by Phizzy 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The JW org has removed certain verses from their NWT version, claiming usually that what is removed is not found in the oldest MSS, that claim is fair enough, until you ask a simple question, this :
" If you are going to remove Interpolations from the Bible, where do you stop?".
The org. does not recognise/acknowledge the many hundreds of interpolations that there are, but the question above is valid, and poses a problem for them, and all who do this in their Bible versions.
Frankly, it is not the only translation that handles those verses like that.
Erasmus himself practiced textual criticism. How else would he have decided what to include and what to omit from multiple manuscripts?
Phizzy raised a good question in the opening post. But I am looking at the significance of the question from the opposite perspective of what I think Phizzy is looking at it. You see, to me the Bible (even the NT) has too many books in it. To me the Bible has books in it which never should have been included in it.
Several months ago I started thinking that the WT should adopt their own canon of the NT, one which excludes the books which NT critical scholars say are written under a false name (and that future WT revisions of the NWT should reflect that revised canon). For example, the WT should exclude the Letter of 2 Peter and the Letter to Titus.
In addition, the WT should exclude the letter of Jude and the book of Revelation and the book of Esther.
But the WT would never want to do any of those actions. But hypothetically, if the WT were to do such it would change the religion dramatically and it would be another way they could distinguish their religion from other religions of Christianity (religions which the WT claims are apostate). Making such changes would enable them to make their religion much more liberal, much less fundamentalist minded, and much less focused on the idea of Armageddon and of the idea of a God who will slaughter billions of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forged_(book) says the following.
"New Testament books identified as forgeries by Ehrman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter says the following.
'Although the text identifies Peter as its author, the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter have led most scholars to conclude that it is pseudonymous.[3][4][5] Many scholars argue that Peter was not the author of the letter because its writer appears to have had a formal education in rhetoric and philosophy, and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language,[6] none of which would be usual for a Galilean fisherman.
New Testament scholar Graham Stanton rejects Petrine authorship because 1 Peter was most likely written during the reign of Domitian in AD 81, which is when he believes widespread Christian persecution began, which is long after the death of Peter.[7][page needed] More recent scholars such as Travis Williams say that the persecution described does not appear to be describing official Roman persecutions after Peter's death, thus not directly ruling out an early date for the composition of the epistle.[8]
Another dating issue is the reference to "Babylon" in chapter 5 verse 13, generally agreed to be a claim the letter was written from Rome. It is believed that the identification of Rome with Babylon, the ancient enemy of the Jews, only came after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.[9] Other scholars doubt Petrine authorship because they are convinced that 1 Peter is dependent on the Pauline epistles and thus was written after Paul the Apostle's ministry because it shares many of the same motifs espoused in Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles.[10]
'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter says the following.
'The text identifies the author as "Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ" and the epistle is traditionally attributed to Peter the Apostle, but most scholars consider the epistle pseudepigraphical (i.e., authored by one or more of Peter's followers in Ancient Rome, using Peter as a pseudonym)[3][4][5][6][7] 'Imagine if the WT religion were to become so theologically bold that it excluded much of the NT from the NWT (or had much of it only in tiny print), and called the excluded books forgeries and books of apostate Christianity. It might even result in making the religion much more appealing to young people. Such especially might would be the case if the WT also greatly reduced their authoritarian ways (and allowed JWs to openly disagree with WT teachings, but outside of worship services), became a somewhat humanistic type of Christianity, stopped requiring field service, stopped speaking negatively of college education, stopped saying that blood transfusions are bad, and said that biological evolution (macroevolution) might be reality.
Disillusioned JW:
Several months ago I started thinking that the WT should adopt their own canon of the NT, one which excludes the books which NT critical scholars say are written under a false name (and that future WT revisions of the NWT should reflect that revised canon). For example, the WT should exclude the Letter of 2 Peter and the Letter to Titus.
Why? The Watch Tower Society doesn't care about verses of the Bible that directly contradict their beliefs, let alone what professional scholars have to say about the Bible canon.
Gods holy, sacred book, apparently dictated to faithful servants. As the WT says:
Most Bible writers acknowledged that they wrote in the name of Jehovah, the one true God, and that they were guided by him. Prophets who wrote the Hebrew Scriptures proclaimed more than 300 times: “This is what Jehovah has said.” (Amos 1:3; Micah 2:3; Nahum 1:12) Other writers received God’s message through angels.—Zechariah 1:7, 9.
The Bible was written by some 40 men over the course of 1,600 years. Some men were used to write more than one book of the Bible. In fact, the Bible is a miniature library of 66 books. It consists of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures, called by many the Old Testament, and the 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, often called the New Testament.
If it is so trustworthy, why does the WT feel the need to change anything?
I agree fully with the point made above that the NWT is not unique in this removal of verses not found in early MSS, and my question applies to all who do it,
I know of course the selection of the approved Canons of Scripture excluded a lot of whole Works and other bits no doubt, but working with what we have, as I said, where do you stop ? Why exclude just a few ? there are hundred of interpolations from beginning to end, Gen. to Rev.
I think they should be included, but marked off in some way, with an explanation.
The WT can't have verses contradicting it's theology
