How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat 164 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

slimboyfat

For JWs who believe that Jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how JWs managed to achieve a closer approximation to early Christian beliefs and practices than other groups. But is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
New Testament scholar James Dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:
We must attempt the exceedingly difficult task of shutting out the voices of early Fathers, Councils and dogmaticians down the centuries, in case they drown the earlier voices, in case the earlier voices were saying something different, in case they intended their words to speak with different force to their hearers.
James D.G. Dunn Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of Incarnation (1980), pages 13 and 14.
The reason JWs were able to arrive at a clearer understanding of what the biblical texts were saying was because they were willing to put aside the traditional dogmas of the church and creedal statements that had steadily drifted away from the teachings of early Christianity. The leaders of the Reformation were willing to do this to some extent, but they did not go the whole way, as they were unwilling to challenge the dogmatic statements of the fourth century church on Christ and the Trinity in particular. Another biblical scholar. Jason BeDuhn, invokes this as an explanation how those who translated the New World Translation managed to produce a version that is more faithful to the original:
The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, are more similar to the Protestants in their view that the Bible alone must be the source of truth in its every detail. So you might expect translators from this sect to labor under the Protestant Burden. But they do not for the simple reason that the Jehovah's Witness movement was and is a more radical break with the dominant Christian tradition of the previous millennium than most kinds of Protestantism. This movement has, unlike the Protestant Reformation, really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, you can probably understand that it resulted in the Jehovah's Witnesses approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. Some critics, of course, would say that the results of this process can be naive. But for Bible translation, at least, it has meant a fresh approach to the text, with far less presumption than that found in many of the Protestant translations.
Jason David BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (2003), pages 164 and 165.
Sea Breeze

Faulty premise in your OP question. The Watchtower is a satanic cess-pool of lies that robs people of the destiny that was bought for them on the cross.
The biblical promise of Justification has been denied to it's members at least since 1938:
"the other sheep are... not... even justified" Watchtower 1938 p. 104-105
Jeffro

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
They didn’t.
FreeTheMasons

There have always been individuals either unaffiliated with a larger church hierarchy or who kept their mouths closed while affiliated with a larger church hierarchy who knew the various false doctrines were inappropriate.
Russell chose specific doctrines to focus on that would make Watchtower look shiny and holy while at the same time lacing the lump with poison.
"Pyramid" is not found in the Bible.
Russell was an Egyptian freemason. Part of what they do is build empires, whether religious, business, or political. Watchtower is all three. Russell was a huge success in the masonic world, which is why he attracted other masons, and today the WT has been held up as a model of success - until now.
They got caught too many times with their hand in the cookie jar, and now it's about to be cut off by the same government institutions that have been covering for them and using them all these years.
Journeyman

Broadly, I agree with slim that the JW org have rightly avoided slavishly following the dogmas set by the early church fathers, many of which were inspired by pagan ideas, and this has helped them break free of the kind mental traps and pseudo-philosophical gymnastics we see when we look - for example - at threads on here about the Trinity, where some individuals can go on for pages and pages trying to justify what is plainly not supported in Scripture by quoting numerous supposed church 'scholars'.
The problem - common to all mankind as Jeremiah 10:23 states - is that in doing so, they have instead established their own dogmas over the 120+ years of their existence, and it is their unwillingness to recognise there may be error in any of these and their increasing inflexibility in those areas, that is likely to be their downfall. The most obvious of these is the whole reliance on Matthew 24:45 and certain key dates such as 1914 and 1919 to assert their own (exclusive) authority from God, and doubling down on it by excluding the rest of the 144,000 from that number but claiming it represents only today's GB (but every single one of them), to whom everyone must be unquestioningly obedient.
In my opinion, the modern-day Org especially is drawing the displeasure of Jehovah by measures like this (including rigidly refusing to significantly modify policies around CSA, disfellowshipping, etc) so though it may be possible that He views them as closer to "truth" than other churches and organisations, like the nation of Israel and even some congregations and individuals of the first-century Christian arrangement, they are certainly not wholly correct and fully obedient to God. The Org still tends towards being more hard-hearted and less humble and merciful than Jehovah and Jesus require (as evidenced by slippery behaviour like at the ARC and many recent court cases), and so are facing a shock in the near future when they receive divine discipline (and in fact may already be doing so, as seen by the "drying up" of their numbers, their confused doctrinal and organisational changes, their growing financial difficulties, and so on).
Elmer

I think Slim is still a JW at heart….
no-zombie

While I believe that your comment (Fatboyslim) is true, our Governing Body did not go far enough in trying to return to first century Christianity and as I mentioned in a past post, they became too heavily invested in the value of old Judaism.
However a deeper study of how early Christianity was practiced is still valuable. For I think that if God blessed the first century church, then what they believed and how they REALLY got on with their lives, could be useful to base our own faith upon.
For example, most never personally saw or heard more that a few letters from the Apostles, which is interesting to contemplate when we compare that fact with how much the GB bangs on about the essential nature of our 'spiritual food'.
Similar, all meetings were held in 'home churches' ... very much like our old Bookstudy groups, with most first century Christian never meeting others outside of that small circle. Which is again, in contrast to the message we get about our assemblies and conventions.
Finally (for the sake of brevity), there was no 'Organization' in the first century, which is quite contrary to the story we are told to support the legitimacy of the 'Faithful Slave' doctrine. And yet Christianity overcame hatred and REAL persecution, to spread throughout the known world, without one.
Yes, while things did became more dogmatic and rule based by the beginning of the third century, previous to that a person's individual conscious formed the basis of The Way ... a way of living, in stark contrast the violent and hedonist lifestyle of the average Roman citizen ...
no-zombie

