I was fascinated by a recent WT (Aug.'14) article that illustrates how original Bible accounts could change and transform over time, even with the best of motives.
Stories can grow over time, gain 'new details' and be altered by well-intentioned people. Like catching a fish that seems to grow bigger in the retelling.
The August WT has a secondary article about Joseph - which applies the story to modern day problems with "blended" families (so, similar in a way to ancient polygamous extended families).
The article asserts that Jacob loved his son Joseph in particular because his son was so faithful and righteous, perhaps giving him a special coat as a reward for his good behavior....
which is false because Genesis 37 makes clear that he loved Joseph because he was 'the son of his old age', in other words, a novelty or sign that the "old guy still had it and could get it up!". Understandable but not terribly noble.
However, that bit of history isn't good enough for the Watchtower so they shift the information to fit their modern day narrative about stepfamilies.
Now, I understand that the story of Joseph has good counsel about forgiveness in a family. I get it. But it illustrates how needs can change a story that's told for moral instruction.
If you've ever read the Gospel of Luke and compare it with Matthew or Mark, you observe this "changing narrative". Did Jesus say 'blessed are the poor" or "poor in spirit"? Did He say "signs in sun, moon and stars" or 'the moon will be darkened, the sun will not give its light and stars fall from heaven"?
Did a well meaning translation of "maiden" into 'virgin" create the Virgin Birth account?
The Bible is still a remarkable book - but stories do change over time, despite the best intentions of good men. Or is it because of the best intentions of good men?
metatron