by Tenacious 20 Replies latest watchtower scandals
In rummaging through some of my old CD's I came across a 2011 JW Library disk.
I have the most recent home release on my PC but was wondering if anyone knows if the GB has deleted or changed any embarrassing or outdated doctrine. I was going to throw it out but thought twice.
Any info is much appreciated.
Thanks.
I do know that the WTS updated terms in the new RNWT
NEVER, throw old publications and CD's of the Watchtower if you are thinking to keep them in your library. They are constantly changing the online library from the printed publications. There are many examples. I don't recall the Watchtower, I think it was 1989 January 1st. They clearly stated the preaching work would be completed " before the end of the century". Then on the printed volumes it was changed to "our day". Now that they almost stopped printing, and got rid of old publications, if you are thinking to keep them as reference, my suggestion is never throw anything. My library goes back to 1920, with Booze Jo's books. If you wanna read apostate material, just read old WT's publications
There was a sleazy re wording of some of the 'Truth' book to cover their a***. but i can recall just what.
Keep your CD.
I'am missing the yearbooks in the current library.
But I'am not 100% shure, that they were on the old CD.
I would be interested in other occasions of altered WT publications other than the 1989 WT. There have been some posts on here about updates in vocabulary in the Revised NWT, donkey instead of ass, for example.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/268983/my-nwt-2013
Other changes made by the WT in the Russell/Rutherford age:
https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/failed-1914-predictions.php
One of the most misleading statements in Watchtower publications is that they accurately foretold 1914 to be the “start” of the conclusion of this system of things. Rather, Watchtower falsely predicted 1914 to be the “end” of the system of things, the conclusion of Armageddon and the start of the earthly paradise.
It is important to know what Watchtower preached would happen in the years leading up to and including 1914, and compare this with what it now claims was said.
| What Watchtower said prior to 1914 | What Watchtower claims it said prior to 1914 |
| "The year A.D. 1878 … clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as King of kings, by our present, spiritual, invisible Lord - …" The Time is At Hand (1911 ed) p.239 | "The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence to honesthearted students of Bible prophecy that Jesus’ presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914." Watchtower1993 Jan 15 p.5 |
| "But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. Zion's Watch Tower 1894 Jul 15 p.226 | "Jehovah's witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of "the conclusion of the system of things." Awake! 1973 Jan 22 p.8 |
Watchtower 1989 January 1 p.12
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th
century."
(The 1989 Watchtower used the term "in our 20th century" in
the magazine, but this was changed to "in our day" for the bound
volume and subsequent CD library.
I can recall them changing things in the publications long before computerization and CDs, and for reasons other than expounding prophecy. For instance, there was a WT study article that commented on the place in John's gospel where heaven speaks (12:27-30), and the writer stated that the voice occurred to strengthen Jesus. The article directly contradicted what Jesus himself says in v. 30, "This voice did not come for my sake but for yours." This was not some simple error. The stated "application" of the passage was key to the writer's argument in the article. I remember how when this article was "studied" after the public talk, there was present in the congregation a strong sense of unease as the publishers and conductor danced around the WT statement and the scripture's context. When the bound volume came out for that year, the article had been rewritten with no trace of or explanation for the blunder. One would never know what the original article read.
I asked one old Gilead grad I knew about it. He told me that such things were pretty common, and that when he worked in various overseas Bethels, they regularly got paper notices form Brooklyn changing this and that in the publications. One of his collateral duties was to keep a paper file of all these. He said it was remarkable how many of these there were, and they were more than just changes in policy. They were errors in fact. He told me that purging such things in the bound volumes was standard procedure.
After discussing it with him, I came to the conclusion that two basic things were responsible for such blunders. It is not as though the WT writer was thinking, "Let's see how I can pervert the Bible today." Rather the first real reason is that the writers are under pretty severe deadline pressures and so are the proofreaders, so such errors come thru pretty regularly. But the second reason is far more serious and depressing. The official WT view of the Bible is that it is basically a depository of 30,000 or so proverbs, nicely divided into chapter and verse. The common thinking then is that the use of the Bible is mainly to dip into it, pick a verse, and apply it to whatever perceived need there is at hand. That's it. There is rarely, if ever, any attention given to context, in the small or large perspective. That's why the WT writer of that article could "apply" verse 28 the way he did without even thinking of verse 30. If I recall correctly (and that's shaky!), the "need" was something like, "Elders, don't get discouraged. Jehovah will help you out just like he did Jesus when he was down. He even spoke to him from heaven to raise his spirits."
What all this indicates is how poorly Witnesses know their Bibles. Sure, they know certain things like the biblical view of the soul's not being immortal, how to find the book of Daniel quickly, etc. But they are not taught the importance of context, so they just don't know it. They don't even think of it.
For those who might wonder about the ref to this WT study article, I don't have it handy, and looking at the official index and bound volumes won't help since that's all been sanitized. You'd have to get a copy of the original individual WT magazine. I do remember that it was in the mid-late 1980s, prior to 1989. I might be able to find the ref in files ... somewhere ... If someone would remind me, I'll look later.
One such misapplication is the 4th chapter of Proverbs verse 18. The context clearly is talking about the path of a righteous person as contrasting with an unrighteousness person, not new spiritual light being shed on Bible truth.
careful - "...they are not taught the importance of context..."
The importance of it?
I doubt most know what the word even means.
