by newbie2013 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
YET THEY HAD THE NERVE TO SAY THAT OTHER WRITINGS "HAVE BECOME ""PART" OF THE BIBLE "--meaning Witchtower LITTERATURE.
Are we to belive that the crap they have printed over 140 years are to be viewed as part of the bible, yet things the early Christians remembered about Jesus are "spurious"?
If the inconsistency of a few verses gets them wiped out, what about all the other inconsistencies in the Gospels?
If the Gibbering Buddies continue like this there will be no Gospels left...
Hamsterbait-Very good point. We are to accept anything published by the WTBS as being from God himself ("spirit directed organization") yet it is frequenly inaccurate in need of "getting brighter". All rather dubious.
Newbie- Welcome and thank you for your interesting perspective.
Welcome! Nice to have you join us.
Carpe Diem!
Hi Newbie2013,
Welcome to the forum. I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses from childhood on, baptized in 1981 and left faith in 2007. I'm an atheist and no longer believe in Jehovah God. Nonetheless, I continue to have an interest in the Bible and the faith.
"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." . . . "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."
I don't have a copy of updated translation, but I assume you are referring to Mark 16:9, 20, Mark 16:8b and John 8:1-11. As far as I am aware for many decades, at least all the years I was a Witness, these verses were never viewed by Witnesses as truly part of the Bible and inspired. The story in John 8 of the adulteress caught in the act, wherein Jesus says, "Let the one of YOU that is sinless be the first to throw a stone at her" is of course well known and often quoted when someone wants to convey the idea we all fail and should not be quick to judge.
Since this portion was never viewed by Witnesses as inspired, I do believe you will not see it ever referenced in The Watchtower or Awake!, unless the reference is something about these being a later addition and not inspired.
So is the new committee justified in removing this text, rather than showing it in a smaller font with a disclaimer as the older NWT does? Maybe. But, it is tricky. First of course is the obvious intent of this translation is for use in the public ministry, where it is entirely possible for a publisher to encounter a householder familiar with the woman caught in the act of adultery story. Now the poor publisher won't have any reference to refer to, even to share what some later manuscripts contained for this text.
Then there is just this general idea of what should be included or excluded from the Bible canon and who gets to make that choice. The International Bible Students decided to use a non-Catholic protestant Bible hence no Judth, First and Second Maccabees, etc. No original manuscripts exist, so in general we rely on oldest available manuscript that tends to have wide agreement with others of its age. Not a bad approach, however some serious scholars are fairly certain some of the oldest Bible books must have had even older sources that were combined. They see the use of "God" in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 with a sudden switch to "Jehovah" at Genesis 2:4 as one clear indication this must be the case. In other words getting back to original text may in fact be impossible.
If we use oldest is best approach, then might we be able to doubt the entire Gospel of John and book of Revelation, both of which are later? Can anyone today categorically say these sections of Mark and John do not reflect actual truthful accounts? Stories are not written all at once and it is not uncommon for authors to go back to original stories and add additional details.
As you know later Hebrew manuscripts replaced the divine name "Jehovah" with "Lord." Thus the NWT restored the name "Jehovah" based on this idea of oldest-is-best. But the exact opposite is the case with the Christian Greek Scriptures. Not a single extant Greek manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures contains the name "Jehovah" (please correct me if I'm wrong on this point). This would be so, because Christian writers would be using a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that by their day had replaced "Jehovah" with "Lord." This apparently did not bother these writers. Although the NWT translators make references to a number of "J" (1 to 25) documents to justify this inclusion of "Jehovah", these are not that old really, and are themselves translations.
"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."
Although I am not shy about being critical of the leadership on certain issues, especially in regards to shunning, I always try to be respectful. As for the brotherhood, that I continue to believe is populated mostly be sincere folks such as yourself, who only wish to worship in a way that pleases God. And the last bit is spot on! Why should it ever be a problem to express personal views? The problem with so many groups seems to be this desire to have everyone hold the same view, or if that cannot be achieved to pretend they do.
Take care,
-Randy
Welcome to the forum, and thanks for the update.
Welcome, Newbie
Greetings Newbie,
Welcome to the forum! I agree with much of the gist of your argument - it is difficult to reconcile the position that the Bible represents absolute truth with the action of deleting or making material changes in that absolute. That is not a problem unique to the WTBTS, mind you: many Christian sects, especially the more fundamental ones, would take the same stand. The Witnesses place themselves in something of a different category by right of being, first and foremost, a publishing company which also has attempted its own translation of Scripture (the chief criticism of which tends to be its willingness to alter Scripture to conform to its own doctrine). It follows that continuing revision of the NWT may reflect continuing doctrinal changes, which has been euphemistically referred to as 'new light'.
We are left with trying to reconcile that this sect asserting it alone has the Truth (an absolute term) yet tinkers with doctrine ('new light') to suit its purposes and the ostensible basis of the doctrine itself, the Bible. It does not add up: logically, it cannot add up. Yet questioning is not only not encouraged, it is not allowed - and doubt alone is reason for excommunication.
It is a sad legacy for a religion which once styled itself as Bible Students. I agree that we should not ridicule the WTBTS or the people trapped in its web - but we must, must relentlessly question and examine the motives and practices of those few who hold so many like us in chains.
Welcome newbie2013, Do you believe that God changes his mind as much as the WTBTS changes its doctrines in its propaganda and now the NWT? If the GB are imperfect men and you are imperfect, why follow other imperfect men instead of the Holy Spirit inside of you?
If you would like to know more about why JWN members feel the way they do, try reading Steve Hassan's books (i.e., "Combatting Cult Mind Control", "Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves", and (his latest book) "Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults and Beliefs"), visit his website www.freedomofmind.com, or watching his videos on his website.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
