Watchtower Theology is PROPPED UP by proof texts.
If the Texts are inspired, the Watchtower claims it is empowered to REVEAL the meaning.
But--consider how flimsy, inauthentic and unprovable the foundation of this teaching really is.
Consider the difference (if any) in meaning between these two renderings.
1.All Scripture IS inspired by God and useful for teaching, reproving and setting things straight.
Contrasted with:
2.All Scripture THAT IS inspired by God IS useful for teaching, reproving and setting things straight
The difference between these two renderings contains the key to the question of ORTHODOXY.
All of the scriptures THAT REALLY ARE inspired are more valuable and authentic than ones that are NOT inspired. But--how can we discern, determine and prove which is which?? We CAN'T!
JW theology stands or falls on their assertion that the Bible is the inerrent word of God. By pointing to a particular WORD they contend to PROVE their theology.
Proof texts are the essential weapon of the Jehovah's Witness in religious discussion.
Proof texts PROP up JW theology!
But, can their text (or any Bible based text) be considered a safe basis for honest rendering of God's words?
Trying to out-clever a JW at the door is just jumping into the swimming pool and peeing. Everybody comes out slightly yellow.
I assert the only way to pull a JW out by their roots is to take on the issue of the Bible itself. The Bible CAN BE DEMONSTRATED to be unreliable as to what words are "accurate". That is ALL you have to do.
If you cannot trust the WORDS you cannot PROVE a doctrine by pointing to the words.
What are the FACTS?
1.The New Testament is "preserved" in 5,000 Greek manuscripts and 8,000 manuscripts of "versions".
2.Textual critics are forced to admit NO TWO manuscripts agree in every detail.
Quibble? Hardly! You have to have a foundational fact to build an argument. You cannot accurately begin with a doubt and confidence your doctrine is based on settled authority.
What use are the 8,000 manuscripts of "versions"?
1.They are themselves translations of one or more Greek manuscripts. The cannot help in deciding if the Parent Greek Manuscript had this or that VARIATION.
Why? Because VARIATION can be added either through ERROR or deliberate RELIGIOUS FRAUD at any point in making a copy. All you can establish is whether a particular variant existed at a certain point in time and place.
2.You cannot simply take the oldest manuscript and declare it to be unblemished in content and trust it.
Why not?
The oldest copy could, in themselves, be very poor copies riddled with error or pious fraud or be based on something entirely bogus invented to prop up a particular viewpoint. Ironically, much later copies could be the more pristine! It is impossible to know. Only guesswork can apply.
Example: A 10th Century miniscule may be an excellent copy of a 4th Century uncial and prove superior to a 5th Century uncial. (Uncials are manuscipts written in CAPITAL LETTERS)
How about simply taking the MAJORITY READING as correct?
A BAD manuscript (faked, tampered, error-ridden, etc.) could easily have been COPIED MANY TIMES and distributed. This would flood the market, as it were, with a majority of error-laden documents.
NEWSFLASH!! There are no ORIGINALS anywhere; they have been "lost" or destroyed. There exists ONLY copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of....oh, you get the idea.
It isn't necessary to go into any greater detail at this point.
It is sufficient to point out the Watchtower Society itself has given at least two beautiful examples of tampering with existing manuscripts by ADDING an unorthodoxy in their own variant NEW WORLD TRANSLATION.
Example 1 is the John 1:1 controversial rendering.
Example 2 is the comma movement in "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." Which fits Watchtower doctrine and confutes mainstream Christianity's view.
It doesn't matter what you BELIEVE to be correct. Opinion is not Proof!!
THE POINT IS YOU CANNOT PROVE IT BY POINTING TO A TRANSLATION and claiming it is error proof or even "likely" to be in agreement with some preserved text itself beyond suspicion.
Why isn't this approach taken? It stops the JW dead in his tracks and he can only mumble, "Well, I have to have faith that Jehovah has preserved his intentions." DEFLECTION! EVASION! The point is that you cannot DEMONSTRATE this point. You can only use the Bible (and your faith) to start a chain of circular reasoning. Just like every other crackpot idea in history it has to be taken on FAITH. So, don't pretend it is based on a FOUNDATION. The foundation has cracks.
Because the majority of people dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses (even here with Ex-JW's) don't want to face the Bible's problems themselves! They can't stand to have another rug pulled out from under them.
That is my guess.
Well, it is simply intellectual dishonesty at work no matter who asserts the Bible to be the inerrent word of God.
ONE FINAL POINT.
ALL SCRIPTURE THAT IS INSPIRED BY GOD IS BENEFICIAL
is quite different from ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD AND BENEFICIAL.
Unless we know WHICH scripture __IS__inspired by god we don't know which is __useful__for teaching, etc.
That is the flaw in the Jehovah's Witness program of TRUTH from the Watchtower.
It stands or falls on a mere unprovable assertion.
The inhabitants of planet Earth have been lied to repeatedly throughout history by a string of salesmen (religious leaders) who rely on their ignorance to sell their product (mind control.)
Unless you are willing to take the time to read the particulars of the Bibles "provenance" you will simply accept the false premise that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired. It isn't. We know it isn't because none of the parts (from which we extract our versions) match. If they don't match something has to be an error. By not knowing which is error and which isn't we cannot have confidence. We only have guesswork.
Religion is based on guesswork.
The Watchtower bases its theology on guesswork.
The LIE is when guesswork and opinion are themselves asserted to be DIVINE.
It is an unprovable assertion.
By anybody at anytime.