Thanks I. Wonder!
Says M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): "In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7)." It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the "son of Heli."—Lu 3:23.
Last night after I got home from work, I found a similar reference in the earlier Aid book. Notice the reference to M'Clintock and Strong's, which to the casual reader would be thought to refer directly to Luke's account. The Cyclopaedia reference, though, is a commentary on Numbers, not Luke, and the conclusion "It is undoubtedly for this reason..." is a perfect example of the way WTS literature links quotes out of context to its conclusions.
I was a very active "publisher" from the age of 5, later a "pioneer", remaining active until somewhere in the late 1990s (don't remember exactly *hah* as I faded over several years). During that time I conducted MANY Bible studies with people, and I have repeated the above explanation nearly verbatim more times than I can count. It was solid in my head as FACT.
I discovered the discrepancy between the WTS teaching of Jerusalem's destruction in 607 B.C.E. and history's record that it was destroyed in 586 or 587 B.C.E. when I was in high school studying World History (1968 or so). But my father's answer was that we must trust the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" because they have Jehovah's direction. Implication being, of course, "they would never lie to us".
I also wondered greatly about the insertion of the name Jehovah into the New Testament of the New World Translation. You see, I am old enough that my first Bible was the American Standard Version, which had the name Jehovah throughout the OT but not the new. The NWT was first released in parts -- and the big surprise was the NT "featuring" the Divine Name. How was it that NO OTHER BIBLE TRANSLATION had done that? How could every other scholar in the world be mistaken? But of course, I swallowed it whole like medicine -- it was supposed to be good for me.
Those were big lies to me (artifical chronology ala 607 B.C.E. and inserting names into the Bible text ala Jehovah in NT), when I finally figured them out many years later. But now it is the "little" things (like the geneology of Luke question) that are really starting to bug me.
Discovering that the geneaology of Luke has been interpreted MANY ways by EXPERTS (while I was only ever taught one way as if that were irrefutable fact) just really struck a chord with me. Is there something wrong with presenting more than one explanation for a scriptural passage? Apparently not, as the WTS has changed explanations frequently about many passages. The NWT itself has undergone several "revisions". But what seems to be totally forbidden is to present more than one explanation AT A TIME. That, of course, would require that the R & F Witness actually THINK -- and we know how dangerous that would be!!
No wonder the WTS discourages education!! I was in my 40s and thoroughly indoctrinated when I took my first college class. Still took me ten years to progress from wondering about things to joining this forum and actually reading what the "other side" had to say.
All I know is, boy do I have a lot to learn!
NanaR
