by nicsfreedom 38 Replies latest watchtower bible
I doubt they'd make a revision purely for the sake of five verses.
And I really doubt it would be verses relating to the so called "deity of Christ" anyway. You clearly care about obscure doctrine way more than GB members do, and the NWT has served them well on the Trinity front anyway so hardly any need to change it.
One change made in the 2006 printing was in Job 14:14. "Compulsory service" (Hebrew saba) was changed to "compulsory labor." According to the CO who brought it up, it was a matter of consistancy with Job 7:1 which has "compulsory labor" (same Hebrew word). He indicated that there were a few other 'tweaks' in the 2006 printing.
If they even think about inserting "Governing Body" somewhere, I'm going to fly to Brooklyn and do something regrettable.
Cedars
Hmmm... At some point, they'll change something. Nothing new there.
I love speculation about unsubstantiated second-hand rumours.
The changes - if true - will have nothing to do with Jesus and or/diety.
The Governing Body aren't interested in proving or debunking anything to do with Jesus.
All the Body is interested in is cementing their position as leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses into the conscious and sub-conscious of every JW. Therefore, if the changes are true, expect them to be related to the authority and position of the Governing Body.
@Bobcat:
Yeah man that Job 14:14 one came up while I was conducting a study. He read it from his paperback newer nwt and I followed along in my "Deluxe" nwt. I was like what the hell man! Went home and researched and couldn't find any explanation. Even local newspapers send out notice of they have to make a retraction. Why can't the gb let us....cuz they are sneaky lying bastards...that's why. (I'm not so much bother by the change in phrasing cited in Job...just that they feel at liberty to change the bible and rules and conscience matters without offering explanation or reason. And I'm supposed to just blindly obey!!?? Puhhhhleeeezzzz!)
The GB could VERY easily make the 2 Witness rule more palatable and reasonable.
They could just reason that the 2 Witnesses do not have to be actual people, just 2 pieces of Evidence. Today's technology (crime scene evidence, cell phone tracking, GPS, DNA evidence, security cameras, etc etc) allows for these items to be used as "Witnesses" to the event.
In the case of a murder in times past, you literally would have to see the person use a sword or other instrument to kill another person. Today, one person may see another person shoot a gun and see the victim fall. The second "Witness" in this case could be the DNA evidence of the shooter on the gun (or perhaps fingerprints) and the matching bullet that entered the body of the victim.
In the case of rape, the DNA evidence left over could in and of itself be sufficient since you have the victim and the DNA evidence to prove the charge.
Quite frankly, I think JW's would view this as very resonable and not blink an eye.
I'm just saying that if the new info has to do with the 2 Witness Rule, I bet they don't have to be actual people.
Rub a Dub
Quite frankly, I think JW's would view this as very resonable and not blink an eye.
I'm just saying that if the new info has to do with the 2 Witness Rule............
Yes, I agree that's a good reason and that shouldn't cause any upheaval or unnecessary explanation.
But, definitely, the change, if it is 2Wtns was precipitated by the Candace Conti verdict.
Initially C.Conti attempted a policy change on the 2 Witness rule that they ignored.
"The current policies of Jehovah’s Witnesses prevent elders from acknowledging cases of child abuse if the perpetrator denies the allegations, and if no witnesses were involved."-
The “two witness rule” – The Society believes that this rule, which is based on Deuteronomy 19:15, should be applied rigidly whenever a case of child abuse is reported. This means that if somebody molests a child without any witnesses and subsequently denies any wrongdoing, the elders will be forced to take no further action against him, and continue as though nothing has happened. Victims of child molesters and their parents are coerced into not revealing the identity of the abuser to others in the congregation, and can even be threatened with being disfellowshipped on grounds of slander if they breach this person’s confidentiality by trying to warn others. This scenario is what is normally referred to when people talk about Jehovah’s Witnesses “protecting pedophiles”, because pedophiles can (and do) easily take advantage of the Society’s leniency in order to repeatedly abuse children over many years whilst escaping punishment or exposure.( From Cedars blog)
But, again, those scriptures should not have be applicable to children. And they also need to change the way elders handle the way they treat known pedos in the cong.
Neither of these would have a major impact on the JW belief- they will most likely be agreeable to these changes.
Rubadub -- "Other information from the Society has revealed that the two witnesses do not have to both be children who were molested or persons who saw the molesting. It can be the court evidence and the child. It can be the DNA evidence and the child. That is why J.R. Brown, Watchtower spokesman, is reported by the Associated Press on February 11, 2001 to have said: "...corroborating evidence can be used instead of a second witness to prove wrongdoing." And the Jan 30 1992 letter to elders states: "Also, should further wrongdoing come to light during the trial it would be necessary for the matter to be re-examined, as is true of any judicial matter when additional wrongdoing is discovered."" http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/Twowitness.html
Rip van winkle said: "This means that if somebody molests a child without any witnesses and subsequently denies any wrongdoing, the elders will be forced to take no further action against him, and continue as though nothing has happened." http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/Onewitness.html
