Much like Cyrus posted here.
Why remove John 8:1-11 in the NWT if these verses speak highly of Jesus
by I_love_Jeff 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Oubliette
CyrusThePersian: For one thing the story (or pericope) doesn't appear in either the Codex Sinaiticus
True, however the Codex Sinaiticus includes:
The WTBTS/GB/FDS didn't see the need to ADD these books while REMOVING the pericope adulterae. The "explanation" they offered is illogical and inconsistent in its application. Clearly, this is a case of selective picking and choosing to suit their purposes. Everything else is just rank rationalization.
Hey, if Jesus didn't mind it being in there for the last two millenium then who are they to take it out?
-
Phizzy
The Church before the Codex Sinaiticus was written accepted these verses, and used them in worship, they had access to manuscripts older than C.S, so if such a manuscript was found, it would have more authority than C.S.
So, what is the WT's reasoning for dropping these verses? Logic ? they don't know what that means, truth ? ditto, so they must have another motive.
As pointed out already, none of the early manuscripts of the N.T contain "Jehovah" in any form (apart from in the word Hallelujah), so how can the W.T use the argument they do for dropping these verses, and yet add the Name ?
-
CyrusThePersian
The Codex Sinaiticus also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas.
The point being that the Watchtower isn't alone in cherry picking what should and should not be "canon". The Catholics and Protestants have been doing that for centuries.
The issue is not really whether the pericope is inspired or not but rather whether or not it belongs in the book of John, which available evidence indicates that it does not.
As to whether the apocryphal books like Tobit and Maccabees are canonical, the Catholic church eventually relagated these works to a secondary status and the Protestants rejected them altogether. The Watchtower Society, being founded by Protestants, use a Protestant Bible canon and ignore the apocrypha.
-
Oubliette
Cyrus: The point being that the Watchtower isn't alone in cherry picking what should and should not be "canon". The Catholics and Protestants have been doing that for centuries.
In other words, the WTBTS is just like those false religious organization from which they claim to be so different!
I think you just helped prove my point. Thanks.
-
CyrusThePersian
In other words, the WTBTS is just like those false religious organization from which they claim to be so different!
I think you just helped prove my point. Thanks.
You're welcome. In my humblest of opinions, all religions are full of baloney, but I've become a diehard atheist so what do I know?
CyrusThePersian
-
Captain Obvious
The entire canon has been added to and modified for thousands of years... There's no reason to harp on them for this any more than there is to harp on scribes 1000 years ago. Even if one were to believe the bible is inspired, there is no was to distinguish which parts are and which aren't. Bart D. Ehrman has done a lot of great work on this.
In regard to Matt 8:1-11, it directly contradicts the WT's shunning policy. If Jesus were real, he wouldn't have participated in shunning. Plain and simple. These verses were an easy choice for removal by the WT.
-
Legacy
HI,
At the end of the day. We shouldn't judge anyone or else we get judged, do I have that right ? Whether is should be in the bible or not, I think it should. The scriptures are very sobering, to anyone. As one person said here, they take out what can't use & add what they THINK THEY CAN PROVE. I'm a witness now....I think, aka use my brain, so that makes me a little different. I don't tell them what I think about some of their misleadings, because they have plenty in their own library to support what preach. So to me it's fruitless. I'm glad I saw it & glad I know about it. I'm not looking to get DF'd but if so, then I will keep this in my mind...& let's take a look at DF'ing...the org. cannot keep anyone from God, oh sure, you will be shunned if you go to the hall but not from God. We must all remember, that we will all have to carry our own loads & the GB's are no exception.
Legacy
-
adamah
Capt Obv said-
In regard to Matt 8:1-11, it directly contradicts the WT's shunning policy.
Matt 8? Not sure how healing a leper, or the faith of a centurion has anything to do with shunning? Were you thinking of another passage?
Nevermind: I'm guessing you meant John 8 (the account of an adulteress, the very topic under discussion).
-
Cold Steel
Why wouldn't the GB just put the quotations in question in italics or with a notation? If scholars could prove that another book not currently in the Bible was accepted as part of the New Testament scriptures (there was no such thing as a canon); would the GB be willing to accept it as part of the Bible?
The book of Revelation contains a passage about not adding to or deleting from the words of that book. For years many Christians thought that meant the Bible. Don't add or delete anything from the Bible! But of all the books of the New Testament, it was the book of Revelation that came closest to being rejected as part of the Bible. And what of the book of Isaiah? Many scholars think there were multiple authors of that work, and they've identified which parts were added later. So why doesn't the GB delete the portions of Isaiah that are highly suspect?
Who gets to make these decisions? Will future NWTs contain a book of Enoch or Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which we know the ancient apostles owned and used? The GB shys away from the term "revelation" and prefers the term "new light." But if the GB is writing articles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wouldn't they be considered scripture, too? If it's the same Holy Spirit that penetrates their noggins, travels down their necks, into their shoulders, down their arms and through their fingers as they type at their keyboards, how is that different from the inspiration that the apostles and prophets used in writing scripture? In other words, either they're prophets or they're not; there's no in-between. As I interpret it, they're saying, "Well, we're more inspired than most people in the Kingdom Halls, but not quite up to the standards of the ancient apostles and prophets."
In Revelation 11, John writes that in the last days, God will call two "witnesses," who are also referred to by John as "prophets." The Society proudly calls itself "Jehovah's Witnesses." But what are witnesses? And how are JWs "witnesses" of Jehovah? As defined, we read that a "witness" is defined as:
So in what ways are the WTBTS "witnesses" of Jehovah? Are members able to provide "firsthand" accounts of something seen, heard or experienced? Or do they furnish evidence instead of hearsay? Have any of them actually seen Jehovah as the seventy elders of Israel did in the days of Moses? (See Exodus 28) If not, how can they be his witnesses? According to both definitions, above, does the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses more accurately described as "witnesses" or "prophets"?
If you want to hear from some real Jehovah's Witnesses, wouldn't you want
to talk to someone who'd actually seen him?Now when they delete passages like John 8:1-11 from scripture, is it something a witness would do, or a prophet? Why don't they remove the Song of Solomon, which is a joke? It's nothing but an erotic account that has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Jesus' love for the church" and all the other ridiculous garbage that has been written about it. There are also some good reasons to eliminate portions of the book of Ecclesiastes, often used to prove that the dead "sleep" at death. Although the book purports to be written by King Solomon, it's doubtful. And even so, Solomon was, at the end of his life, a bitter old man who had taken to himself political wives outside of the worship of Yahweh. They enticed him to build altars to their heathen gods and, left to himself, his wisdom soon failed, giving way to forgetfulness, guilt and a piss poor attitude. Some scholars believe the work to be from the third century B.C. It was not a prophetic or eschatological work, but a philosophical book, and neither the Old Testament or New Testament Jews believed that man's existence ended at death. Yet without Ecclesiastes, the Adventist doctrine of soul sleeping would collapse like a cheap folding chair. They also seldom quote the scripture in Ecclesiastes: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (12:7) In this case they translate the word for "spirit" as "breath" (it can mean both).
