To Active JWs: Your January 3, 2014 Daily Text Contains an Error

by PelicanBeach 7 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • PelicanBeach
    PelicanBeach

    To Active JWs: Your January 3, 2014 Daily Text Contains an Error

    Friday, January 3

    If [a wife] should actually depart, let her remain unmarried or else make up again with her husband.—1 Cor. 7:11.

    Under what circumstances might a Christian wife “actually depart”? Some have chosen to separate because of a mate’s willful nonsupport. Others have done so because of extreme physical abuse or the absolute endangerment of a Christian’s spirituality. Whether to depart or not is a personal decision. However, the baptized mate ought to give this matter prayerful and honest consideration. A Christian who is married to an unbeliever should earnestly endeavor to keep the marriage bond intact. Yet, a Christian need not feel guilty if, despite the Christian’s sincere effort to preserve the union, an unbelieving mate refuses to remain with the believer. “If the unbelieving one proceeds to depart, let him depart,” wrote Paul. “A brother or a sister is not in servitude under such circumstances, but God has called you to peace.”—1 Cor. 7:15. w12 5/15 2:13-15, 17

    The Governing Body has taken upon itself the authority to decide under what circumstances a married JW, especially a JW sister, can depart from their mate. They speak of “willful nonsupport” or “extreme physical abuse” or “absolute endangerment of a Christian’s spirituality” yet Paul mentions NONE OF THESE. The Governing Body has again ADDED TO THE BIBLE! Why do they do this? Paul was an Apostle, he did not list the various “approved” reasons a sister might leave her spouse. But the Organization, like the ancient Jewish leaders, has felt it good to add and add what they believe is good.

    This unscriptural kind of thinking has reared its ugly head with regard to Blood Transfusions as well. The blood prohibition in the Bible refers to blood as it comes out of the animal’s body and what comes out of the animal’s body?…WHOLE BLOOD. If a Christian wishes to avoid taking blood in the form of a transfusion then following the Bible alone would mean avoiding WHOLE BLOOD transfusions. The Bible says NOTHING about avoiding FRACTIONS or MAJOR COMPONENTS etc. That has been ADDED by the Governing Body. Like with Paul’s instructions on married Christians departing from one another the Organization has also added their own thoughts and instructions on blood that are also NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE. The result? Many have suffered because they refused to accept some fraction when it were disallowed (though later allowed by the Organization) or have died when refusing a major blood component as instructed by the Governing Body.

    Thus when a married brother or sister departs from their spouse for reasons other than that approved by the Organization and the elders privately reprove them for it the elders have acted OUTSIDE the Bible because Paul gave no such list of “approved” reasons for departing.

    And when a brother or sister dies for refusing a major blood component they die not for God but for the Governing Body who in adding to the Bible have forced death upon them…again OUSIDE the Bible’s prohibition.

    Read carefully what you are told to do and make sure the scriptures given in support of critical life altering instructions are TRULY BEING APPLIED AS THEY ARE WRITTEN and have not been added and added upon by men who at a later date may change their minds…AGAIN!

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Well done pelly ! are you going to do this every day ? 'coz every day their "Text" contains at least one major error, the first being to print it in the first place. LOL

  • PelicanBeach
    PelicanBeach

    Thanks Phizzy.

  • kneehighmiah
    kneehighmiah

    You should write a book called Examinining the Watchtower Comments Daily. Each day you provide commentary on their articles the same way they attempt to provide commentary on the bible. It's been months since I've read the Daily text. I just read the bible on my own now. If I want additional commentary then I'll use Google. I still use JW.org, but I now read several different commentaries. It's amazing how much more enjoyable the Bible is when you approach it with an open mind.

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    Oh for the good old days when the wife could catch her husband having sex with a man and not have "scriptural grounds" for seperation or divorce:

    http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/homosexual_adultery_.html

    Yet if a married couple admitted to practicing oral sex, they could be DFd (WT 1972):

    http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/oral_sex.html

  • mind blown
    mind blown

    Excellent reasoing. It's this kind of information that is vital to ones who are beginning to truly see the TTAT. I can testify to this. I see it with my family as proof!

  • NewYork44M
    NewYork44M

    Pelican, you have way too much time on your hands to be reading the daily text. I didn't read this dribble even when I was in.

    It is all about power, the GB has all the power - unless you accept the fact that they have no power.

  • PelicanBeach
    PelicanBeach

    Thanks Billy.

    For JW lurkers who may be reluctant to click a link here please open your Watchtower Library CD on your computer and read the following for yourselves. Notice that in just one year from January to December the advice for a married JW whose spouse had sexual relations with someone of the same sex took a 180 degree turn. The Governing Body takes too much upon itself to decide these delicate matters for others. Think of the sister or brother who could not get free to scripturally divorce in January and suffered whatever consequences in their life that came from that to then read in December that their suffering and their trust in the Organization's scriptural instruction was for nothing. It was wrong!

    January 1972 Questions From Readers

    ● Do homosexual acts on the part of a married person constitute a Scriptural ground for divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry?—U.S.A.

    *** w72 1/1 p. 32 Questions From Readers ***
    "While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual “one flesh” with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate." (underlining mine)

    December 1972 Questions From Readers (note same year as above)

    ● Why, according to Matthew’s accounts, did Jesus use two different words—“fornication” and “adultery”—in discussing the proper grounds for divorce? Is not the only ground for Scriptural divorce “adultery,” as the term is generally understood?—U.S.A.

    *** w72 12/15 pp. 767-768 Questions From Readers ***
    "What, then, is the significance of the Bible’s use of these terms and what does it reveal as to the valid Biblical grounds for divorce? It shows that any married person who goes outside the marriage bond and engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural and perverted, is guilty of committing por·nei′a or “fornication” in the Bible sense."

    *** w72 12/15 p. 768 Questions From Readers ***
    "Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery.
    This clearly marks a correction in the view expressed on previous occasions in the columns of this magazine, but faithful adherence to what the Scriptures actually say requires it. There is much more that can be considered on the matter and for that reason it will be discussed more completely in a coming issue of this magazine."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit