Are we not overlooking the obvious?

newbie2013

This is my first post. However, I have been reading this board for some time (call it stalking or trolling...lol). So, HELLO to all.

I have had time to reflect on the AGM since yesterday and my thoughts are that indeed the NWT needed much revision. With that said, I am one that believe that it did not need "scrubbing". The removal of several verses from the Gospel according to Mark and the account of the adulteress in my humble opinion is part of the universal cannon of Holy Scriptures.

With that said, does not the scriptures say in the 2nd letter to Timothy chapter 3 verse 16 "ALL SCRIPTURES are inspired of God and beneficial for TEACHING, for REPROVING, for setting things straight.."

To remove at will, even if a small group of inidividual deem that it should, goes completely against what the scriptures say regarding Gods word. For more than a century (counting the time of the first Bible Students in the late 1800's till this past Friday), these scriptures have always served to be beneficial and teach each of us. To my knowledge, the members of the NWT committee, do not have full access to the original manuscripts. Therefore, how can one determine that certain portions of the scriptures are deemed no longer worthy of part of the cannon of Holy Scriptures?

I will continue to have an approach like the prophet Malachi, wait on our loving creator and heavnly Father Jehovah to make ALL THINGS know at its appropriate time.

I am in no way bad mouthing the GB or any of the members of the international brotherhood. I am merely stating my personal view on this topic after reading so many of yours.

Regards to all.

70wksfyrs

Welcome Newbie2013,

So nice to see you comment. Thank you for your post and telling us what an active wiitness feels about men removing things from God's Word. You are brave and we admire you for this

Thank you very much

70wks....

adamah

Welcome, newbie 2013!

To remove at will, even if a small group of inidividual deem that it should, goes completely against what the scriptures say regarding Gods word.

Using the "New Light" excuse gives the GB COMPLETE CONTROL to do this kind of thing. You ARE aware this is the PERFECT example of WHY it's a cult, right?

So 2nd Tim 3:16 means NOTHING, since the GB is basically showing they can and do define what "All scriptures" actually includes, without needing to offer ANY justification to the rank and file members as to why entire passages of Jesus' words that have proven to be problematic for JW doctrine, and are deleted at will.

It's even worse than the type of historical revisionism that occurred under Stalin in the USSR, where the gov't would attempt to rewrite history by mailing new pages to the owners of encyclopedias, where the owner was instructed to glue the rewritten "scrubbed" passages over the old narrative on a particular page as if to delete it from existence. Very Orwellian....

Adam

Captain Obvious

Welcome! Please stay a while and chat.

some of the scriptures that were removed posed a problem for doctrine. The account of the adulteress poses a problem for the rules on shunning. Jesus wouldn't have shunned anyone like JWs do

hoser

what scriptures in mark are removed. I see the long conclusion of mark 16 is no longer there. is that what you are referring to?

Calebs Airplane

Newbie... SPOT ON... Thanks for that comment... How dare the remove verses from the Bible?

newbie2013

Hoser:"what scriptures in mark are removed. I see the long conclusion of mark 16 is no longer there. is that what you are referring to?"

Indeed Hoser. That is exactly what I am refering to. All versions of the Holy Scriptures contain, and still do, those passages. They have served a purpose in God's word.

hoser

what is the account of the adultress?

adamah

Hoser asked-

what is the account of the adultress?

I started a thread on it (it was problematic for DFing and shunning, so it had to go):

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/264929/1/Revised-NWT-Goodbye-to-Jesus-and-the-Adultress-problematic-for-JW-DF-shunning#.UlGZpiSE75I

Adam

Phizzy

Welcome Newbie 2013. I feel the need to address a couple of points from this thread. First of all you say, and I quote:

" To my knowledge, the members of the NWT committee, do not have full access to the original manuscripts. "

I will put this in Caps for other JW readers, because of the terminology used by the WT, you have been duped on this as on so many matters :

THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.

The "Autograph" manuscripts, the ones by the hands of the authors, have been long, long gone. All we have is copies of copies of copies. Experts in the field of such documents know that these that we do have, contain errors in large number, and redactions, (deliberate changing of the text)., in profusion.

Hence it is IMPOSSIBLE to know for sure what was originally written.

The Canon of the New Testament was partially established by the Roman Catholic Church toward the end of the 4th Century, around the 380's AD. Established by a Church violently supporting the Trinity, and a Church established by the Roman Emperor as the State religion. The Canon comes therefore from what JW's would term an Apostate organization, teaching Pagan ideas.

The Canon that the JW's accept does not include some of the writings accepted at this realtively early date, but adheres more to Luther's ideas.

The writer of 2 Timothy (with very little doubt not Paul) can only be referring to what he considered "Scripture" at the time of writing, surely not his own somewhat disingenuous Letter ?

This might well have included some of the writings considered canonical later, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and maybe even writings such as the Gospel of Peter, not admitted by the WT/Jw's as Canonical.

I would not waste time waiting for Jehovah to sort this Almighty mess out, for two thousand years He has not bothered about it, and plainly does not care to preserve the words of his writers in a way that we can trust.

Are we not overlooking the obvious?

Share this