I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to help me to explain to JW's that the "New Light" isn't CLARIFICATIONS but, ARE CHANGES.
I was really impressed by the response. It was very solid, and factual. Here it is below:
My question to ChatGPT:
I need help with understanding something. I have some religious friends who belong to Jehovah's Witnesses. When the leaders of the religion change a doctrine, the members say that “the teaching was clarified.” For example, consider the way they have changed back and forth the teaching about whether the men of Sodom and Gomorrah be resurrected. As I have cited the changes as published by the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the teaching isn’t clarified as time went on, rather, it kept flip-flopping back and forth from yes to no again and again. The Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t deny this history. However, they quote a Bible verse from Proverbs 4:18, which says, “But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.” And then they say “God was using the governing body to make clarifications to what they understood at the time. And, the governing body isn’t perfect, but Jesus is the one giving them “new light,” (they are referencing the quote from Proverbs), so sometimes they might not always get it right the first time. It takes time, like when you see an object on the horizon. As the morning light gets brighter you at first think it’s one thing, but later you realize it’s another.”
1879 – Yes, according to The Watchtower magazine.
1952 – No, The Watchtower.
1965 – Yes, The Watchtower.
1967 – No, The Watchtower.
1974 – Yes, according to the Awake! magazine.
1988 – No, The Watchtower.
1988 – Some will, according to their religious encyclopedia, Insight on the Scriptures, p. 616.
1988 – Yes, Insight on the Scriptures, p. 985.
1988 – No, according to the publication, The Revelation Climax, p. 273.
1988 – Yes, according to the publication, You Can Live Forever, p. 179 (old edition).
1988 – No, You Can Live Forever, p. 179 (new edition).
So, I am stumped. Can you help me to explain to them that these aren’t actual clarifications, but are changes? Can you also give me examples of real-life clarifications, as well as how a clarification differs from a change?
ChatGPT 3.5 answer:
Addressing the difference between a "clarification" and a
"change" in the context of religious teachings, especially within the
framework of Jehovah's Witnesses, can be nuanced. Let's break it down to help
you articulate your point.
Clarification vs. Change
1. Clarification: This involves providing more detail, explanation, or refinement to an existing teaching without altering its fundamental meaning or stance. It's akin to adding more information to help understand the original message better. For instance, if a religious group initially teaches that "prayer is important," a clarification might specify "prayer is important because it strengthens one's relationship with God and provides guidance."
2. Change: This involves a substantive alteration in the teaching or doctrine itself, where the new position differs from or contradicts the previous stance. Using the same example, if the initial teaching states "prayer is the only way to communicate with God," but later changes to "there are many ways to communicate with God, including prayer, meditation, and acts of kindness," this constitutes a change, not a clarification.
Examples from Jehovah's Witnesses
The changes you've listed regarding the resurrection of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah within Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings over the years do not appear as mere clarifications because the stance shifts back and forth between "yes" and "no." A clarification would entail providing more detail or reasoning without reversing the stance, such as further explaining why they would or would not be resurrected based on scriptural interpretation without changing the ultimate conclusion.
Real-life Clarification Example
A real-life example of a clarification might involve scientific understanding, such as the nature of Pluto. Initially classified as a planet, further clarification of what constitutes a planet led to Pluto being reclassified as a "dwarf planet." The fundamental understanding of Pluto didn't change—it was always a celestial body orbiting the Sun. What changed was the criteria for planet classification, refining our understanding without fundamentally altering what Pluto is.
Explaining to Your Friends
When discussing this with your friends, you might acknowledge the sincerity and faith that leads them to view these changes as "new light" or clarifications in understanding. However, you can gently point out that a true clarification would not reverse a position but rather expand upon it. Changes in doctrine, as evidenced by the shifting stance on a specific topic, reflect a more significant evolution in understanding or interpretation rather than a mere refinement of existing beliefs.
Emphasize that recognizing these as changes rather than clarifications doesn't have to undermine faith; rather, it can be seen as a testament to the dynamic nature of spiritual understanding and interpretation. It's also worth mentioning that the ability of a religious organization to adapt and change its teachings can be seen as a strength, showing responsiveness to deeper understanding or new insights, albeit acknowledging these as changes is crucial for transparent communication.
Top of Form
You
Yes, thank you. Can you please give me 3 more real-life examples? Please use a different field for each example. Also, please drill down a bit more in depth into the flip-flopping. I want to help them understand more clearly, and make it concise and succinct so as to enable them to see for themselves that their leaders are using semantics a little to coax them along and not "think for themselves."
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Certainly, providing diverse examples can help illuminate the distinction between clarification and change across different fields. Here are three examples from technology, law, and health guidelines, each showcasing the difference more vividly.
Technology: Definition of "Broadband" Internet Speed
1. Clarification: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) periodically updates its definition of "broadband" to reflect advancements in technology and user needs. If the FCC initially defined broadband as a minimum download speed and later provides detailed criteria including upload speeds, latency, and reliability, it's clarifying what broadband means in a modern context without altering the fundamental concept that broadband refers to high-speed internet.
2. Change: If the FCC initially defined broadband as any internet connection faster than dial-up and later changed it to specifically mean connections with download speeds of at least 25 Mbps and upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps, this is a change. The fundamental criteria for what qualifies as broadband have shifted.
Law: Legal Definitions and Rulings
1. Clarification: A legal clarification might occur when a higher court provides a more detailed interpretation of a law without changing its original intent. For example, if a law prohibits "using electronic devices while driving," a clarification might specify that "using" includes not just texting but also browsing the internet, without changing the law's intent to improve road safety.
