JWs & Thological Books by Non-JWs

by Spotlight 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Spotlight

  Hi all,

  Haven't posted here for ages but thought this would be a great place to get some help with this one.

  I have noticed a current trend among some JWs who are in the habit of reading theological works by non-JWs. As far as I can see, the WT would certainly, at best, discourage this pass time, and at worst forbid it. A JW apologist who reads such books is telling me that JWs do this and are free to do carry on without hinderence from the WT in this area.

  From what I have found, the average JW would never spend the time reading a non-JW theological book. But it does seem that the practice is becoming popular especially with some JW apologists (see the Yahoo jehovahbible group for examples of this).

  My question to you here is, is this: When you were JWs (and for those of you who still are) how do you think this pass time would be viewed by the WT? Would you let others in the congregation be aware of what you are reading?

  I have written a letter to the WT asking them for their view on this, as I cannot find much on this in my library of WT material. They haven't got back yet, but if they do I will be sure to post the URL to the scanned letter here.

  I also have a fovour to ask: If anyone can afford the time, I would appreciate it if those with the WT CD Rom could look up what the WT has to say on this. That would be greatly appreciated as I just can't seem to get hold of one of those elusive CDs myself. Also, be sure that the stuff you provide me with will be put to wide use - I have a website and am writing an article on this whole subject.

  Respect to you guys!
• 

  blondie

  When the "Aid the Bible Understanding" book came out in 1970, it was designed to replace the need to use non-JW references. Note the cautions inside this excerpt:

  w70 2/15 pp. 108-109 "With All That You Acquire, Acquire Understanding"

  THE NEED FOR SUCH AN AID

  In view of the fact that there are many reference works available today in the form of Bible commentaries and dictionaries and other encyclopedic works, one may wonder why such a time-consuming project was undertaken. Though such available reference works do contain much that is helpful and useful, they also contain much that is unreliable, inaccurate or even false. In many Bible dictionaries and reference works there is a steady trend toward modernism and higher criticism of the Bible. It is viewed as merely the work of men, not an inspired document. Therefore the conclusions of historians and archaeologists are often accepted as equal to or greater in authority than the Bible. Older works generally support the Bible?s authority to a greater degree. But such older works are often not available to the average Bible student. Furthermore, even such older commentaries and dictionaries often proceed on the assumption of the reliability of religious traditions and doctrines that either are not mentioned in the Bible or are not supported by it. So a good portion of the material in these publications is colored by sectarian doctrines and religious creeds. This greatly reduces their value and benefit to one who is a minister of God.

  There is, therefore, great need for care and caution in using all such reference works, older or more recent. While claiming to contribute toward a better understanding of God?s Word, they either openly or subtly deny its accuracy and thereby undermine faith in it. An example of open denial is found in Volume 1 of The Interpreter?s Bible, page 501. Commenting on chapter 3 of Genesis, it states: "Man was forbidden on pain of death to eat of [the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil], the reason for the prohibition being God?s fear that man, acquiring knowledge of good and evil, might become like him and, approaching too near his throne, might endanger his supremacy. But the serpent, a demon hostile to God, told the truth. He was thus no subtle tempter but, in intention, at least, a benefactor of the human race." Now, contrast this statement with that of the apostle Paul, who, in expressing his concern for the Christians in Corinth, said: "I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent seduced Eve by its cunning, your minds might be corrupted away from the sincerity and the chastity that are due the Christ." (2 Cor. 11:3) Jesus called the one symbolized by the serpent, namely, Satan the Devil, a "liar and the father of the lie," as well as a "manslayer." (John 8:44) He did not call him a "benefactor of the human race."?Compare 1 John 4:1.
• 

  Undaunted Danny

  [ Wycliffe Bible Commentary - Prod Descriptions - Biblesoft.com ... The Wycliffe Bible Commentary on the whole Bible was written and edited by 48 distinguished scholars ... purpose of The Wycliffe Bible Commentary is to explain the Bible text in....] I caught hell when the homeboy elders @ Campton New Hampshire Kingdom hall found out I got a hold of the above valuable reference work back in the early 80's.No wonder!!! I found out later that the WT$ " writing dept" plagiarizes from it.[esoteric top secret] Just think,that experience was 20 years ago.I never would have imagined in my most outrageous dream/nightmare.That,first of all,we're still in 'this system'.and that I would be composing this reply on a world wide forum.

  [ Blondie your R+D is a very valuable resource thanks ]
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Depends on the BOE - many elders use non-JW sources for talks - I still think the WTBTS (Big Mother) does not really like it and if it could get away with it would totally ban it
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  Anyone ever notice when you tell the truth and give an honest real life useful interpetation of the bible the "true belivers"(all faiths) try to drag you kicking and screaming back into fantasy land? If you mantain you interpetation they will bring quotes in the bible or what ever book it is and thus prove the book conflicts its self. Then accuse your faith of being weaken after they just did their best to poke holes in your "boat of salvation".

  But also what is the big thing about if you "undermine faith" your faith. It is not their faith. When people say I can weaken my faith by doing X I ask them what is there to weaken? They often are puzzled becaue most never think of that.
• 

  Justin

  There are various kinds of reference works. Those that are more traditional, and take an inerrant view of the Bible, would of course be considered safer than those which take a critical view. There are 19th century commentaries which are "safer" in this regard.

  But, as pointed out, when the WTS publishes its own resources (such as the Aid book), it then becomes "unnecessary" to consult even conservative Bible dictionaries. Why do so, when the "slave" has provided its own material? Why even bother to use Strong's concordance to look up a verse when the Society has its own concordance to the NWT?

  A Witness apologist, however, may have taken it upon himself to defend the organization using the organization's own tactics of selectively consulting outside sources. The WT writers must of necessity quote scholars whose isolated statements seem to agree with WT teachings - whether regarding historical matters or questions of Bible translation, scientific theories, etc.

  There has always been a temptation for gifted, intelligent people to assume the role of another Russell or Rutherford and attempt to defend the "truth" on their own, even though they are discouraged from doing so. (Unless, of course, they have worked out some secret agreement to provide the organization with "outside help" - but this would only provide a bad example for the R&F.)

  The average JW might see an outside source quoted in a WT publication and would be encouraged to use this quote to support a teaching, but that same person would be discouraged from reading the actual source from which the quote was taken in order to get the larger context. So the apologist cannot be viewed as someone who exemplifies what the organization expects of its members.