Even my 6-year old son can recognize TRASH when he sees it. He threw a NWT into the public garbage can! Yay!

by Faithful Witness 9 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Faithful Witness

  We were out walking in a small Michigan community this weekend. We came across a "Free Lending Library" on the street corner.

  The sign said, "Take a book, leave a book, or do BOTH!"

  We looked through the selection of books, and found a few treasures... and some trash.

  When we discovered that there was a (well-read) copy of the NWT up for grabs, my son grabbed it. He promptly disposed of it in the next available trash can.

  Hurray for critical thinking! My son is a genius.

  Some lost soul could have picked that thing up, and thought it was a real bible!
• 

  naazira

  He literally saved a life. Good job
• 

  joyfulfader

  While I totally agree that the NWT is a JW fabrication, I hope you left some books in return for taking it and then tossed the book in private. Books in general should be respected and if someone saw a bible being tossed in the garbage (even if the NWT is a man made, self serving interpretation that no one should base their life on) they most definitely wouldn't understand the motive behind it and may see it as the desecration of a holy book. I understand the motive but just know how sensitive some are to the disposal of a "sacred" book even if we know it's been rewritten to align with JW thinking...I have disposed of mine...in private.
• 

  Rattigan350

  The Revised dumbed down NWT is garbage but the 1950, 1984 ones are the best Bibles. For however good a Bible can be.
• 

  Faithful Witness

  joyfulfader: You are right. We should not have made a public display of that. I did have a pang of guilt, tossing any book into the trash. The street was empty at the time, but there is a chance that someone did see us perform that blasphemous act. I will bring this up with my kids today, and we do plan to bring a couple of books to that "library," the next time we visit.

  Rattigan: I disagree. The NWT is a perversion of the Bible. (But yes, it just keeps getting worse).
• 

  quellycatface

  He's some boy!!
• 

  Rattigan350

  to say "The NWT is a perversion of the Bible", implies that there is a "Bible" that is a one and only reference source and it deviates from that. There is no such thing. The KJV is mistakenly called the Authorized version only because it was authorized by a king. The fact that there have been many Post KJV shows that it was not the best authorized version.

  There are the Hebrew texts and the Greek texts such as Wescott & Hort. But that is not considered the Bible because people don't read that everyday.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  There is no "best" bible. There are bibles that have been translated without as much bias as the NWT. The NWT is riddled with alterations that cater to the preconceived notions of JWISM. IMO, an real "bible student" will begin to notice the inconsistencies and omissions of the NWT. That's why the WTBTS got smart and did away with the NWT and released the RNWT.

  The RNWT is more like "Christendom's" bibles. Plus it lacks the extensive cross-references and large index. Searching the index and cross-references, while keeping with the context of passages, can make a R&F see TTATT. The RNWT was carefully crafted to have an appearance of quality and to appear current. I say it was carefully dumbed down to eliminate the possibility of alerting a serious bible student to the WTBTS's deliberate alterations of the bible message.

  DD
• 

  Wonderment

  DATA-DOG: "There are bibles that have been translated without as much bias as the NWT."

  Such as?
• 

  abbasgreta

  The Majority Text bibles are all translations from the later Siniaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, translated by, among others, Jesuits and Unitarians. The American Bible

  Society who are responsible for them work in close co-operation with the Vatican, where the Vaticanus was found in the 12th Century and is still kept. Basically, all bibles produced from

  manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus are Catholic bibles and they leave out approx 126 verses, mostly pertaining to the identity/sayings of Jesus proving without doubt he

  is worthy of being worshipped. No wonder the jws use the Westcott and Hort translations. These later manuscripts are not more accurate than the TR, they are full

  of textual alterations and all have to be compared to one another and then a probable meaning is 'agreed upon'. For example "the three that testify in heaven' passage

  is claimed to be a 16th Century addition, but it is quoted word for word by Church Father Cyprian in the 3rd Century. And so on....

  You HAVE to do your research on this as it is sinister.

  I have numerous translations and still like features in all of them and I learned the real truth from them, but if I want to read what I consider

  to be the preserved word of God, I pick up my King James. Its whole coming-into-being is remarkable if you research the full early history of the first English translations.