2. Change: A change occurs when new legislation amends or replaces existing laws, altering their scope or application. For example, if a new law is passed that explicitly allows for the use of hands-free devices, contradicting a previous blanket ban on all electronic device use while driving, this represents a change in legal standards.
Health Guidelines: Dietary Recommendations
1. Clarification: If initial dietary guidelines recommend "eating more fruits and vegetables" and later clarifications specify "at least five servings of fruits and vegetables per day," it's refining the advice without altering the fundamental recommendation to increase fruit and vegetable intake for better health.
2. Change: A change would be if initial guidelines recommended avoiding all fats for heart health, but later revisions endorse the consumption of certain fats (like those from avocados, nuts, and fish) for their health benefits, clearly changing the stance on fat consumption in diets.
Addressing Flip-Flopping
In the context of the Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings you mentioned, the flip-flopping over the resurrection of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah isn't a series of clarifications but rather changes, as the stance reverses from "yes" to "no" and back. This indicates not just a refinement of understanding but a fundamental alteration in doctrine each time the position changes.
To help your friends see beyond semantics, focus on the essence of what a clarification should be—a deeper, more detailed explanation that doesn't contradict previous statements but builds upon them. In contrast, a change, especially one that flip-flops, indicates a significant revision or reversal of understanding.
Highlighting these distinctions can encourage critical thinking and self-reflection, suggesting that while seeking truth or understanding, it's crucial to differentiate between refining one's knowledge and fundamentally altering one's stance. Encourage them to consider whether the changes they observe are genuinely clarifications that add depth to existing beliefs, or if they represent significant doctrinal shifts that should be acknowledged as such.
Top of Form
Would you please comment in a similar way to another example as noted below:
Who are the people who make up the generation that Jesus mentioned at Matthew 24:34, which says, “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until [the end].” The generation applies to:
1886 – People who lived during the 100-year span from 1780 to 1880.
1952 – People living since 1914.
1968 – People at least 15 years of age.
1969 – Babies born since 1969.
1980 – People 10 years old and up.
1988 – Most of the generation of 1914 have passed away, but there are still millions on earth who were born in that year.
1988 – Not the span of many human generations, but rather a single generation, that of those alive in 1914.
2010 – Special “anointed” Jehovah’s Witnesses who were alive in 1914 that overlap with other “anointed” ones living from 1992 onward.
2014 – Jesus was referring to two groups that make up one generation.
You
Would you please comment in a similar way to another example as noted below: Who are the people who make up the generation that Jesus mentioned at Matthew 24:34, which says, “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until [the end].” The generation applies to: 1886 – People who lived during the 100-year span from 1780 to 1880. 1952 – People living since 1914. 1968 – People at least 15 years of age. 1969 – Babies born since 1969. 1980 – People 10 years old and up. 1988 – Most of the generation of 1914 have passed away, but there are still millions on earth who were born in that year. 1988 – Not the span of many human generations, but rather a single generation, that of those alive in 1914. 2010 – Special “anointed” Jehovah’s Witnesses who were alive in 1914 that overlap with other “anointed” ones living from 1992 onward. 2014 – Jesus was referring to two groups that make up one generation.
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
This example illustrates how the interpretation of "generation" in Matthew 24:34 by Jehovah's Witnesses has undergone multiple revisions, which reflect changes rather than clarifications over time. Each revision represents a significant shift in the understanding of what constitutes the "generation" that will not pass away until the end comes, according to their interpretation of this biblical prophecy.
Analysis of Changes
- 1886 Interpretation: The generation is defined as a 100-year span from 1780 to 1880. This is a clear, time-bound definition.
- 1952 Interpretation: Shifts to people living since 1914, marking a significant change from a historical 100-year period to a new starting point based on a significant date in Jehovah's Witnesses' eschatology.
- 1968 Interpretation: Changes to people at least 15 years of age, adjusting the criteria for who is included in this generation based on age, rather than a specific historical period or event.
- 1969 Interpretation: Adjusts again to include babies born since 1969, further altering the definition to encompass a new demographic.
- 1980 Interpretation: Specifies people 10 years old and up, again tweaking the demographic criteria for who constitutes the generation.
- 1988 Interpretation(s): Offers multiple views in the same year, initially noting that most of the generation of 1914 have passed away but millions born in that year are still alive, then asserting it refers to a single generation alive in 1914. This reflects internal inconsistencies and adjustments within a very short period.
- 2010 Interpretation: Introduces the concept of overlapping "anointed" Jehovah's Witnesses from 1914 onward, significantly altering the conceptual framework for understanding the "generation."
- 2014 Interpretation: Expands to include two groups making up one generation, further complicating the definition and indicating another significant change in interpretation.
Commentary
These shifts over time represent changes in doctrine rather than mere clarifications. A clarification would involve providing additional detail or explanation to an existing interpretation without contradicting it. However, each of these interpretations fundamentally alters the criteria for identifying the "generation" mentioned in Matthew 24:34, indicating substantial changes in understanding rather than refinements of a single, consistent teaching.
The varied interpretations over time suggest an evolving understanding that is redefined as previous interpretations become untenable or as new theological insights are developed. This process reflects a natural aspect of religious belief and interpretation, where understandings can evolve. However, acknowledging these as changes rather than clarifications is crucial for an honest appraisal of doctrinal development.
Encouraging Critical Reflection
When
discussing these changes with your friends, focus on the nature of doctrinal
development as a dynamic process that can lead to significant shifts in
understanding. Encourage them to consider whether the evolving interpretations
of the "generation" in Matthew 24:34 represent refinements of a
single idea or fundamental changes that redefine the concept each time.
Highlighting the distinction between clarification and change can help foster a
more nuanced view of how religious teachings can evolve and the importance of
acknowledging these shifts transparently.