Watchtarded "logic" in the RNWT!!

by DATA-DOG 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DATA-DOG

  Has anyone read this? I am going from memory because I don't have the RNWT with me. If someone wants to post it, great. In the appendix, the accuracy of the Bible is discussed. I believe that when defending the RNWT's use of GOD's "name" this Watchtarded argument is applied also.

  1) The Bible has been accurately preserved, we can have faith in it.

  2) [ Here is the "logic"] If 100 or so students copied something, you could expect some errors in each copy. Still not every student would make the exact same mistakes. Therefore, by comparing all the extant copies, you would get an accurate picture of the original.

  So keep in mind that the WTBTS is basically saying that by looking at ALL the copies of copies, especially the oldest, we get an accurate Bible. There is no conceivable way that ALL the copyists through history could make the SAME mistakes across the board. SO.... [drum roll.....]

  In all those "students" copies, where is the name JEHOVAH ever found? This especially applies to the oldest extant MSS of the NT. That same "logic" used to prove the accuracy of the Bible also destroys the WTBTS's teaching that GOD's name is JEHOVAH, and that Jesus said JEHOVAH. If the Bible is accurate, why was the pronunciation of YHWH not preserved? Were all those copyists right or wrong? How can it be both ways? Either GOD had the Bible accurately preserved and decided the pronunciation of YHWH was not important, or He screwed up and the WTBTS was needed to rectify the situation. Which is it?

  There is no proof that anyone ever pronounced GOD's name, however you say it, not to my knowledge anyway. The whole thing just gobsmacked me while I was listening to the ignorant WT study yesterday. So what do you say? Am I thinking correctly? If so, the direct quote from the RNWT may be a nice addition to some blogs out there. I found it very interesting and wanted to share it.

  DD
• 

  88JM

  Spot on.

  Also, even the oldest "complete" manuscript copies are hundreds of years separated from the originals - at best they are probably copies of copies of copies, maybe.

  Even then, there are probably some parts of the bible that only have 2 or 3 ancient, "independant" sources to compare - and those copies might still be sourced from the same defective document down the line.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Apparently lots of wrongs make a right.

  So, what does it say about a god that makes using his name a requirement to gain "everlasting" life, yet fails utterly to preserve his own name in any meaningful way in his own book (or anywhere else) ?
• 

  Phizzy

  There argument only works if you have an original to compare with the copies. All copies could contain errors from the first copy or copies, that were faithfully preserved, but still errors.

  We have no copies even close to the originals.

  If it were the "Word of God" he would have given us some way to feel we could trust it, the Bible has no Provenance.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  DD: That same "logic" used to prove the accuracy of the Bible also destroys the WTBTS's teaching that GOD's name is JEHOVAH, and that Jesus said JEHOVAH

  "new light": Jesus obviously was a 13 th century Catholic monk-

  Interestingly, Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, first rendered the divine name as "Jehova." This form appeared in his book Pugeo Fidei, published in 1270 C.E. — over 700 years ago. W 2/1/1980, p.12, "The Divine Name In Later Times"
• 

  DATA-DOG

  It was so painful to listen to. I know it's not a new point, but the RNWT does present the issue differently than the NWT. I have yet to read in the RNWT that "Jehovah" is less correct than YAHWEH. At least the NWT said that. The RNWT basically says that JEHOVAH is justified because of human tradition. It has a long acceptance in the English language and people are familiar with it. Is that not tradition?

  DD
• 

  KateWild

  I am so glad I missed again yesterday. It's a whole farce. I need to now concentrate more on what is going on again. I have been enjoying my break but I must read yesterdays WT now to teach my son what was nonsense. How I hate having to learn the rubbish to counter the effects what a stupid cult Arghhhh

  Kate xx
• 

  Separation of Powers

  Excellent point.... if you want to see something really unique, exciting, and blasphemous, in my opinion, read the RNWT version of Colossians 1:15, 16....now tell me....where do you find the word "other" in any of the original manuscripts? At least in the NWT they explained the use of brackets. Now, the inclusion of the word is blatant as if it were indeed part of the original text and not something added for clarity or to help shore up some peculiar theological position....
• 

  LostGeneration

  But...but, but the JWs created the MEPS system! Have you forgotten already?
• 

  DATA-DOG

  From JW.ORG http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/appendix-a/how-the-bible-came-to-us/

  “The word of our God endures forever.” —Isaiah 40:8.

  That statement is true, even though no original Bible manuscript of the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures * or of the Christian Greek Scriptures has survived to our day. Therefore, how can we be so certain that the contents of the Bible we have today truly reflect the original inspired writings?

  COPYISTS PRESERVE GOD’S WORD

  Not all copies of ancient Bible manuscripts contain identical wording. How, then, can we know what the original text contained?

  The situation could be likened to that of a teacher who asks 100 students to copy a chapter of a book. Even if the original chapter was later lost, a comparison of the 100 copies would still reveal the original text. While each student might make some errors, it is highly unlikely that all the students would make exactly the same ones. Similarly, when scholars compare the thousands of fragments and copies of ancient Bible books available to them, they can detect copyist error and determine the original wording.

  Commenting on the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar William H. Green stated: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.” Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, or so-called New Testament, Bible scholar F. F. Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” He also said: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”

  [ END OF QUOTES.]

  So those super-accurate copies needed to be corrected 2000 years later by the WTBTS with the addition of the Catholic invention of JEHOVAH?? I find that very odd and I want to talk about it with JWs. I will just be viewed as crazy, or as an apostate, so I am ranting here on JWN.

  DD