/Jehovah on the issue?

  It'll be interesting to see what excusiology the GB offers to justify WHY the problematic account was dropped, although it's awfully convenient that it also is a passage that points to how the JWs are following in the non-scriptural traditions of men and ignoring Jesus. There must've been some Pharisaical rabbis who wanted to excise certain passages from the Torah, too, simply because they didn't harmonize with THEIR practices and needs.

  Adam
• 

  blondie

  Does it drop it from the smaller NWT and the larger one. In the past the WTS dropped questionable (by other Christian religions opinion too) from the smaller but not the larger version.

  *** Rbi8 John 7-8:11 ***

  Manuscripts

  א BSy s omit verses 53 to chapter 8, verse 11, which read (with some variations in the various Greek texts and versions) as follows:

  53

  So they went each one to his home.

  8

  But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At daybreak, however, he again presented himself at the temple, and all the people began coming to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 Now the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught at adultery, and, after standing her in their midst, 4 they said to him: “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of committing adultery. 5 In the Law Moses prescribed for us to stone such sort of women. What, really, do you say?” 6 Of course, they were saying this to put him to the test, in order to have something with which to accuse him. But Jesus bent down and began to write with his finger in the ground. 7 When they persisted in asking him, he straightened up and said to them: “Let the one of YOU that is sinless be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And bending over again he kept on writing in the ground. 9 But those who heard this began going out, one by one, starting with the older men, and he was left alone, and the woman that was in their midst. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her: “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said: “No one, sir.” Jesus said: “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way; from now on practice sin no more.”
• 

  adamah

  Blondie said-

  Does it drop it from the smaller NWT and the larger one. In the past the WTS dropped questionable (by other Christian religions opinion too) from the smaller but not the larger version.

  I dunno.

  My understanding is that the gray-covered revised NWT (RNWT) is the only version they're putting out, although they advised keeping the older NWT around for "research purposes" (right!), since the RNWT is primarily used for "preaching purposes".

  You and I know where that ends up: a focus on the new and a discarding of the old, allowing the old discontinued "truth" to be buried with the shifting sands of time, via "phasing out" of "old truths".

  Adam
• 

  Laika

  Pretty much everything Jesus ever said and did is problematic for the JWs.

  How would the GB expect Jesus to react if this event had happened? He was never going to say 'yes, stone the dirty whore' was he? The story is consistent with his character.
• 

  Oubliette

  Let's be frank: EVERYTHING in the Bible is questionable. We KNOW that nothing in it is first-hand, written by Jesus. EVERYTHING about him is at best a second-hand account, sometimes even third.

  In a court of law, this is called "hearsay" and is inadmissable. Yet millions of people live their lives based on the idea that Jesus really said everything he supposedly said.

  For me, the concept of the Bible as literature is much more valid than the idea that it is somehow divinely inspired and should be read as the "inerrant word of God." It clearly is not that.

  With that in mind, I figure I have as much right as anyone to pick and choose which scriptures I like and which ones I don't. I suppose the leaders of the WTBTS have that right too. What they do NOT have, is the right to insist that I or anyone else agree with their picking and choosing.

  I happen to like the moral of the story in the account of Jesus and the Adulterous. It fits with my conception of Jesus and everything about why I wanted to be a Christian 30 years ago.

  I also understand why the GB wants that account out of there. If fits with my conception of them as an authoritarian, high-control cult and everything about why I want nothing to do with them now.

  YMMV
• 

  adamah

  Laika said-

  Pretty much everything Jesus ever said and did is problematic for the JWs.

  "Everything"? That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think? They seemingly have NO PROBLEM relying on Jesus' words, "Go therefore and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit"? Why? It supports their perma-membership drive. They won't be phasing THAT part out, anytime soon.

  How would the GB expect Jesus to react if this event had happened? He was never going to say 'yes, stone the dirty whore' was he? The story is consistent with his character.

  Well, to play Devil's Advocate, it IS out of character with Jesus' claims of being a Torah-observent Jew, eg the Torah DID call for stoning adulterers. Jesus said he didn't come to throw away the law of Moses in the Torah, but to fulfill the OT prophecies. So for Jesus to let the adulteress off the hook after being found guilty by the Sanhedrin is not following the letter of the law (granted, he may have objected on legalistic grounds, such as the male not being held present/held accountable, but that's highly speculative and reading something into the account that isn't explictly stated).

  Unfortunately, Jesus didn't explain WHY he suddenly got a soft-spot for adultery or refused to engage in capital punishment, but a surface reading suggests Jesus did. I suppose an argument could be based on the "greatest of these is love" angle, but the problem again is that passage cited above.

  Another example of contradictory Jesus is the command to symbolically eat his flesh/drink his blood: that's a violation of a Jewish cardinal law, since the practice of drinking blood was associated with idolatrous pagan practices.

  Believers have to be able to untangle Jesus' mysteries and contradictions, not me: I'm an atheist.

  Adam
• 

  Laika

  They seemingly have NO PROBLEM relying on Jesus' words, "Go therefore and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit"?

  Hmm... Have JWs ever baptised anyone in the name of the father, son and holy spirit?

  Jesus said he came to fulfill, not abolish the law in the Sermon on the Mount right? Same sermon he said instead of eye for an eye, turn the other cheek, do not judge etc... which doesn't fit with a support for stoning adulterers.