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.
You might find my charts at pages 57 to 64 of my Study helpful:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Why_Does_WTS_Accept_Christendoms_Scriptures.pdf
When I give these page numbers, I mean the numbers at the bottom of the page, not the PDF page numbers. I should set about correcting that anomaly.
Doug
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.
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.
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.
the person may have prepared himself psychologically for an event that never eventuates, and, worse still, may have even made public his predictions about the event.
what happens when an important prophecy fails and dissonance is aroused between what was predicted and what actually occurred is described in the classic field study carried out by festinger, riecken and schachter (1956).
in the mid-1950s mrs marion keech, a suburban housewife, began to receive messages from outer space.
The person may have prepared himself psychologically for an event that never eventuates, and, worse still, may have even made public his predictions about the event. What happens when an important prophecy fails and dissonance is aroused between what was predicted and what actually occurred is described in the classic field study carried out by Festinger, Riecken and Schachter (1956). In the mid-1950s Mrs Marion Keech, a suburban housewife, began to receive messages from outer space. Americans and Canadians were intrigued because Mrs Keech claimed that the message foretold an impending flood that would inundate all of North America on December 21. The publicity given to Mrs Keech and her messages attracted a small following of believers, as well as Festinger, Riecken and Schachter, who infiltrated the group in order to see how Mrs Keech would react on December 22. On December 20 Mrs Keech received a message informing her that the group should be ready to receive a visitor who would arrive at midnight to transport all of them on a flying saucer to the safety of outer space. Midnight came, but no visitor arrived, and the predicted flood was less than seven hours away. Gradually despair and confusion descended upon the group, and Mrs Keech broke down and began to cry bitterly. The messages were read and reread in case some clue had been overlooked. One explanation after another of the visitor’s failure to appear was considered and rejected. Then at 4.45 a.m. Mrs Keech called the group together and announced she had received a message. In the style of an Old Testament prophet she announced that God had saved the world from destruction because the little group, sitting all night long, had spread so much light that it, and not water, was now flooding the Earth.
Mrs Keech handled the dissonance existing between the drastic prophecy and the mundane reality by providing a rationalization for the discrepancy between the two. But she also had to deal with the widespread publicity she had received in the mass media. One way of reducing dissonance is to seek the support of others; if others provide social support the individual is better able to convince himself that his belief was correct. Mrs Keech and the believers, who had been rather shy of publicity before the disconfirmation, now became insatiable publicity seekers and carried out active attempts at proselytization in order to swell the numbers of supporters. In case one is tempted to feel smug about Mrs Keech’s disconfirmed expectancy, it is appropriate to point out that social psychologists also suffer the dissonance of disconfirmed expectations. In 1960, Hardyck and Braden (1962) investigated a group of “faithful” evangelists who prophesied a widespread nuclear disaster on August 15. The disaster did not eventuate but neither did the group seek publicity or social support for their beliefs. Other prophets of doom, completely out of touch with reality, apparently suffer little dissonance when their expectancies are disconfirmed. Thomas Beverly, rector of Lilley, in Hertfordshire, England in the late 17th century was totally immune to cognitive dissonance. In 1695 Beverly wrote a book predicting that the world would end in 1697. In 1698 he wrote a second book complaining that the world had ended in 1697 but that nobody had noticed. It is clear that disconfirmed expectancies may lead to a variety of reactions, not all of them directed toward the reduction of dissonance. It seems that the good people of Hertfordshire have a penchant for prophecy. A religious society placed an advertisement in the local newspaper on Monday, December 9, 1968: “The world is definitely coming to an end on Wednesday December 11, at noon precisely. A full report will appear in this newspaper next Friday . . .”
(Social Psychology, Leon Mann, John Wiley & Sons Australasia 1969, pages 123-124)
hello everyone, this info below me is not mine it's from a user in reddit that posted it.
his user name is question_and_answer1 i was hoping he was in this forum too but i don't know if he is.
anyway the credit goes to him for researching this and it's really interesting what he found and i want everyone here to read, and it's proof of how fake the watchtower is and how disgusting the gb really is...it's sickening.
Although the WTS amends the text to suit its own ends, the sad fact is that this has been going on ever since the writings were first produced. So much so that those who study textual criticism bemoan the fact that they will never be able to unearth the original text.
Today there is a variety of sources as well as a number of canons. For example, while the early Christians preferred the Septuagint, the Jews denied that source and have only accepted the Masoretic Text, which is about 1000 years younger. Not that there is a single Septuagint, with variants being produced by Symachus, Theodotian, etc.The witness provided by the Dead Sea community shows that only the scroll of Isaiah reflects the present-day text. Others, such as Habbakuk, vary from the texts we use today.
And Isaiah is a composite writing, with the first 39 chapters being assigned to Isaiah of the 8th century while the remainder, which was written in his style, was prepared 200 years later by the neo-Babylonian exiles (including the WTS's beloved Isa 43:10).
So the text and the canon have been and remain fluid. Some scholars would like to revisit the NT Canon, inasmuch as some writings are incorrectly attributed to Paul and to Peter.
