Hi, I'm Tonus

[Minimalist]

the less the membership knows about your history, the easier it is to shape that history however you wish.

Yep...the friggin' catholics learned that in the 4th century.

[Something completely different]

Guten Abend

[Kayenneh]

Hello and welcome to AF! ^_^

[Aractus]

"Culty" is being kind.

Indeed, there is plenty to be concerned about with groups like the JW's.

The best description of the Jehovah's Witnesses is "a high-control cult." Not that I noticed in the time that I was there; I bought the story hook, line, and sinker. It probably stuck as long as it did because I was raised in that environment, and so it was 'normal.' My faith didn't fail because of the JWs as much as because the Bible did not convince me that god was real. Once I started to read about the JWs specifically, I was surprised to learn just how much I did not know about them. That's one of the control mechanisms- the less the membership knows about your history, the easier it is to shape that history however you wish. The internet is devastating to groups like that.

That's pretty much it. If the Watchtower was really God's prophet it would pass the test - ie something they've predicted in the past would have come to pass. As it is, they have been very specific about future events that didn't come to pass, thus they are clearly a false prophet. They shouldn't have to hide their past. Even if you aren't proud of your past, you shouldn't have to hide it - that's disgraceful.

I agree that they edit their version of the Bible to suit their aims, as well. In some ways, I see that as the modern-day equivalent of what has been happening to the Bible since it's first words were being written.

You have two issues here, and they're separate. The first is that Watchtower "edits" the Bible ... well, yes and no. In a sense they do by instructing their followers what to read and giving them "guidance to understand the meaning", and their translation the NWT is biased - I wouldn't so much say "edited" (except for the fact they put Jehovah's name into the New Testament), yes it's biased, and in parts the translation is poor because of the bias. For instance transliterating "Hades" instead of translating to "Hell". They don't like the concept of Hell, thus they'd prefer to "remove it" from the Bible if they could.

The second issue is the Biblical text itself generally. I was once taught - not in Church mind you - that the text of the Bible is completely unaltered from the original autographs. Now if I had been taught instead that the underlying text has never been intentionally altered, that would have been a far more correct assertion. We have a handful of areas in the OT that scholars are convinced contain errors. These errors are not hugely significant, but they are there. One example I like to use is 1 Samuel 13:1. Scholars have looked at it every which way and the majority view is the text is corrupt. The preferred view, of course, it to see if the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) can make sense without alteration. Since most scholars don't believe it can, they then look to see what it originally said. Some scholars read the LXX for that verse and conclude that the lost numbers must have been "30" and "40" (making 42). The LXX, however, is hardly an authoritative source - it's simply a number of early translations of the OT in a collection. The LXX was written sometime between 2nd century BC and 2nd century AD - and I lean towards the view that it was the 2nd century AD (or possibly first and second centuries AD).

Now to get back to the point. Most modern translations are translated by a team of scholars with a diverse range of views and expertise regarding the Biblical text, who come together to create a consistent translation. In other words, Genesis 5, Psalm 47, Matthew 9 and Romans 11 should all use consistent language and share the same level of literalism/interpretation of the original text. And furthermore we have scholars that expertise in textual criticism who ensure we have the original wording as much as possible.

There is certainly no evidence of any consistent attempt at modifying the text of the Bible. That isn't to say you won't find them - if you read the Samaritan Pentateuch you will find obvious instances of deliberate alteration to support their following. Since we find it so easily with their version, and their version is just the Pentateuch - just 5 of the 66 books of the Christian Bible - if the text really was modified deliberately over the years then it should be obvious and easy to locate where they are.

That's my approach. After almost 30 years of forcing myself not to know, and another 10 or so of slowly coming around, I simply enjoy learning without the guilt and without the self-imposed restrictions.

Anyone who doesn't want you to think for yourself clearly doesn't care about you. And that's pretty much the way I see the JW's. They do exactly as they're told, and they're taught exactly what the Watchtower wants them to know. We have Bible Colleges which are really quite "neutral", there's one here in Canberra that has that reputation - if you go in with a Fundamental theology, what you are taught will reinforce your beliefs and your views. But if you go in with a liberal theology, it will instead reinforce those beliefs and views for you! Some people say it's a "liberal" college, others say - well it's only "liberal" if you are "liberal" - they teach you what you need to know to think for yourself and don't overly force dogma or specific interpretations to you.

