Eph 1:1 - An example of eisegesis

by leaving_quietly 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  DATA-DOG

  Unfortunately the WTBTS does not need this verse to support thier "ideas." They just practice eisegesis in general. I do see your point about the meaning being changed in Ephesians 1:1.

  They will NEVER let go of the 2 class party system, IMHO. They would lose authority, and they would lose face by being wrong AGAIN.. This is something that they do not want to do, especially since we are so deep into the time of the end. So the GB will just continue with business as usual by telling the sheep that the NT responsibilities are theirs, without the benefits. The R&F are stewards, but not really, they are God's children, but not really, Jesus is their mediator, but not really. It goes on and on.

  The sheep have endured enough nu-light for now. They would benefit by letting some of the old-timers die off, and by concentrating on completing Warwick before dazzling the sheeple further.

  I am also amazed at how closely the RNWT resembles all of Christendom's evil bibles. With the exception of JEHOVAH being thrown in willy-nilly, you would never know the difference.

  DD
• 

  Phizzy

  I am interested that they seem to at least have taken on board some of the criticism rightly levelled at the original NWT.

  Certain things, like the inclusion of the word Jehovah, they have painted themselves in to a corner over, but I am surprised they still insist on placing it where there is no justification whatsoever. It suits their theology of course, and obfuscates the many references that seem clearly to speak about the divinity of Christ.

  Dishonest in the extreme of course, but what we have come to expect.

  Doug has above outlined what seems to be the consensus of modern scholarly thought on the Pauline and deutero-pauline writings, "Ephesians" falling in to the latter group.

  Doug also alludes to his great point that he made on another thread, that the 27 books that the W.T uses were chosen by Apostates according to th W.T's own estimation, and at a time, according to the Noo Lite, when no FDS existed to distribute "spiritual food", the 380's AD.

  So, the Revised NWT is an Apostate Bible !
• 

  eyeuse2badub

  REALLY is not the entire Bible a collection of eisegesis? I mean there were hundreds of "books", leters, epistles, documentaries, and etc.to chose from when the Catholic Church sat down to compile the modern day "Bible". In JW land, they defend the modern Bible as correct by claiming that Jehovah preserved it even though he allowed "Babylon the Great" to be it's guardian. If Jehovah did indeed preserve his word back in the 4th century when it was compiled, I wonder why he didn't see to it then that his NAME was also preserved in the Bible. It's a mystery!----Just saying!

  eyeuse2badub