Whether Slim is or isn't is a matter for himself, however I still think that there is value in trying to salvage a spiritual life from the wreckage of our past experiences.
aqwsed12345
Some resources:
The assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses have a "clearer understanding" of the Bible assumes a superior interpretive framework compared to traditional Christianity. However, this claim is subjective and must be critically examined. The argument that JWs rejected the traditional dogmas of the early church and returned to "raw" biblical material may sound appealing, but it overlooks centuries of theological development guided by the Holy Spirit, as witnessed by the early Church Fathers and ecumenical councils.
The New Testament itself provides evidence of an authoritative teaching structure established by the apostles, which was intended to be passed down through apostolic succession (2 Timothy 2:2; 1 Timothy 3:15). The early Church did not abandon Scripture but worked diligently to preserve and transmit its message through councils and creeds, such as Nicaea and Chalcedon, which sought to clarify Christological doctrines in the face of heretical movements. The idea that a complete break from these traditions, as advocated by the Jehovah's Witnesses, results in a purer form of Christianity ignores the guidance that these councils offered in preserving orthodoxy.
One of the most significant breaks from traditional Christianity by the Jehovah’s Witnesses is their rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. They claim to have "reinvented" Christianity by rejecting traditional dogmas that they believe obscure the truth. Yet, the Trinity is not an invention of fourth-century councils but a doctrine rooted in the New Testament itself. The terms "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" are used in a relational context (Matthew 28:19), and passages such as John 1:1, John 8:58, and Philippians 2:6 show that Jesus was understood as divine in the early Christian community.
The early Church did not "drift away" from the teachings of Scripture; rather, it responded to heresies that misunderstood or distorted the identity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. For instance, the Arian heresy, which denied the full divinity of Christ, was directly addressed by the Council of Nicaea. The resulting Nicene Creed was a defense of the biblical truth that Jesus is fully God and fully man, not a deviation from biblical teaching.
Jason BeDuhn praises the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation for its “fresh approach” to Bible translation, free from the biases of traditional Christianity. However, this argument overlooks the substantial scholarly criticism that the NWT has received for its deliberate mistranslations that conform to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theological positions.
A prime example is the rendering of John 1:1 in the NWT as "the Word was a god," rather than "the Word was God." This translation violates standard Greek grammar and has been rejected by mainstream biblical scholars across various denominations. The translation reflects the Jehovah’s Witnesses' denial of Christ's deity rather than a "fresh" or "innocent" reading of the text. Similar issues arise with their translation of Colossians 1:16-17, where the word "other" is inserted to suggest that Christ is a created/made being (while according to the NT the Son is born/begotten), despite the absence of the term in the Greek text.
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that traditional Christianity became corrupted shortly after the apostolic age, and they seek to “restore” “true” Christianity. This notion aligns with many restorationist movements but lacks historical grounding. The early Church, despite persecution and doctrinal challenges, remained steadfast in its core beliefs about Christ, salvation, and the sacraments. The apostolic succession ensured doctrinal continuity, and the early creeds were expressions of the Church's commitment to apostolic teaching, not inventions that deviated from it.
To suggest that the early Church quickly fell into apostasy undermines Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18 that even "the gates of Hades will not overcome" His Church. This promise implies a continuity of truth and divine protection over His Church throughout history. The notion of a complete apostasy, only to be restored in the 19th century, does not align with the biblical understanding of the Church as the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
While Jehovah’s Witnesses reject church tradition, the New Testament itself does not advocate for "Scripture alone" as the sole authority. In addition, the JWs' treatment of the Bible goes beyond the "sola Scriptura" principle of the Protestant Reformation, and can rather be described as "nuda Scriptura" based speculation. As mentioned earlier, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 instructs believers to "stand firm and hold to the traditions" passed down by the apostles. This indicates that oral tradition and the living teaching authority of the Church were essential for preserving the faith. The early Church recognized the need for an authoritative teaching body to interpret Scripture correctly and guard against heresies.
In contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses, by breaking from tradition and historical Christian orthodoxy, have introduced significant doctrinal errors, such as their denial of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and their belief in Christ's invisible return in 1914. These positions are not supported by a plain reading of Scripture but are the result of unique interpretations that deviate from the historic Christian faith.
While the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to have „rediscovered” “true” Christianity by rejecting traditional dogmas and starting afresh with the Bible, their approach has led to doctrinal innovations that are not supported by Scripture or early Christian history. The rejection of the Trinity, the reinterpretation of key biblical texts, and the assertion that the early Church quickly fell into apostasy conflict with the biblical promise of Christ's continued presence with His Church and the historical evidence of doctrinal continuity.
The Catholic Church, along with other traditional Christian denominations, maintains a direct link to the teachings of the apostles through Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. This continuity ensures that the faith "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) is preserved and faithfully taught.
peacefulpete

The WT doctrines are hardly a 'clearer understanding' of the texts of the Bible. Theirs, like all church doctrines depend upon selective reading and eisegesis. The Catholic church at least has a core tenet that revelation is progressive, (Progressive revelation (Christianity) - Wikipedia) that is actually a much more mature approach to the diverse collection of writings in the Bible. The WT basically glosses the writings and misses or disregards the changing character of Judaism and later Christianity.
Ironically, they then use a similar progressive revelation excuse for their own adjustments in doctrine.

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

Share this