[KichigaiNeko]

[Tonus]

There is certainly no evidence of any consistent attempt at modifying the text of the Bible. That isn't to say you won't find them - if you read the Samaritan Pentateuch you will find obvious instances of deliberate alteration to support their following. Since we find it so easily with their version, and their version is just the Pentateuch - just 5 of the 66 books of the Christian Bible - if the text really was modified deliberately over the years then it should be obvious and easy to locate where they are.

I was thinking more of the original writings that would eventually become the Bible. As I understand it, they're mostly a collection of historical texts in the manner of the time that they were written, which is to say that they are myths and allegorical tales that were designed to help them cope with their past and present. They were influenced greatly by politics and culture, and thus were modified and expanded upon over time. The idea that people today take those books as literal truth, whole or in part, when the original writers did not is a fascinating concept to me.

Once the various writings were selected and assembled into what we have now, further modification could not be attempted on the scale that it was during the ages when those stories and histories were first being written or changed. Even so, minor changes like the change the JWs make to the NT can have profound effect. For example, their change to John 1:1 is used to reinforce their teaching that Jesus and Jehovah are two separate beings, whereas many Christian denominations consider them to be the same person. That's a significant change, IMO. Their inclusion of the name Jehovah in the NT also gives a different impression of the import given to god over Jesus by early Christians, which they use to reinforce their decision to worship Jehovah instead of Jesus.

Not being able to make radical changes to the writings once they were legitimized and codified as the Bible also gave rise to the many philosophical interpretations of the Bible and apologetic discussions designed to harmonize the sometimes discordant content. It's not a direct modification of the book, but I can imagine that in a few centuries, both scientific and archeological discoveries may force a radical alteration of its content.

[Aractus]

I was thinking more of the original writings that would eventually become the Bible. As I understand it, they're mostly a collection of historical texts in the manner of the time that they were written, which is to say that they are myths and allegorical tales that were designed to help them cope with their past and present. They were influenced greatly by politics and culture, and thus were modified and expanded upon over time. The idea that people today take those books as literal truth, whole or in part, when the original writers did not is a fascinating concept to me.

If you have clear evidence of this I'd like to see it. As it is, your view is they were "modified and expanded". I think that's largely nonsense. Especially with the discovery of the DSS - you have an Isaiah Scroll that is 2nd century BC that shows the MT text in the Leningrad Codex has not been deliberately altered since that time.

Once the various writings were selected and assembled into what we have now, further modification could not be attempted on the scale that it was during the ages when those stories and histories were first being written or changed. Even so, minor changes like the change the JWs make to the NT can have profound effect. For example, their change to John 1:1 is used to reinforce their teaching that Jesus and Jehovah are two separate beings, whereas many Christian denominations consider them to be the same person. That's a significant change, IMO.

That's not a change, that's a translation. Either translation of text is valid (God/"a god"), the translator needs to decide upon which version is preferable. The NWT was written by translators who's doctrine makes them deny the deity of Christ, hence the only option that makes sense to them is "a god". So it's an indication of poor translation, but it's not an "alteration". The problems with the NWT are not that the text was altered to suit Jehovah's Witnesses (except the name of God as you mention below). The problem is that it was translated with bias, which alters the meaning of some of the text when translated - including John 1:1.

Their inclusion of the name Jehovah in the NT also gives a different impression of the import given to god over Jesus by early Christians, which they use to reinforce their decision to worship Jehovah instead of Jesus.

Well the NT writers didn't write the Tetragrammaton - although they could have easily if they had wanted to. That reason alone is a reason not to change the text.

[festive1]

Welcome!

[Tonus]

If you have clear evidence of this I'd like to see it.

Mostly, my views on this are being shaped by books like Karen Armstrong's A History of God and the Bible Contradictions site. I don't know that I'd call it "clear" evidence, as it relies on study of the available archeological evidence, and to my knowledge the very earliest manuscripts of any parts of the Bible have not been found. But it seems that Biblical scholars generally take the view that I stated in my previous post. What I've read so far seems to fit pretty well, but I've got lots of material to read still. Heck, I don't even know what much of it will be, yet.

[Brian37]

Be sure to barbecue kittens, record the NFL without their permission, and rip the tags of your mattress.