Just keep track of the WT's interference with the text it accepts (from 19th century Christendom) and anlayse the reason for the changes it makes.
Doug
i have read both of franz' books and am almost done carl jonsson's first book.
i was able to get this material as .pdf and read for free.. i hate to sound cheap, but i cannot find the sign of the times in .pdf.. does anybody have a link to it?
or can i borrow your copy and mail it back when done?.
Do you mean "The Sign of the Last Days When?" (1987) by Carl Olof Jonsson and Wolfgang Herbst?
Doug
i am calling on the combined scholarship of this site to help me with my research..
under the subheading of “who selected the canon?”, pages 27-28 of the watchtower of april 1, 2010 quotes professor oskar skarsaune and professor kenneth berding..
the watchtower writes:.
Thanks, Mephis.
Doug
lve been researching the early days of the jw"s and found some very damning information which needs to be discussed at length.according to my research it is claimed that early founders used the pyramids to work out important biblical dates that are now dates set in stone according to the beliefs of the sect and can not be changed as it would rock the very foundation upon which their beliefs are built.l was hoping for somone with a precise understanding to please elaborate whether this is true or not.
Russell borrowed everything. The ideas surrounding the dimensions of the pyramids originated with Piazzi Smyth, a British Israelite and astronomer-royal for Scotland. Email me and I can send you a copy of his 1880 book. For Russell' reliance on Smyth, see page 11 at:
http://jwstudies.com/Changed_MD_and_SS_words.pdf
Russell employed dimensions called "pyramid inches". When his dates failed, the pyramids stretched in the sun and the dimensions changed. See pages 11 and 12 of Shadduck's "Seven Thunders of Millennial Dawn". Rutherford lost a huge number of followers when he dropped the pyramids.
The books by John and Morton Edgar provide an insight into the significance seen in the pyramids. The brothers openly acknowledge Russell.
Doug
i am calling on the combined scholarship of this site to help me with my research..
under the subheading of “who selected the canon?”, pages 27-28 of the watchtower of april 1, 2010 quotes professor oskar skarsaune and professor kenneth berding..
the watchtower writes:.
I am calling on the combined scholarship of this site to help me with my research.
Under the subheading of “Who Selected the Canon?”, pages 27-28 of The Watchtower of April 1, 2010 quotes Professor Oskar Skarsaune and Professor Kenneth Berding.
The Watchtower writes:
“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.”
I need to know four things regarding this quotation:
(1) Where does the quotation come from? The Watchtower article provides no attribution. I have already asked the Professor and he replied that he could have written it but he cannot locate it in his Norwegian or English books or articles. He commented “Interesting!”
(2) What are the words which are omitted from the quotation? My suspicions are always raised when the Watch Tower Society resorts to this tactic.
(3) What is the complete context of the quotation?
(4) What are the overall positions taken by the article?
Professor Oskar Skarsaune’s views on canonization are available at Chapter 14 of his book, “In The Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity”.
So, can you help solve the questions I pose?
-----------
The Watchtower magazine then writes:
“Ken Berding, an associate professor whose field of study is the Christian Greek Scriptures, gives this comment about how the canon emerged: 'The church did not establish a canon of its choosing; it is more proper to speak of the church recognizing the books that Christians had always considered to be an authoritative Word from God.' ”
Once again, The Watchtower magazine fails to provide its source. But for your information, the article by Kenneth Berding is available online at:
http://www.talbot.edu/sundoulos/spring-2007/lead-article/
The sentence cited by The Watchtower appears in the article’s Summary, which reads:
“The teachings of the Lord and his apostles were considered self-authenticating and authoritative from the days they were first spoken/written. As the apostles died off, orthodox Christians continued to use the writings of the apostles as authoritative. Such Christians recognized a distinction between the writings of the apostolic circle and later Christians who wrote edifying material. The church did not establish a canon of its choosing; it is more proper to speak of the church recognizing the books that Christians had always considered to be an authoritative Word from God.”
Note Berding's emphases with the use of italics.
A key expression in Berding's article that The Watchtower carefully does not provide is: “self-authenticating”. The Watch Tower Society wishes to make it appear as if their first-century counterparts were responsible for making the decisions. The article by Kenneth Berding shows that the Watch Tower Society's position is untenable.
-----------
Doug
i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.
however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.
some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.
I offer you my suggestion of the chiastic structure of the context as well as of the parallel discourses in Mark and Luke.
Remember that Matthew 24 is part of the larger context running from Matthew 23 to 25. The material was compiled following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, where many were saying this marked the End of the Ages. The writers, however were saying that they were not to be taken in by deceivers who were pointing to these wars, etc. as portents. Matthew 23 starts with the temple and that focus continues in Chapter 24.
You will find my suggested Chiasms at:
http://jwstudies.com/chiasms_at_Matt24__Mark13__Luke21.pdf
The central or turning point of a chiams points to the focus of purpose of the passage. In this case, the main message relates to escaping (Matth 24:13-14 and 15-16)
Doug
