Another spin on the "2 witnesses"

by Lady Lee 7 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Lady Lee

  16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

  OK You go once and try to talk to him and he doesn't listen. Then you go back and "take with thee one or two more". It doesn't say one or two more witnesses, just one or two more. Why? "That in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established"

  Ok now what if the one or two more are not actully witnesses of the event. What if they are to be witnesses to the two people discussing it and trying to come to some agreement. One thing is often helpful in confronting anyone with their behavior is to do it with an audience - witneeses. It is the witnesses watching you discuss the problem that is the point here. What if while they are watching this, they see the truth of the matter. Maybe being outsiders gives them a better perspective to see who is telling the truth.

  Isn't the court system based on this? Aren't judges and juries what this is all about? Aren't these things the eventual outcome of this 2 witness rule?

  Does this make sense or am I just rambling again - from the heat you know.

  Lee
• 

  stewart

  It did make sense when I first read through your comments. Then I pulled off the shelf my NWT (the first time in 10 years since I bcame an ex JW!!) and there are two drawbacks..
  The NW translation use witnesses throughout and verse 17 refers to standing before judges as well (i.e. in addition to the witnesses.
  But on an up note I would think this can still be shot out of the water by ' rendering to Caeser what is due". And just about any 'Caeser' on this planet can reasonably expect not only that it would be reported but also as the Panroma show stated that JW's would talk to the police and elders would not interfere with police investigations!!!

  Saying the above, when you say
  

  One thing is often helpful in confronting anyone with their behavior is to do it with an audience - witneeses. It is the witnesses watching you discuss the problem that is the point here

  
  I think you have a point of common sense that can't be argued with.

  Another point I have just thought of is that verse 21 goes on about the punishment being soul for soul, eye or eye clearly indicating that this is a judicial process being set out / described. The elders (and they would have to accept this) have no poweres to enact this (i.e. if they did believe the accuser they can't castrate the abuser) therefore the whole thing is not applicable. If you follow my drift.

  Edited by - stewart on 14 July 2002 20:36:50
• 

  YoursChelbie

  Along the similar thoughts: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=32157&site=3
• 

  abbagail

  I think what Lady Lee wrote makes sense, as did Stewart's about Caesar.

  I think the policy COULD be changed using these points, you know, new light/adjustment on previously "misinterpreted" scriptures.

  At the same time, I feel the GB are sticking to their guns re: the 2 witness rule because if they say, "yes, we were being narrow-minded, we are sorry," they are afraid they will open themselves up to enormous liability. In other words, I think THEY think "it's too late to turn back now" (no matter how FOOLISH they look) especially with the civil suits already having been filed against the WTBTS.

  I just hope the stories & media coverage keep coming and coming, that's all I can hope for.

  GRITS
• 

  Gedanken

  In Israel two witnesses to a crime were not needed - just sufficient evidence. In the 1st century the instructions were relating primarily to civil disputes between brothers. The admonition not to take your brother to court obviously doesn't apply when a crime has been committed, as stewart is pointing out. If a person is raped that is a crime against the person but also a crime against the state. If the rapist were to be reported by a third party then the victim really has no capacity to "drop charges" - all they could do would be to deny the charges which would be lying. Absent a third party then the victim has the choice, of course, of whether to puruse the matter but, nevertheless, the crime is mandated as such by the state. There is no comparison with civil cases.

  This all becomes quite obvious when one considers the case of murder. Imagine that just one person witnessed an elder murder someone and then the elder managed to get away with the crime. If, down the road, it came to light that the elder did the deed, and that the witness to it kept quiet, what happens to the witness?

  The 2 witnesses ruling has to do only with matters over which the congregation has authority which does not include crimes. Finally, it should be pointed out that the Law was abolished and cannot be used as a basis for the policy - even the new "Worship" book recognizes that by omitting the chapter on what we can learn from the Law that was contained in its forerunner, the "United in Worship" book. So it all hinges on the NT verses which obviously relate only to non criminal matters.

  The Society's response to Panorama is total bunk - by selecting an extreme example - a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old 20 years ago - they hope to deflect attention from the real problem; 50 and 60 year olds having sex with 6 and 7 year olds right now. It's disgusting and criminal.

  Gedanken
• 

  crawdad2

  hi gedanken,

  they are snakes........... they know exactly what they are doing........ some of the gov body members must be involved in the molesting......... or they wouldn't have handled it like this for so long.
• 

  Pork Chop

  Everyone seems bent out of shape about the two witnesses issue so that raises a quesation. Are you suggesting that an accusation by one individual means that the accused is guilty, full stop, or what? I don't think you can run a railroad that way.

  Of the abuse cases that I'm familiar with exactly half turned out to be false charges. From what I've seen here it seems like there's an automatic assumption of guilt, if not, how do you proceed when there's only one accuser?
• 

  crawdad2

  hi pork chop,

  it's about not disqualifying the victim just because there are not 2 witnesses. .......... since when will there ever be 2 witnesses present when a child is being secretly raped? it seems most elders handle it the way brooklyn suggests.......... if the molester says he didn't do it, immediatly stop the investigation!......... are wicked jw elders really qualified to investigate, or should the police do that?

  by the way,........ how many molesters admit they do it?

  Edited by - crawdad2 on 15 July 2002 19:18:28