Words omitted from a Watchtower article

by Doug Mason 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Doug Mason

  Hi,

  A short time ago I sought information regarding a quotation in The Watchtower of April 1, 2010, which did not identify the exact source of the quotation from Professor Oskar Skarsaune. My interest was heightened because words had been omitted from the source.

  The WTS provided a copy of the original 29-page article, which is in Norwegian.

  Here is my very unofficial personal translation of the passage from Professor Skarsaune's article that the Watchtower is quoting. Firstly I provide the text as it appears in the Watchtower magazine, highlighting where the text has been omitted. I then provide my unofficial translation, which corresponds with a translation done independently for me by a non-Norwegian friend. I have formatted the text to make it easier to see the text that has been omitted.
  
  Read the remaining context of the Watchtower article.
  
  Doug
  ------------------------
  The Watchtower: April 1, 2010, pages 27-28
  
  Note what Professor of Church History Oskar Skarsaune states:

  “Which writings that were to be included in the New Testament, and which were not, was never decided upon by any church council or by any single person
  …
  The criteria were quite open and very sensible: Writings from the first century C.E. that were regarded as written by apostles or by their fellow workers were regarded as reliable. Other writings, letters, or ‘gospels’ that were written later were not included
  …
  This process was essentially completed a long time before Constantine and a long time before his church of power had been established. It was the church of martyrs, not the church of power, that gave us the New Testament.”
  -------------------------
  Translation using online resources by Doug Mason of the article by Professor Skarsaune,'Den mest rystende aysloringen de siste 2000 arene': Fra Da Vinci-koden til Den Hellige Gral", page 23
  
  Which writings were to be included in the New Testament, and which were not, was never passed by any church fashion or by any individual,
  

  but was the result of a process in which many churches in all parts of the church were involved, and where the selection
  

  criteria were completely open and actually very sensible: Writings from the first century AD, which was considered authored by apostles or their employees were regarded as credible. Other writings, letters, or ‘gospels’ that were written later were not included,
  
  whether they agreed with the New Testament writings in content or not.
  
  This process was essentially completed long before Constantine, and long before his “power church” was established. It was the martyr Church, not the power church, which gave us the New Testament.
  
  And the Martyr Church had no central power authority which could eradicate and suppress alternative fonts.
• 

  Terry

  Thank you, Doug. My grandmother, who had been raised Catholic, use to tell me about sins of omission and sins of commission. The policy of selective support narratives (partial quoting of sources) is an unusual hybrid sin, isn't it :)

  The most evident demonstration of a scholastic inferiority complex by the Watchtower's elite core of 'channelers' is their quote mining.
  It is habit (a bad one) developed before the age of the internet which I would compare to the Catholic Church's use of Latin in the Mass.
  
  Now that anything can be investigated by an armchair sleuth, the curtain is pulled back and the light of day floods in.
• 

  ttdtt

  This is SOP for the WT. I don't understand how the people writing the articles can do this?

  This is one I picked up as soon as I read it. Sounded fishy. http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/watchtower-again-misquotes-scientist-to-argue-against-evolution-and-this-time-its-personal

  Anytime you read something that deals with science in a WT it will be BS.
• 

  TimDrake1914

  Reading the original, unedited quotes, I find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning behind omitting those other words. It doesn't really affect too much what he wrote, and I see no good reason for even omitting them. I guess they are so used to doing it at this point that it probably feels weird for them NOT to omit words from quotes, even if it doesn't affect the point they are trying to make.
• 

  ILoveTTATT2

  Actually, Tim, the words

  "but was the result of a process in which many churches in all parts of the church were involved, and where the selection"

  Completely change the meaning of the quote from the WT's viewpoint. The WT wants it to seem like there was no "Catholic" or central church that decided upon the NT canon, but the reality is that there was. It was "the church" as a whole that decided the canon, an already existing entity.
• 

  ttdtt

  Yes ILoveTTATT2

  2 minutes ago

  In reality - the same people who decided in the TRINITY decided the Cannon.

  The Catholic church is responsible for both those, as well as spreading the good news of the kingdom and Jesus to the world. Sorry JWs - the Catholic are the ones who made it known to the ends of the earth, not JWs.

  JWs only have any success (very small in reality) in countries where the CC already brought christianity.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  The "Church" is the body of Christ, according to my understanding of the Bible. It seems like it did not take long for legalism/organized/separate churches to spring up.

  The WTBTS just does not want to admit that "False Religion" decided which dusty scrolls became the Bible.

  DD
• 

  jwfacts

  TimDrake19149 hours ago

  Reading the original, unedited quotes, I find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning behind omitting those other words. It doesn't really affect too much what he wrote, and I see no good reason for even omitting them.

  Watchtower wants followers to think that the Bible Canon was closed by the Apostles, not at some later period by the Church. Research into topic reveals that several different Bible Canons available, and it becomes obvious that the Bible in not a selection of books compiled by God's direction, but rather varied depending on the choices of men and the church over the centuries.
• 

  TimDrake1914

  I guess where I'm confused about the quote is that, both the real story of how the New Testament canon was decided, as well as WT's views on it, seem like a very complicated, not-so-straight forward story to tell. Reading Bart Ehrman's blogs, I'm aware that the real story about how the canon was decided was a long, drawn out process that took place over hundreds of years via many arguments and disagreements between many churches and church fathers.

  However, I don't think I've ever read anything from WT that specifically tries to contradict this story, or anything remotely close that tries to explain in detail how the canon was established. The closest thing I can think of is the "All Scripture" book that gives the reasoning behind why each book in their Bible can be considered inspired. But even that book has fallen on the wayside, and it seems as if now, and even back then, they've always shied away from trying to specifically explain why other "apocryphal" books are not inspired writings.
• 

  Terry

  The "hook" for JW's in luring away Bible believing church members is a basic form of 'bait and switch' in debunking certain proof texts on the one hand, but on the other hand, replacing those foundations with displacement scriptures and contrived contexts.

  The key to all that is the acceptance of an inspired source book.
  JW's must posit corruption only so far, otherwise, they've burned down the barn to rid themselves of rats.

  This requires considerable cognitive dissonance.

  Watchtower indoctrination consists of the death-by-a-thousand-cuts. Trimming, pruning, excising, surgically removing tidbits while replacing, adding, implying, conjecturing, and misrepresenting the replacement ideas.

  Insidious disinformation mixed with wholesale disengenousness is a deadly cocktail.