So-called Bible Scholars........ (page 3)

minimus

HILLARY, the average Jehovah's Witness wouldn't even understand what the writing dept. was trying to say!

Great points, Nicodemus and HILLARY, about the Societys own word studies! I too was thinking about their fixation with the greek meaning of parousia and how important this is in JW theology and date setting!

Edited by - cyberguy on 30 July 2002 22:56:2

Edited by - cyberguy on 30 July 2002 22:56:45

Edited by - cyberguy on 31 July 2002 3:31:13

Perry

Yes, let's not consider that in Romans that Paul was talkin to Romans; and that in Corinthians the apostle was talking to Corinthians. WHAT STUPIDITY!

The whole movement started out examining things that they felt others were missing. They felt their counterparts were being too liturgical and didn't place enough effort on biblical scrutiny.

Now, they have come full circle and openly place "cannonized doctrine and rites" over good scholarship. They have become the very thing they once hated. I'm starting to really feel sorry for them. Is that a sign of healing? God, I hope so.

pseudoxristos

How dare scholars use "human reasoning". Gets you in trouble everytime.

"During your study, avoid the approach common of so many so-called Bible scholars. They focus excessively on analyzing texts as if the Bible were of human origin. Some of them try to fix a distinct audience for each book or to conjure up an objective and supposed viewpoint that a human author of each book had in mind. The effect of such human reasoning may be that of relegating evolutionary approaches to religion. Other scholars give themselves over to word studies like the philology of Bible literature. They get more involved in studying word origins and citing Hebrew and Greek meanings than with the import of God's message. Do you think that such approaches are likely to impart deep and motivating faith?'. WT 06/15/2002 #16

Great post Hillary.

pseudoxristos

Big Tex

Fascinating thread and good comments all around. My own thought is that this is just another in a long line of hypocritical stances by the Society. Note that they criticise "worldly" scholars for seeking the original meanings of Greek and Hebrew words and yet isn't the seeking out of "true" and "original" meanings one of the tenents that is supposed to set Jehovah's Witnesses apart from the mainstream? For example, they do not celebrate Christmas, Easter and birthdays because of the origins of the holidays. They do not believe in that Jesus died on a cross, because of the origins of the word used in the Gospels. So many of their teachings claim to go back to the "true" intent of the first century apostles and yet now when it is convenient for them, they criticise scholars for working at understanding the very words of the Bible. I mean, shouldn't the point of religon be the greater understanding of the Bible? Evidently not. Evidently the way to salvation is a greater understanding of the Watchtower (and let's not get into the "b" question!).

SixofNine

*dumb guy voice*

uhhh, is that Rodney Stark feller, is he one o' them "wordy worldly scholar" types?

metatron

Proud to be ignorant?

How about recent incidents where young people, not attending
secondary education (college) are extolled as examples?

They speak to the public as if proud to be stupid!

I've said it before
I'll say it again
The organization will get dumber and crazier

metatron

OUTLAW

Hey hillary,what you have posted is actually quite funny.WBTS is very up front about how stupid your expected to be...OUTLAW

jgnat

This month's study on study references an earlier Watchtower August 15, 1993, pages 13-14. What disturbed me the most of these two articles was their extreme limitation; where is the critical thinking, the comparison of one scripture with the other for balance, the open questions, the THINKING? Check out this positive spin on inculcating the WTS concepts.

W 8/15 1993 "Learn, Repeat, Use"

10 Experts in the field of education know the value of timely and purposeful repetition....Some minutes after you learn a point, before it fades from memory, try to draw from within yourself what you have learned. This has been termed "graduated interval recall"...."Inculcate" means to teach by repetition....

11...This will help you to make what you learned part of your long-term memory.

And, from Examining the Daily Scriptures, 2002, Wednesday, July 31

To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh Ecclesiasetes 12:12

The reading of many books published today is not only wearisome to the flesh but, frankly, dangerous to the mind. So it is important to be selective. In addition to reading our Bible study publications, we need to read the Bible istelf. The founding editor fo the Watchtower magazine wrote to its readers: "Never forget that the Bkible is our Standard and that however god-given our helps may be they are 'helps' and not substitutes for the Bible." Nence, while not neglecting Bible-based publications, we need to read the Bible itself. Conscious of this need, for years now "the faithful and discreet slave" has scheduled Bible reading as a part of the Theocratic Ministry School program in each congregation. (Matt 24:45) the present Bible-reading program covers the entire Bible in a period of about seven years. w 10/1/00 9, 10

We just learned that the Kings of Isreal were required to make a copy by hand of the law. A sensible arrangement at that time to make sure the literature survived from generation to generation before the printing press was invented. Hand copying books for a living, I imagine, would be a wearisome activity. Thank God for Johann Gutenburg, is all I can say. So how did the society make the leap that hand copying a book is as wearisome as reading a book, and even worse, dangerous?

A suggestion should be made to the WTS therefore, in order that the Bethelite materials be in line with first century church practices, that all books be copied by hand from now on. This would ensure that the copyists were properly inculcated with the perfect knowledge.

NewWay

"I actually think that scholars who have no faith in the Bible make far more successful researchers and translators exactly because they have no agenda, and because they bring to the table a historical persepctive that is often missed by those with an emotional investment in the whole issue."

Very good point Hillary on the matter of unbiased research, unfettered by religious affiliation. Which is why we have to bear in mind that although "Christendom" has the lion's share of Bible, Commentary, and Lexical publications, there is a certain bias in matter of doctrine, and this will be reflected in what is written at times. However, after reading the paragraph you quoted from the Watchtower with my own eyes, my first thought was, "What a cheek!" How about this:

"The Society's vice president, Fred Franz, was acknowledged as the organisation's principal Bible scholar. On a number of occasions I went to his office to inquire about points. To my surprise he frequently directed me to Bible commentaries, saying, 'Why don't you see what Adam Clarke says, or what Cooke says,' or, if the subject primarily related to the Hebrew Scriptures, 'what the Soncino commentaries say.' Our Bethel library contained shelf after shelf after shelf filled with such commentaries. Since they were the product of scholars of other religions, however, I had not given much importance to them and, along with others in the department, felt some hesitancy, even distrust, as to using them. As Karl Klein, a senior member of the Writing Department, sometimes very bluntly expressed it, using these commentaries was 'sucking at the tits of Babylon the Great,' the empire of false religion according to the Society's interpretation of the great harlot of Revelation." - Crisis Of Conscience by Raymond Franz (3rd Edition, page 22, paras 3 & 4)

Kind regards.

So-called Bible Scholars........

Share this