by DarkFireWolf 36 Replies latest watchtower bible
First off ask them to prove it without the use of Watchtower publications and scripture hopping.
Second most of what we were taught in the bible isn't even scientifily possible like the Noah's ark...don't see them coming up with new light with that one. In fact the bibles loaded with many holes that they refuse to shed "new light" on when things are brought to their attention.
Welcome DFW.
Ask questions:
If this is new light then was the previous doctrine 'light' at all, or darkness?
Why would new light revert back to a previously discredited teaching?
What's to say this new light won't be changed again in the future? (thus making today's new light 'incorrect darkness')
What was the source of the old light, would Jehovah do that?
If the Bible was written by God using imperfect men, and the WT is directed by God using imperfect men, how comes the Bible never has new light but the WT has it regularly?
How can we put our trust in an organisation which keeps changing it's doctrines to such a degree that most publishers wouldn't know the latest 'light'?
How can new light directly contradict the Bible and still be true (eg 'Generation', 'New Scrolls', 'GB=FDS'...)?
Add to this the comments above about Pr 4:18 and you might start to get someone thinking. Maybe.
Splash
Never discuss doctrine.
Please read this book before attempting any more interactions with your JW loved ones:
"Combatting Cult Mind Control" by Steve Hassan
Hi DarkFireWolf
You have raised a very valid question about the WTS. I believe you are definitely on the right track by applying the biblical standard of a true prophet of God in Dueteronomy 18. The WTS has clearly identified itself as God's one and only end time prophet and this is their undoing. The scriptures condem them as a false prophet that God has not spoken through. The use of Proverbs 4 is taken out of proper context. If you read the entire fourth chapter of Proverbs you will quickly realize that the Society has perverted the meaning of this scripture to suit their own fantasies as a prophet of God. If you where to ask each member of the Governing Body seperately how God communicates with them, they would provide a very nebulous answer that would bare no resemblance to how first century Christians received divine revelations from God. According to scripture the revelations given to Paul where profound experiences that left and indelible imprint on his mind. Can the Governing Body share any similar experiences? I think we already know the answer to this. The WTS has replaced the work of the holy spirit of God with an uninspired, failed, self appointed prophet. I hope you are able to show your parents that the WTS's failed predictions are the blueprint for a false prophet. Be patient, as it may take a long time for the scales to drop from their eyes, if ever.
FWFranz
Welcome, and nice to have you here.
By New Light they are probably referring to the concept of The Light Gets Brighter. This is a misapplication of the Scripture;
"But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established." Proverbs 4:18
Saying "disprove New Light™" is like saying "disprove abracadabra". It doesn't really mean anything at all.
Keep it simple.
Who goes to a fine restaurant and sends their food back to the kitchen unless something is wrong?
"Oh this is great stuff. Here, take this back to the Chef and tell him to try again!"
That just doesn't meet the credibility test, does it?
If something is TRUE--why did you CHANGE it?
If Jehovah is directing the Watchtower Society as they tell us how can so many pronouncements, predictions, interpretations and instructions
require amending, "adjusting", changing and nullification?
Something is either Truth or it isn't true.
Ask yourself what exactly is the difference between a bad guess and JW Truth?
Both don't work out and have to reboot as a do over.
Get it?
Simple.
Listener said: "Ask them where the old light came from - was it God or the GB? If they say God then we know God cannot lie. If they say the GB and they are imperfect men then you can work in the circular and point out that if the old light wasn't from God then there is no reason to believe the new light is either. "
That is all I need. Many thanks.
DarkFireWolf: if we get New Light, does this mean that what we were teaching before was incorrect or false?
Yes it does!
Welcome to the forum.
I agree with Aussie Oz. Just wait a while and the WT will change their teaching on just about every doctrine, thus disproving the Present Trust as "Old Light" to be replaced by "New Light" which is of course now Present Truth. Get it? Got It? Good!
I like to quote the earlier Watch Tower's:
All truth is in harmony, whether old or new. What
was true at any time in the past must be true yet....
and if it is not true now, instead of being advanced
light then it was terrible darkness. [...] We have
sometimes been accused by unbelievers for teaching
that the true way to advance was to displace the
truth we learned yesterday by new truth learned to-
day; but we utterly repudiate the absurd charge. To
grow in knowledge is to retain the truth we have
and add to our stock.
(Zion’s Watch Tower July 1880 WTR p. 119)
If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be
different with us; undoubtedly one human idea
would contradict another and that which was light
one or two or six years ago would be regarded as
darkness now: But with God there is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is
with truth; any knowledge or light coming from
God must be like its author. A new view of truth
never can contradict a former truth. "New light"
never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. If
you were lighting up a building containing seven
gas jets you would not extinguish one every time
you lighted another, but would add one light to
another and they would be in harmony and thus give
increase of light: So is it with the light of truth; the
true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one
for another.
(Zion's Watch Tower February 1881 WTR p. 188)
